Talk:Usul al-fiqh

Arabic Terms Needed:
this is an important article dealing with an essential topic of Islamic civilisation. could someone please help give the original Arabic terms of the Usul wherever they first appear in the article. I will start myself but I don't know the exact terms for some of them. --Libyansamarkand (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge to, not from, Principles of Islamic jurisprudence
After some thought, I would like to suggest that rather than merging the content from Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, the content here be merged over there. This suggestion is based on Manual of Style/Islam-related articles; specifically, the section on translation which states:

"Arabic terms should be translated into standard English wherever possible without compromising the meaning of the text."

The word "usul" in the Arabic language, plural of the word "asl", refers to foundations or principles. Translating it in this way will not compromise the understood meaning and it will add further clarity for Wikipedia readers who are not familiar with the Arabic language. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * MezzoMezzo, I see this is a proposal from 2 years ago. Would it be possible to restart this discussion? I was linking another article to this and to my surprise there are two Usul al-fiqh pages with the other being the principles of islamic jurisprudence. I think your proposal would help this situation. Please let me know if we can merge and yes I agree it should be a merger of this page with the latter article. Mbcap (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * wow, blast from the past. Yeah, it's been two years but my position is the same. Do you think only two editors counts as enough community feedback to merge pages, though? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope it is a good blast from the past. The two articles have the same remit as far as I could gather. I would have thought, since no one objected for 2 years, a merger would be the best course of action. Moreover, this merger is not at all controversial and there is nothing stopping us from being bold(if that even applies here). Mbcap (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, you're right, two years is far enough time for someone to have opposed the merge I suppose. Do you want to do the honors, I should I? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you please do it as I have no idea how it is done, I am fairly new you see. Alternatively, you could point me to a relevant place where I could learn it and I would be happy to do it. Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you're new and have no idea how it's done? That's an opportunity right there, and you can expect to merge again in the future as the work here on Wikipedia is never finished. It's simple once you try it the first time.
 * You can start with WP:PROMERGE; the steps are there. The upper part of the page about a merge discussion is irrelevant because, as you said, there has been no opposition in the span of two years.
 * Keep in mind that you will need to keep two window panes open for this. Trust me, it isn't difficult at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I was hoping you would say that. I will learn the relevant information on the link then I will merge. Mbcap (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)