Talk:Fatwa

Fatwa has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 5, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 19, 2019.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when Osama bin Laden issued his 1998 fatwa proclaiming jihad against the U.S. and its allies, many Islamic jurists stressed that he was not qualified either to proclaim jihad or to issue a fatwa?

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

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

More on Violent Examples

Note added Feb. 2007: I wrote the few paragraphs below some time ago. The article now bears no resemblance to the article I was writing about; it is much improved! The paragraphs below are no longer relevant, seems to me.

This entry is a bit strange and conflicted, I am afraid. The article begins by admonishing that the extreme fatawa we have heard so much about are anomalous and "Such fatwas, however, have caught the attention of the western media and become widely renowned, especially among critics of Islam." This properly points out that the western media has likely gone overboard with reporting such things (they go overboard on most everything, e.g., the Michael Jackson trial). The latter part of this sentence seems odd - "critics of Islam"? Sounds rather defensive. Otherwise, perhaps an explanation, with examples, of how the critics of Islam have used the extreme examples of fatawa is in order; that would be relevant to a general understanding of fatwa.

The aim of the article should be to give curious, uninformed people (such as myself) a balanced description of fatwa and the issues surrounding them; it seems to me to fail to do that. I found the section describing how the various flavours of Islam sometimes do not agree on fatawa, together with the cases in which one fatwa might take precedence over another, to be most illuminating.

On the other hand, the entry goes on to list only examples of extreme, violent fatawa, including that of Mr. Bin Laden, together with a description of all the various reasons why Mr. Bin Ladin issued his fatwa. Come now, this is rather wandering off course, is it not? It starts to seem like propaganda, I am afraid; why is Mr. Bin Ladin's (& Co.) fatwa, widely recognized as extreme and deviant, even relevant here? (It is relevant on the Wiki page pertaining to Mr. Bin Ladin, to be sure.) The article gives most attention to the extreme/deviant fatwa, but complains about that sort of attention in its introduction. Surely in the history of Islam there must be more important fatawa than that of Mr. Bin Ladin's?

Perhaps the entry could have a section listing examples of normal fatawa, a section listing examples of fatawa important to the history of Islam, and another section listing extreme or extraordinary fatawa.

The article is in rather good shape just now and I recommend against messing with it except in one area - the examples. Sadly the fatwa against Rushdie remains famous and must be mentioned. It seems to me that no other political fatwa should be included. For one thing they rapidly become obsolete and irrelevent. Surely some one can find a few harmless fatwas to include as examples. 64.85.225.167 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The Arabic at the beginning reads [fata:wa:] with ya read as long [a:] (I forget what that's called). But this is commonly seen as fatwah, suggesting to me it's singular [fatwah] (with usually silent [h]) and the form given here looks like a broken plural.

I haven't got access to an Arabic dictionary and can't find anything reliable on the Web for now. Can someone more skilled in Arabic please check? Gritchka 14:07 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"ya" as long a is called "alif maqsura".--KASchmidt 05:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violent fatwas

I understand the reasoning that including several death- and war-related fatwas gives a skewed impression. Nevertheless, I hate to delete information that many people would find useful and important. What about restoring the links, and adding something in the article that would put them in context, along these lines: "A fatwa can call for the death of a named individual, or some similar act. Although these are very rare (compared with the vast majority of fatwas, which address more pedestrian subjects), they generally attract a disproportionate amount of public attention." Would that be accurate? JamesMLane 22:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed part of sentence

Removed the "though the fatwa has not been lifted by Dar-al-Islam" part.

Dar-al-Islam is an extremely generic term, refering to the totality of lands where Islam is dominant, reminiscient of the term Christendom. The fatwa was issued by Khomeini and Khomeini alone, in an extended sense post-revolutionary Iran can also be viewed to be an caretaker of that fatwa.

"Dar-al-Islam" on the other hand can not lift or impose fatwas, only individual clerics can. Islamic clerics around the world have quite different views on many issues. It is hence non-sense to say that a certain cleric imposed a certain fatwa, and that "dar-al-islam" has never lifted it.

POV

The two examples are not exactly representative of what a fatwa is and really sends the wrong impression I believe. gren 08:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More POV

We have two fatwa examples, both of which are "kill this person". Is this the usual tone of a fatwa? I have seen/heard of others that seemed to have a political manuevering aspect to them, cleric A denouncing public persona B.

Are fatwas always big sweeping proclamations? Are they always "thou shalts"? Are there more mundane fatwas in the spirit of "children should remain silent while daddy is trying to pay his bills on AOL"? If fatwas are sometimes less politically and socially charged, then one of these would be a better illustration of fatwa.

If, instead, they are generally a tool of politics, then these might have to suffice.

But the litany of persecution that Rushdie et al endured probably belongs elsewhere. Williamv1138 15:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not at all the usual tone of a fatwa; the vast, vast majority of them are uninteresting proclamations like thou shalt pay thy employees promptly and thou shalt not charge interest even to unbelievers. The death sentences and declarations of war just tend to get more attention in Anglophone media, that's all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been repeatedly pointed out that the two examples given were not at all representative and writing so much about them here produces a profoundly distorted picture of what a fatwa is, I trimmed both drastically and moved the details to the articles on Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin. I also removed category:Freedom of expression, because it's not applicable to the broad subject, but only to a few specific examples. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "most infamous" to "best known", as the former seems rather POV, accurate as it may be. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sick

This article makes me sick. CoolGuy 03:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stop the madness

How can we keep the scope of this article reasonable? Every time a "kill this person" fatwa hits the news, someone will want to add it here, as in the following text:

Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi, the deputy governor of Zamfara state in Nigeria, issued a fatwa in November 2002 calling for the death of journalist Isioma Daniel for comments suggesting that Muhammad may have chosen a wife from one of the Miss World contest. [1] Other Muslim authorities have questioned the validity of the fatwa. [2]

. . .but this is a terrible way to write an informative article on the general topic, and (as has been repeatedly pointed out) creates a highly skewed picture. Perhaps a list of famous fatwas or somesuch is necessary? —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the someone!

I think a list of famous fatwas is a good idea: it leaves this entry to discuss the generalities of fatwas, and another page can cover the nitty-gritty. Would you be able to do the honours? (I'm relatively new at this, so I'd rather someone more experienced with wiki code do this).

On a side note, I definitely think the fatwa about Isioma is noteworthy, as the journalist in question has moved to Norway as a result.

Thanks, Andjam 15:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to call you mad; it's just that, as I explained, many people seem to think that any fatwa which makes the news should be covered in detail here. This has seriously messed up the article in the past, as evidenced by the fact that most of the discussion on this talk page focuses on this problem. Anyway, I'll work on spinning out the material on specific fatwas to a separate list, if everyone agrees that this is a good way to handle the issue. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't mean to call me mad. I was trying to be funny. And disagreement with your proposal ... *crickets chirp* ... ok, sounds like a good idea. Andjam 13:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Shiite (Shi'a Islam) muslims are more organized in dealing with their fatwas and their scholars. I mean they have criteria to go by on who issues a fatwa and who interprets it. I think maybe because their line of successive leaders was never broken (i.e. by the crusaders or monguls or western colonization). They say that their twelfth Imam is still alive, well, and in charge! Should this make sence because Allah promised to preserve his book until day of judgement? HAE

I've gone ahead and created a list of famous fatwas. I also added some info to the Salman Rushdie entry there (people associated with "The Satanic Verses" who were killed), and also some info you (Mirv) understandably culled from Taslima Nasreen.

What should be done to the fatwas currently listed in this article? Retain, strip down, or delete? Andjam 06:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the fatwas in the article except one. bin Laden's fatwa should work as an example. I'm not sure though if the article needs a "counter-fatwa." Regarding the Shiite way in dealing with fatwas, they indeed have a clearer way on who's authorized to proclaim a fatwa in the first place, which minimizes the "irresponsible" fatwas, like many, IMHO. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If fatwas are issued by "qualified Islamic scholars" only then Osama bin Laden's cited texts cannot really be fatwas. Even PBS describes bin Laden's text as "a fatwa, or declaration of war" -- although maybe they too have sloppy writers... Overall, this list is extremely biased to support the West's views that fatwas only serve to declare death sentences. 72.72.54.98 (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwas and secular law

I read the bit about fatwas not being binding in some circumstances, but I'd be curious to know if fatwas can potentially still be binding even if they contradict secular law. I've heard that in Islam, there is no division between the secular and the religious, so maybe my question doesn't make sense.

Some historical background about fatwas may also be useful, eg what was the first fatwa, are fatwas a core part of Islam, and if not, why did they arise? Andjam 12:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who can issue a fatwa?

'(neitherr one is considrred a scholar qualllified to issue Fatwas, merely Jihadists'

How does this square with

'Because Islam has no centralized priestly hierarchy, there is no uniform method to determine who can issue a valid fatwa and who cannot.'

Doesn't this mean it's POV as to whether or not Mr. Bin Laden can issue a fatwa?

If there's uncertainty, would it be better if we listed as the main example the one against Rushdie? Andjam 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's misleading to say that "Islam has no centralized priestly hierarchy..." Example - Shi'a Ayatollahs, Grand Ayatollahs... I think to say that it has no "centralized" priestly hierarchy is understood by those who understand to be in direct contrast to a Christian idea of centralized priestly hierarchy which is organized in a very specific and strictly 'centralized' way, but I think it's important not to simplify the issue to such an extent as to be misleading in this way.

Who can issue a Fatwa:

Being born and raised Muslim Sunni and have been a Sufi of North African Tariqas for 12 years I think I can answer this, I can go to a Clerric and asskkk him a mundaane question about ritual purity and technically it's a Fatwa. More complicated issues like, is Sulman Rusdie attacking the religion therforee it's ok to kill him takes a scholar to answer. Now a Fatwa is merly an OPINON or an interpretation of a Qur'anic passage, an it iss NOT bindding. So when I watch a Jihadist on TV, he's no scholar or any of that, say: kill, you know where he's coming from. While he is entiteled to his opinion, which might Technically qualify as a Fatwa, he's no scholar, and the Fatwa has littlle impact if any. --The Brain 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binding Fatawa

I appreciate the situation being expressed, but I think it is improper to say "Contrary to what is believed by ... the majority of Muslims, a fatwa is not binding on all persons professing the Muslim faith."

If certain people hold something to be binding upon themselves, then clearly, it is.

Perhaps we should say something like "contrary... majority of Muslims, Muftis do not hold their fatawa to be binding on anyone but themselves and their own followers." (I would make this change myself, but I don't know if it's correct. Do all Muftis feel this way? Almost all Muftis, Most Muftis, Many prominent Muftis, I don't know...) Fool 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, claiming that "Muftis do not hold their fatawa to be binding on anyone but themselves and their own followers" is not quite true either. In fact, most Sunni Muftis claim that their fatwa is binding on every Muslim, which is clear in bin Ladin's fatwa for instance, in which he claims all Muslims must adhere to it, even though the majority disregard it. Shi'as' view is completely different, however, and your description may apply to it, since Shi'a's system clearly states that each fatwa is binding only to the follower of its source. AFAIK. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see (and that's why I didn't make the change myself). The Al-Azhar fellow cited seems to concur with the view presented. Can we cite a respected opposing view (other than Bin Ladin)? Fool 19:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the term "fatwa" is very broad. It includes from very faundamental concepts to very minor and sometimes even "trivial" matters. I can't think of any example right now, but perhaps this [3] resembles a fatwa in the compelling form yet a bit trivial IMHO, and this [4] for a non-complling and minor, and the list goes on. All in all, I think there is a "rule of thumb" that Sunnis follow, I'm not sure about the Shi'a POV regarding this, that is, one is permitted to ask any source he follows and trusts, however, he may not ask another for an easier fatwa, for example. I guess the religious studies we had to take back in formal schooling finally paid off..! -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just remembered now, Shi'a - in general - tend to stick to one and only one souce of their choice and take all their fatwas from it, and not anyone else.

May I request you add something to the article about this? Fool 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See this: Marja -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it myself. PS: What is the plural of Mufti? I wrote "Muftis". Fool 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Muftis should be fine. If you mean the literal Arabic form, it's "Muftieen". -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa against nukes

This doesn't need to be in both Fatwa and List of famous fatwas, does it? Andjam 07:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Removed. -- Eagle^a^mⁿ 09:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

I added a bit about extreme statements on religious or political subjects being called fatwas. I remember that Pat Robertson's statements on Chavez was called a fatwa, if you look on google there's some 42,000 articles that have the term "Pat Robertson" and fatwa in them.
JesseG 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the uses of the word fatwa for Pat Robertson's comments use the word as synonymous for "hit job". The consensus for this page is that this page should not give undue prominance to these kinds of fatwas. Also, do google hits alone equate to noteability? Andjam 04:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good in the context of describing word use. It would segue nicely from "are not at all representative, despite the attention they draw in media, but have become widely renowned" in fact. (Changed) Fool 16:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be coy

I moved to the 2nd paragraph the statements about how the overwhelming majority are mundane, and a few are death sentences or declarations of war. I mentioned the Salman Rushdie fatwa in this paragraph and was amazed that anyone had thought it was a good idea for the article to edit it out. When a Westerner hears "fatwa", that's the one that comes to mind, and it must be discussed.

I've been told that once a fatwa is issued, it's irreversible if the issuer of the fatwa dies, though this seems to be contradicted by the tone of this article. How often does this situation come up? Tempshill 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because a Fatwa is an opinion, it can't be reversed after death. Of course more convincong opinions can override it. Angrynight 01:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What fatwas ARE...

What Fatwas are: Legal opinions concerning Islamic law by Muslims (which Muslims is debatable). They are not blanket condemnations of people- but actions. Even Usama's (you know which Usama) fatwas are against "Those who...[insert action here]" Fatwas cannot be initiated against people because they are not warrants. They are used as such... but they are not. More importantly according to Islamic doctrine. no one can be judged until their death, and even then man's judgement is unimportant. Fatwas are very much like court rulings, they apply to everyone in the same situation-if they don't they are not true fatwas. So called "mundane" fatwas are in fact important to some- mundane is a POV word. Whether or not I should recite the Quran when someone dies may not be important to some but it may be important to me. Considering that this article is FIRST on a google search for the term, we have a responsibilty towards utmost accuracy. If we agree on nothing else it is that.Angrynight 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwas: Awesome?

I think so.Exeunt 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slang?

Do we really need a section on slang meaning of Fatwa? IMO this page discusses a profound concept within a religion, and it seems to dilute or "sillify" the page by adding a section on American slang. We're not Urban Dictionary after all. --Popoi 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in Western Media

Removed the assertion that 'Western media frequently uses the term incorrectly'. There was no evidence provided for the claim and although it's probably true that Western media focuses on rulings such as the Rushdie case and similar, there's no evidence provided that there's a general misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsoup (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Could we have a better wording for the introduction, as at present it defines a fatwa as an "opinion" but goes on to discuss whether or not they are "binding". Opinions are not something that are "bound". DionysosProteus (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the arabic term فتوى (fatwa) translated into English as "opinion"? 86.21.101.131 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of 'Some Contemporary Fatwa'

Suggest that this section lists contemporary Fatwa in order of proclamation (or reverse order if people prefer), in order not to privilege some over others. Including more fatwa in this section should give a more balanced view of the variety of fatwa. Nsa1001 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptural Reasoning Fatwa

Contary to Gordonofcartoon's edit, the fatwa is question is issued by the Sharia Court/Committee of the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque. The facsimile of the actual document is reproduced on the website of a registered charity, the Scriptural Reasoning Society, the organisation is question being referenced within the fatwa itself and so it is both also self-referring to the organisation about itself.

Gordonofcartoon's assertions of "not notable" are hardly valid given that the fatwa in question is adopted by the largest Scriptural Reasoning community in the UK, and referred to elsewhere.

Given the other website and blogs, fatwa blogs, etc on this article, the edit was clearly arbitary and prejudicial.

Cf. Wiki article Church of England which publishes canons from the cofe.anglican.org website, Yusuf al-Qaradawi which has a number of references linking to fatwa websites and blogs, etc.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, this is just an organisation-to-organisation communication, self-published on the website of what appears to be the recipient. There is no sign of third-party reportage by significant sources outside the transaction (e.g. newspapers), raising problems of notability and sourcing, and it's undue weight to place it among the many well-sourced ones that have been notable enough to appear in regional and national news. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if fatwa is a cognate for the Latin Fata (origine of the word fate) the latin word meant "spoken by the gods." Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummermh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English plural

The more common English plural appears to be "fatwas". Merriam Webster does not give the Arabic plural, and Google NGrams show much more usage for "fatwas". http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fatwas,fatawa&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, the article is inconsistent on whether the Arabic plural is fatāwā or fatawā. Jpatokal (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction under "Popular misconceptions"

Under the "popular misconceptions" section, it states that the scope of fatwas is generally not absolute in that Muslims may disagree with individual fatwas. However, the last sentence of the section says, "On the other hand, some fatwas are absolute." This is not explained and seems to contradict the rest of the section. Kansan (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and removed. NW (Talk) 15:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial fatwas

Maybe this cource can be used for something in that section: [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fatwa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone?

"Egypt is host to thousands of ancient statues and drawings that do not seem to have bothered Muslims for the past 1400 years." This doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. Equinox (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fatwa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015070419/http://app.com.pk:80/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14998&Itemid=2 to http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14998&Itemid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Clarification or Correction

There appears to be confusion of what is a fatwa. This page refers to the verdict with respect to tobacco (also found on the Mirza Mohammed Hassan Husseini Shirazi: "(misunderstood as a fatwa)" implies that the verdict was NOT a fatwa, yet when following the link for 'fatwa' included in that article, this article (Fatwa article) uses this same verdict as an example of a fatwa! There seems to be disagreement at to whether this verdict was or was not a fatwa. But more importantly, if there is any question as to whether it was or wasn't, then it should NOT be used as an example of a fatwa on this page. This needs to be corrected in order to avoid confusion, rather than attempting to resolve a disputed subject -- for both this page and the Mirza Mohammed Hassan Husseini Shirazi page. Jdevola (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fatwa. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fatwa. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015225516/http://www.moroccoboard.com/news/5238 to http://www.moroccoboard.com/news/5238

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) 05:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fatwa. 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) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fatwa. 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) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fatwa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. Looks pretty up to the mark at first glance, but I will try to find some issues ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it up, AhmadLX! I'll get right to it. :) Eperoton (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

Earwig's shows some close paraphrasing here. Please address this.
- I've changed the highlighted phrases, except in some cases where I deliberately stayed close to the text because it conveyed a third party's argument that used distinctive or legalistic language without quoting it (which means we can't simply quote it either, since it would seem like we're quoting that third party directly). In general, I would argue that this tool isn't really tracking close paraphrase. My reading of WP:CLOP is that it's mainly about using a long stretch of text from one source, changing the wording but borrowing the overall structure, rather than about occasionally reusing short expressions from multiple sources. Especially on contentious points, short expressions are often reused verbatim based on NPOV considerations. Eperoton (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into the images tomorrow. This may require a bit more work. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead has too many paragraphs. Normal is up to four. I would suggest that para 3 and 4 should be merged into one.
- Done. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although its absence doesn't affect broadness (3a), I think, for the sake of completeness, it would be good to include Akhbari Shia position on Fatwa.
- Good idea. I have a source for that. Will do tomorrow. Eperoton (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It needs some clarification whether all Shia Muslims have to follow one particular Mujtahid, whose Fatwas are binding on all Shia Muslims, or one can choose to follow any of the qualified Mujatahids and then only his Fatwas become binding on the person following him. AFAIK, it is the latter case.
- Yes, good point. Clarified. Eperoton (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove duplinks. Thanks.
- Done. I'm keeping the first link after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK. Eperoton (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Gräf, Bettina (2017). Broken link.
- Hmm, worked for me just now. Eperoton (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hallaq, Wael B. (2009). ISBN needed. Google books link would be great.
Hallaq, Wael B. (2010). ISBN needed. Also google books link.
Vikør, Knut S. (2005). ISBN needed. Google books link should be given.
Zürcher, Erik Jan (2016). ISBN needed.
I would have included ISBN for all the encyclopedias as well.
- I've added ISBNs and URLs for the books and encyclopedia without links to an electronic version of the entry. For some the rest this is a more tricky issue. For example, for EI3 the ISBN gives the first printed edition and not the electronic edition actually used, and for some of the OUP materials the link goes to a freely available version published at Oxford Islamic Studies Online rather than to the version at Oxford Reference, which provides the ISBNs for the encyclopedias. Eperoton (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Türkischer Mufti.jpg. No source link, also need US PD tag.
- Sorry, I'm not very familiar with image tagging. I found the PD-US template page, but I'm not sure about its usage and requirements. Are you saying that PD-Old should be replaced with US-PD? Or that PD-US needs to be added somewhere? It's not clear that the image was copied online, but the bibliographical detail are in fact rather sparse. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WMF servers are in US, so a media being hosted there is supposed to have acceptable copyright status in country of origin as well as in US. If its PD in original country, it may not necessarily be the same in US. If it isn't one just can't use PD tag. If it is PD in original country and in US, one will have to add two tags. So you don't need to remove original tag. Just add another one saying this work is PD in US as well. For example: {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. But first one need to be sure it is PD in original country and in US. I can't see any info on its source; i.e who created it, where, and when. Seems like really old, but we need to have some proof.

I've contacted the uploader, in case they have more information. Eperoton (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader says that the image comes from the the Vatican Library, and they still have a hard copy of it, but they don't have any more information besides what they provided with the original upload (over 10 years). I'm personally comfortable using this image as per MOS:IMAGES: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." Eperoton (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS quote doesn't apply here. It just says uploader is to be trusted with their description of the "contents" of the image. Issue here is source info and copyright. If you remove this image and address the remaining (minor) issues, I will immediately pass it. I don't see any other major issues here. Even source issues highlighted above are not GA requirement ;) So overall it is GA standard IMO, except this image issue. I would prefer second opinion if you intend to keep this image. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced. I'd like to get additional clarify on the status of this image, because I like it, but this doesn't have to hold up the review. Eperoton (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tazkarat al-Fuqaha.jpg. Broken link.
- Has its own page at the BL site Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed original link. BL appears to be the actual source.
File:Tobacco Protest Fatwa issued by Mirza Mohammed Hassan Husseini Shirazi - 1890.jpg. Broken link. Also, who holds the copyright? It says copyright expired because the creator is dead, but just below that: cc-by-sa-4.0.
- Here's the archived link. Mirza Shirazi is dead, the site seems to be a reputable academic institution and the legal notice at the bottom of the page reads "استفاده از منابع اين سايت با ذکر ماخذ مجاز است", which means "the use of resources from this site is free with an attribution to the source". It seems that the cc-by-sa-4.0 tag should simply be removed. Eperoton (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~A bit complicated. How is this supposed to be PD if it requires attribution?~~ Yes you are right. Just remove the cc-by-sa-4.0. I did some reading on the related pages. It is indeed PD and the hosting website doesn't hold the copyright of the image. As for their attribution requirement, we are providing link to their page, that's enough. Also, please update the link.

Thanks for looking into it. I've replaced cc-by-sa-4.0 with PD-Old and added the archived URL to the image page. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ottoman declaration of Jihad 14-11-1914.jpg. I couldn't find it with the provided link. Also, without author or source info, I think it cannot be included.
- Here's an untouched version of the same image. Is your concern with copyright or verifiability? Eperoton (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please replace image with this version. At least one can access the link. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eperoton (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the issues. A nice and informative article. Pleased to Pass. Please address point 1.5 (duplinks). Thanks.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful review, image status research and great suggestions, AhmadLX! Eperoton (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Page name

The word "fatwa" is in such common use that it does not need to be italicized in the page name. Similarly, we don't italicize mufti. Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: That sounds correct. I've de-italicized the title, though perhaps Gryffindor, who italicized it, would like to elaborate. Eperoton (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some supporting reasoning/evidence. Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English.

One way to gauge if a word has become commonly used in English is to check a bunch of dictionaries. This website can do that. And it turns out that many mainstream English dictionaries have it, so I'd argue we don't italicize because it's functionally a word in English now. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]