Talk:Sources of Sharia

Untitled

Please ad signatures to the nomination/on hold tags at WP:GAN. Thanks. Geometry guy 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Initial comment

I oppose this article's merger into Sharia, as the latter is quite big.Bless sins (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose we move this article to "Sources of Islamic law" from the current title "Sources of sharia". This is because wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, and the proposed title is easier to understand by an English speaking audience than the current one.

An alternative, more technical title would be: "Sources of Islamic jurisprudence".Bless sins (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharia is now an English word, and the most appropriate. Arrow740 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also a technical problem. These sources aren't sources for the sharia only, but also sources for Fiqh. I'm trying to characterize this article such that the reader is not mislead.Bless sins (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another title I found was "Islamic juristic doctrines".Bless sins (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Per the request at WP:LAW:

• Currently a B class article, good job getting the article to this point. Some notes on how to improve and move towards WP:GA:

• Expand the WP:LEAD
• More sourcing, large sections do not have citations
• Combine some subsections, two lines of text are not really enough for its own subsection.

• That's all for this quick run through. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The small sections, in my opinion, should be expanded.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That works too. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Content moved

In preparation for GA nomination, I'm moving large swaths of unsourced material onto the talk page. Please note that this material has been unsourced since December 2007.

In the context of Islamic Law, Imam Malik and the Hanafi scholars seem to have differentiated between the sunnah and the hadith. In some instances, for example, Imam Malik is supposed to have rejected hadiths that reached him because, according to him, they were against the 'established practice of the people of Medinah'. According to other opinions, sunnah constitutes of what Muhammad said, implied or tacitly approved and was noted down by his companions in form of what is today known as hadith. In Shi'a Islam, the word 'Sunnah' means the deeds, sayings and approvals of Muhammad and the twelve Imams who Shi'a Muslims believe were chosen by God to succeed Muhammad and to lead mankind in every aspect of life.

The sunnah's meaning is based on context and this has often gone unappreciated in recent times, leading to misunderstanding and rifts among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Some things not explained in detail in the Qur'an are clarified in the Sunnah and Hadith of the Prophet. The prophetic example of sunnah, in terms of worship and law, is considered to be obligatory by most Muslims. A few Qur'an Alone Muslims follow only the Qur'an and reject all sunnah and hadith as sources for Divine Guidance or religious law. Many advocates of liberal movements within Islam claim that prophetic sunnah should be followed in matters of ritual and worship, but may be questioned in the case of Islamic law.

The Sunnah is the way or deeds of Muhammad and validated by the consensus of companions of Muhammad (Sahaba) in Sunni Islam, and the way or deeds of Muhammad and the twelve Imams in Shi'a Islam, while Hadith is a collection of the narrations and approvals. The two words are sometimes taken to be interchangeable, referring to the Traditions, but difference lies depending on the context. Hadiths are classified according their status, in relation to their texts (matn) and their chain of transmitters (isnad). Scholars of Hadiths have studied the narrations from their context (matn) as well as from their transmitters (isnad) in order to establish what is true and what is false from these hadiths. These were influential in the development of early Muslim philosophy and modern scientific citation.

Sunnah, on the other hand, is established through the practical examples and not via these texts in Islamic law, but mostly through the hadith texts as far as prophetic biography, traits and examples are concerned. For example, prayers, both individual and congregatory, were taught by Muhammad to his followers by practical example and since then have been transmitted generation-to-generation through practical learning. Their documentation in form of Hadith only happened later, but their actual learning and transmission has always been through practical means. On the other hand, many traits about Muhammad, such as his style, his habits and his dealings with others, is known primarily through hadith.

Ijtihad, of the Arabic verb Ijthada, - to try hard - seeks, Islamic legally the attempt of a judge to find a solution for a present legal question for which there is not a regulation either in the Qur’ān or in the Sunna, it describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources. In this sense one can compare the Ijtihad with the modern term of the judicial right advanced training. For example be valid for Ijtihad a Sahaba, what the second Kalifa Omar decided on the distribution of the inheritance of the late wife among the heirs among whom half-brothers and correct brothers are. In early Islam ijtihad was a commonly used legal practice, and was well integrated with falsafa. It slowly fell out of practice for several reasons, most notably the efforts of the Asharite theologians, who saw it as leading to errors of over-confidence in judgement. Al-Ghazali was the most notable of these, and his "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" was the most celebrated statement of this view.

It is debated whether Al-Ghazali was observing or creating the so-called "closure of the door of ijtihad". Some say this had occurred by the beginning of the 10th century CE, a couple of centuries after the finalizing of the major collections of hadith. In the words of Joseph Schacht: "hence a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all." This theory has been put in question recently by Wael Hallaq, who writes that there was also always a minority that claimed that the closing of the door is wrong, and a properly qualified scholar must have the right to perform ijtihad, at all times, not only up until the four schools of law were defined.

What is clear is that long after the 10th century the principles of ijtihad continued to be discussed in the Islamic legal literature, and other Asharites continued to argue with their Mutazilite rivals about its applicability to sciences.

Al-Amidi mentions twelve common controversies about ijtihad in his book about usul al-fiqh (the theory of Islamic law), amongst others, the question if the Prophet himself depended on ijtihad and if it should be allowed for a mujtahid to follow taqleed.

In Islamic political theory, ijtihad is often counted as one of the essential qualifications of the caliph, e.g. by Al-Baghdadi or Al-Mawardi. Al-Ghazali dispenses with this qualification in his legal theory and delegates the exercise of ijtihad to the ulema.

Ironically, the loss of its application in law seems to have also led to its loss in philosophy and the sciences, which most historians think caused Muslim societies to stagnate before the fall of al-Andalus, after which Muslim works were translated and led in part to The Renaissance revival of Classical works, using improved methods, although the Muslims themselves were no longer using these methods in their daily life at all.

A mujtahid is an Islamic scholar, competent to interpret divine law (sharia) in practical situations using ijtihad (independent thought). In some, but not all, Islamic traditions, a mujtahid can specialise in a branch of sharia - economic or family law for example.

The qualifications for a mujtahid were set out by Abu’l Husayn al-Basri in “al Mu’tamad fi Usul al-Fiqh” and accepted by later Sunni scholars, including al-Ghazali. These qualifications can be summed up as (i) an understanding of the objectives of the sharia and (ii) a knowledge of its sources and methods of deduction. They include a competence in the Arabic language which allows him to have a correct understanding of the Qur’an. That is, he must appreciate the subtleties of the language so as to be able to draw accurate deductions from the “clear and un-crooked Arabic” of this infallible source, and that of the sunnah.

An adequate knowledge of the Meccan and Medinese contents of the Qu'ran, the events surrounding their revelation and the incidences of abrogation (suspending or repealing a ruling) revealed therein. He must be fully acquainted with its legal contents (the ayat al-ahkam) - some 500 verses, according to al-Ghazali. He need not have a detailed knowledge the narratives and parables, nor of the sections relating to the hereafter, but he must be able to use these to infer a legal rule. He needs to acquainted with all the classical commentaries on the ayat al-ahkam, especially the views of the Companions of the Prophet .

an adequate knowledge of the sunnah, especially those related to his specialisation. He needs to know the relative reliability of the narrators of the hadith, and be able to distinguish between the reliable from the weak. He needs to have a thorough knowledge of incidences of abrogation, distinguish between the general and specific, the absolute and the qualified. One estimate (by Ahmad ibn Hanbal) suggests that 1,200 hadith need to be known.

he should be able to verify the consensus ijma of the Companions of the Prophet, the successors and the leading imams and mujtahidim of the past, especially with regard to his specialisation. Complementary to this, he should be familiar with the issues on which there is no consensus.

he should have a thorough knowledge of the rules and procedures for reasoning by analogy (qiyas) so he can apply revealed law to an unprecedented case.

He should understand the revealed purposes of sharia, which relate to "considerations of public interest", including the Five Pillars protection of "life, religion, intellect, lineage" and property. He should also understand the general maxims for the interpretation of sharia, which include the "removal of hardship", that "certainty must prevail over doubt", and the achievement of a balance between unnecessary rigidity and too free an interpretation.

he must practice what he preaches, that is he must be an upright person whose judgement people can trust Some Islamic traditions consider that these high conditions cannot be met by anyone nowadays, while for others - especially the Shi’ite tradition - they are met in every generation.

Shi'a hawza students start their studies learning fiqh, kalam, hadith, tafsir, philosophy and Arabic literature. After mastering these levels they can start becoming mujtahid by studying advanced textbooks known as sat'h, and research courses known as kharij.

The following points are presented in order to clarify the purpose of ijtihad:

God is all-powerful, all-knowing. God created laws for humankind and only God has the authority to do so. God appointed messengers to convey the laws to humankind. God appointed imams to guide humankind about the laws. At present, neither the messenger (Muhammad), nor the imams (God-appointed leaders) are accessible. The current imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is in occultation. Therefore, qualified jurists have the duty to find God's law, not create God's laws. Therefore, ijtihad is the process of finding God's law from the Qur'an and the hadith using specific methods.

uslims living in the West are subject to secular laws of the state rather than Islamic law. In this context ijtihad becomes mainly a theoretical and ideological exercise without any legal force.

Conservative Muslims say that most Muslims do not have the training in legal sources to conduct ijtihad. They argue that this role was traditionally given to those who have studied for a number of years under a scholar. However, liberal movements within Islam generally argue that any Muslim can perform ijtihad, given that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization.

Feel free to restore this material after sourcing it.Bless sins (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to be reviewed by an expert

Please see [2]--Seyyed(t-c) 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some technical sources to improve the article

• Jurisprudence and its Principles by Morteza Motahhari
• The Role of Ijtihad in Legislation by Morteza Motahhari
• The Principle of Ijtihad in Islam by Morteza Motahhari
• The Role of Reason in Ijtihad by Morteza Motahhari
• Ijtihad: Its Meaning, Sources, Beginnings and the Practice of Ra'y by Muhammad Ibrahim Jannati

These are a few articles from Shia sources. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Abu Bakr's election

Historically consensus over Abu Bakr's election is wrong. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there, historically, consensus amongst Sunni scholars?Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it could be called consensus([3]) however you can say Sunni scholars believe/claim that it was consensus.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I guess. Or we could simply attribute the source that makes the claim.Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Peter Deer (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New lead

I substituted the lead with what has been agreed on here. God willing, I'll add the sources later.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Overemphasizing on Hanafi school

It seems that some part of the the article have focused Hanafi school and neglected the other scholls especially Hanbali school.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is because the sources I could get my hands on mention the Hanafi school more often. Besides, the Hanafi school is the most popular school of thought, partially because of its promotion throughout the Ottoman empire and India. Finally, Hanbali school is very restricted and tends to stay close to the Qur'an and Sunnah (thus its less sophisticated) and is only popular in the Arabian peninsula. Bless sins (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is the imbalance is due to the lack of material on the other perspective? Peter Deer (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is one reason. But I've also explained the lack of material:

• Hanafis are more numerous, therefore they are studied more.
• Hanafis are more sophisticated than Hanbalis, thus more space is required to describe them.Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should clarify that there are two approaches among Sunnis Ahl al-hadith and ahl al-R'ay[4], as well as two approaches among Shias Usuli and Akhbari.[5] and [6]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Ahl al-hadith was generally associated with the schools of Shafi'i and Ahmad, while Ahl al-Ra'y is more associated with the Hanafi school. The article sometimes incorrectly uses the word 'source' where a more accurate word may be 'consideration'. I do get the feeling that the Hanafi position is often overstated. While the Hanafi position does indeed need more elucidation because of its use of Ra'y, it might also be useful to note any critiques the jurists from other schools had towards this. One specific case in point is the elaboration of istihsan with the example of najas in the well, which is sourced to Abrar Hasan. Some of the other schools do actually specify that if the volume of water is over a certain amount and the impurity is of a relatively small amount (such that it doesn't change the colour, consistency etc. of the water) then it is acceptable for use - in the same way one might use a lake for ablution in spite of the possible presence of impurities. While I'm not necessarily discounting the source, you will find a lot of pro- or anti- Hanafi partisanship in books from Asia or the sub-continent. So sources can often read as if they're extolling or attacking Hanafite positions, and this is something to be aware of. It might be useful to see if this can be sourced to any other reliable sources, and if there are any sources giving a slightly broader perspective. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

#public good

Ok, so I am relatively certain that the concept of "al-masalah al-mursalah," as it is spelled in the entry, is related to the concepts of maslahah(public interest or welfare) and the corresponding invocation thereof (by a jurist), istislah. This means "al-masalah" could be a mistyping of "al-maslahah," which would be supported by a posting I found on a reputable Islamic website, Islamonline.net, or it could be properly spelled, but a different form of the term, based off of the same triconsonantal root, "s-l-h." Since I do not know Arabic, I am uncertain.

Moreover, I am not certain whether to wiki-link the the term to maslaha or istislah, since, at the Islamonline.net site, it states,

"Maslahah literally means benefit or interest. When qualified as maslahah mursalah it refers to unrestricted public interest. Maslahah mursalah is synonymous with Istislah which is also called maslahah mutlaqah. Al-Ghazali thinks maslahah consists of considerations which secure a benefit or prevent harm."

Hopefully someone who knows more about this than I do can straighten this out. Until then, I have changed the spelling and linked the term to istislah. Inertia720 (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Illogical move

"Sharia" means "Islamic law" and that's how it is used in the majority of sources (see google books[7] for example). I wrote the majority of this article, and at the time of writing all the sources either used "Islamic law" or "Sharia", but not "Sharia law". The latter term has come into use after some sensational reporting (particularly in the US), but it is not the scholarly term. "Sharia law" is redundant since "Sharia" already means "Islamic law".

I request that this move be reverted.Bless sins (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Sources of sharia. There's a clear consensus to move, and this suggestion was the best supported. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Sources of sharia law → Sources of Islamic law – There are two reasons for this move.

Firstly, "sharia law" is not grammatically correct. "Sharia law" implies, "sharia" is an adjective, whereas prestigious dictionaries list "sharia" as a noun meaning the "Islamic law..."[8][9] The term "Sharia law" is then actually incorrect, although I admit it is used anyway. Even then the term "Islamic law" is used 963,000 times on Google Books,[10] "sharia" is used 478,000 times,[11] and "Sharia law" is used just 56,000 times.[12] The Encyclopedia of Islam uses only the term "Sharia", not "Sharia law".[13]

Secondly, there is a line between sharia and fiqh, with some scholarly sources saying Sharia only comes from the Qur'an and Sunnah, and categorizing human endeavors such as qiyas as fiqh, not sharia. [14] So "Islamic law" is a broad term that would uncontroversially cover the concepts discussed in this article.Bless sins (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The term sharia by itself is ambiguous. Sharia can mean street. It can mean dispensation. Furthermore, "sharia law" is used by both Muslims and non-muslims reliable academic publishers, such as the Muslim world journal of human rights or the Oxford Univ Press. It is also common in the BBC for example. Also the Arab/Muslim world tends to use "sharia" rather than "qanun islam" (islamic law). Hence your proposals are not in line with prevailing usage by Muslims. Pass a Method talk 07:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All the prestigious English dictionaries define "sharia" as Islamic law. Are there any prestigious English dictionaries, that define the English word "sharia" as "street"? Keep in mind that this is the English wikipedia, not the Arabic one.

While some sources may use "sharia law", most don't. The links I provided above show how "sharia" is used significantly more often that "sharia law". Pass a Method has only given one in support of his/her view.Bless sins (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Sources of sharia. Surely, Pass a Method, the argument that "sharia" has other meanings although it is the COMMONNAME undermines your own argument that "sharia law" is the COMMONNAME and must be used? At any rate, "sharia" really isn't ambiguous, and "sharia law" is redundant. Bless sins, I'm not sure the disagreements over whether things like qiyas are sharia or fiqh justifies expanding the article scope (because "Sources of Islamic law" would also ask us to write about sources of fiqh); I think the better solution would be to explain in the article text what's the deal with those things and, if necessary, refer readers to a more in-depth article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support the move to "Sources of sharia", although "Sources of Islamic law" is preferable.

"because "Sources of Islamic law" would also ask us to write about sources of fiqh." According to Hisham Mortada, the "sources of fiqh" are the Qur'an, Sunnha, ijma and qiyas.[15] But these are already covered in the article, and changing the name to "Sources of Islamic law" will only reflect that. Additional topics need not be covered if the article is named "Sources of Islamic law".Bless sins (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support to move this article to "sources of sharia" instead. Khestwol (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• I support a move of this article to either "Sources of Islamic law" or "Sources of Sharia". On balance, "Sources of Islamic law" has the advantage of being broad enough to encompass interpretation as well as codified law. "Sources of Sharia" would imply a narrower article, but is much preferable to the ungrammatical "Sources of sharia law". EastTN (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_4#Category:Sharia

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_4#Category:Sharia. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to French article "Droit musulman"

I would like to suspend this link as there are very considerable differences between the articles. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)