Talk:Shafi'i school

translations
seems to me that the translations of "ahl al hadith" and "ahl ar ra'i" could be improved. Possibly "family/followers of the oratory" and "family/followers of [personal] opinion" respectively? the translation of "ahl al hadith" as "traditionalists par excellence" seems especially...generous. But I am still a student of the language and I welcome any correction. --Arabicstudent2 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In more than a few instances in the Arabic Language, as in English, a word will convey one meaning in one context, and another in a different context. In this particular case, the difference in context is between the general linguistic meaning a word and its technical meaning. The word hadith means, literally, speech, and as terminology, hadith as used in this article, it refers to a recorded statement of Muhammad. As for the word ahl, one meaning is 'family' or 'people', however, it can also mean 'a person capable or worthy of something'. The reason Ahle Hadith is sometimes translated as 'traditionalist' is based upon the translation of a hadith, in the technical sense, as a 'tradition', therefore, a person specializing in hadith becomes a 'tradtionalist'. Supertouch (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Asalamu wa 'alaykum Br. I see you're student of language and not Fiqh. Imam Malik's school was called in Arabic "Ahlul Hadith" and the other school "Ahlul Ra'i". this is why they have listed it so thee is no mistake in the translation and why one must cover all bases before publicly speaking on matters of knowledge. JazakumAllahu Khyran! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.245.134 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above comment is absolutely wrong, sir. First of all, the matter of terminology is a combination of Arabic language and history of these groups; fiqh is the study of jurisprudence regarding worship, transactions, and so forth. Fiqh has nothing to do with this.
 * Second, "Ahlul Hadith" typically referred to the main body of Shafi'is and Malikis as well as smaller schools such as Hanbalis, Laithis, Zahiris and those who were unaffiliated with a school but leaned toward the collection of hadith. "Ahlur Ra'i" referred to the Hanafis (quite a sizeable number of followers by itself) as well as the Thawris. So suggest that "Ahlul Hadith" just referred to Malik's school betrays a gross ignorance of the history of development of the different schools along with their mutual alliances, rivalries and debates. There are also more than two schools, not simply Malik's school and "the other school."
 * Third, the translation is not accurate as it is a peacock term that is too generous, as said. Traditionalist is fine but "par exellence" is unnecessary hyperbole and can be deleted.
 * Lastly, I would suggest that the term used be that which is used in reliable sources (by the standards of WP:IRS). If most English language sources just say "ahlul hadith" then we don't need to translate at all. If most sources say "traditionalists," let's keep it as that. If most sources use a different term entirely, then that source should be used. Sticking with what mainstream published sources use removes the need for many discussions of this nature. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ayin
Oy! Is there some reason people took out the ˤayns in Šāfiˤī and replaced them with glottal stops (alifs)? Seems silly to have it spelled wrong, especially when the ˤayns are so readily available. em zilch 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Acute Misuse
Anyhow the accent cute is misused as an apostrophe: Shafi`i should be Shafi'i. Terrible, just annoying. For more information, have a look here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/quotes.html 89.247.111.108 (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shafi'i school
Hi there

Regarding this paragraph:

The Shāfi‘ī school is considered one of the more conservative of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, but there are many adherents of the Shāfi‘ī tradition who maintain liberal views in practicing their religion.

It is not quite true, Shafites are not one of the more conservatives of the four schools of Islam. Indeed they are the most liberal ones.

This is a almost entirely subjective arguement. On what basis do we determine how conservative or liberal a mathhad is? Perhaps in regards to individual issues of jurisprudence this can be determined but not as a generalization. Supertouch (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of this article should be expanded so those interested in just quickly learning about the most basic information don't have to read through the whole article. Just summarise the main article into two or three paragraphs. see WP:LEAD. Merbabu 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful propaganda might need to be removed
The paragraphs implying that the other schools somehow also believe that Shafi`i is the best madhhab sound a bit too propaganda-ish. It might be a good idea for a muslim with more knowledge of these things to review those statements. -- 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For Non-Muslims
The history and philosophy of the Shafi'i Madhab is very interesting and important but this article seems to be very short of practical examples. As a non-muslim myself I would be interested to read about the practical day to day difference between the Shafi'i Madhab and any of the other 3 Sunni Madhab. For instance a friend of mine told me that there are different rules of prayer to be observed for each Madhab? If this is true I think this is the sort of information that would be good in this article. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Map blocks text
Is it possible to format the map so that it doesn't out any of the article? David Cheater (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Two lists of Names?
It hardly seems necessary to have both lists of notable Shafi'is. I propose deleting the first list entirely, making sure all of the names in it are present in the second. My reasoning is that the organization of the first list is superior to that of the second - as many scholars excelled in more than one disciple their name would then appear on the list more than once.Supertouch (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the former first list:

Among the giants of Islam who adopted this school are:-

Imams of Aqidah:


 * Abu Al-Hasan Ash'ari

Imams of Hadith:


 * Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari
 * Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj
 * Imam Nasa'i
 * Imam Bayhaqi
 * Imam Tirmidhi
 * Imam Ibn Majah
 * Imam Ibn Hibban
 * Imam Daraqutni
 * Imam Tabari (who later became independent Mujtahid)
 * Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani
 * Imam Abu Dawud
 * Imam Nawawi
 * Imam As-Suyuti
 * Imam Ibn Kathir
 * Imam Dhahabi
 * Imam Al-Hakim

Imams of Fiqh:


 * Sheikh Khatib Shirbini
 * Ibn Hajar Haytami
 * Imam Al-Rafi'ie
 * Imam an-Nawawi
 * Al-Hafiz Izzuddin Abdus-Salam
 * Imam Daqiequl-Eid

Imams of Tafser and Seerah:
 * Imam Mawardi
 * Imam Al-Baghawi
 * Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi
 * Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir
 * Shaykh Khatib al-Baghdadi
 * Imam al-Baydhawi

Other Leading Scholars and Religious Experts:


 * Imam Jalaluddin al-Mahally
 * Imam Taqiyuddin as-Subki
 * Imam Tajuddin as-Subki
 * Sheikhu l-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari
 * Imam Ramli
 * Imam al-Ghazzali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Regional spread info is inconsistent with the Hanafi article
Hanafi article says:  Today, the Hanafi school is predominant among the Sunnis of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China as well as in Iraq, Mauritius, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia in the Balkans and the Caucasus.  and the map in Hanafi article indicates similar info. Now, this Shafi'i article says:  It is the dominant madhab of Syria, Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Egypt, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Maldives, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Indonesia.  So both articles make claims about being dominant in Egypt and the Levant areas. From cursory google search I get the impression that the Hanafi claims for dominance in these places are valid for the modern times and the Shafi'i ones refer to some past era and are no longer relevant. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Content was recently merged from Sunni Islam, though the more relevant discussion can be found on that article's talk page. Per Merging, however, I am still required to open a discussion here. I would suggest reading my comments on Talk:Sunni Islam first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy
Really disappointing that Wikipedia doesn't have a proper article on this important school of jurisprudence. There are: 0 in line citations, many dubious assertions, general formatting issues (over-linking, prose style, poor writing, lead etc). Uphill task. --Tachfin (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, GoogleBooks might be a good place to start for the history of the school. The task intimidates me, and possibly others, simply because there is a buttload of material out there from Brill Publishers, major university presses and so forth and while it provides a good amount of citable material on the onehand, it also makes for a mammoth undertaking to create a real article on the other hand. If we can round up some support on Wikiprojects and other places, are you down to volunteer some time? I'll step forward and admit that I would only be willing if others jump on the bandwagon too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to tag. User:Tachfin, what do you think of the above? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @ User:MezzoMezzo Yes but unfortunately I can't promise any scheduled commitment. Before posting the above message, I had already started improving the prose then stopped when I realised the quantity of work needed. I think there may be a better earlier version of this article, we might start from there. The good news is, the Shafi'i school is relatively well formalised and documented, therefore one good synthesis book or paper could be sufficient to source most of the article. --Tachfin (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Tachfin, I agree on all counts. It doesn't have to be done tomorrow, so a scheduled thing would be cumbersome. GoogleBooks might be a good place to start, I will run a quick search in a few moments to see if I can throw in citations for at least the basic info. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Four or five schools?
Opening sentence says "The Shafi'i (Arabic: شافعي‎ Šāfiʿī ) madhhab is one of the four schools of Islamic law in Sunni Islam". The Infobox lists five schools: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Ẓāhirī. So, is it 4 or 5? Muzilon (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * four schools form about 99% of Sunnism. The fifth school exists but most lay people haven't heard of it. That occasionally causes righteous Muslim editors to come in guns blazing to correct what they feel is a basic piece of knowledge only to find out that tecnically it's five, and the topic has been done to death across a few talk pages. Byt technically, five, though a great deal of people only know of four. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the bias in the page.
Peace, I have provided my argument here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#Peace.2C_here_to_go_through_what_you_said_I_did.

Too long didn't read.

Biased, makes 5% of the Madhab seem like 95%.

Forgets majorly important pieces of information, tricking many people with no cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.193.224 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, you are free to add more sourced views to the article. --Neil N  talk to me 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Eperoton (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: Moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Shafi`i → Shafi‘i – Hairy Dude (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Why? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:MOSAR and Romanization of Arabic, ` is not among recommended or widely adopted transliteration options for ʿayn. Eperoton (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2018 (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.

Orphaned references in Shafi‘i school
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shafi‘i school's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sunnah": From Ali al-Qari:  From Ibn Furak:  From Apostasy in Islam:  <li>From Al-Shafi‘i: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename to Shafiʽi?
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam for rationale and post your comments there. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Shatranj khelna kaisa hai jayaz ya na jayaz dalil
Dalil 2401:4900:61A1:F8E4:2554:7FD6:3F66:4089 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)