[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Fatawa 'Alamgiri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is really needed!

Well, I've made a start, but I would appreciate the efforts of othrs more cognizant of Islamic law than me. This important topic deserves a good article. --Nemonoman 16:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone verify this?

[edit]

This sentence was addded by user User:121.52.147.47: Can anyone verify? thanks.

Fatawa-i-Alamgiri was compiled by Shah Abdur Rahim the father of Shah Wali Ullah at the behest of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.--nemonoman (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiqh, etc

[edit]

I made some changes to this page. I made similar changes to the page previously but they were reversed. Let me explain why I have made them:

Fiqh is a genre of Islamic scholarship. "Fiqh" translates best into English as "jurisprudence." It does not mean compilation, and it is not a countable noun and so cannot be pluralized: one cannot say "one of the most comprehensive fiqhs."

The Fatawa-i Alamgiri cannot in any way be described as "early." It was compiled in the 17th century; there are compendia of Islamic law dating from many centuries previous to that date.

Al-Fatawa-i-Hindiya is grammatically incorrect: it is an amalgamation of Arabic and Persian grammar. The title can either be in Arabic: al-Fatawa al-Hindiya. Or in Persian: Fatawa-i Hindiya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.4 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To clarify further, since my corrections were un-done again: The word "fiqh" refers to a genre of writing: Islamic jurisprudence. It does not mean compilation, and it is not a countable noun. You cannot say "a fiqh" - it is like saying "a poetry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.222.96 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further explanation. I missed your earlier note. Please continue to edit and improve this article.
By the way -- get a username! it's a good thing.
Also, it's reckoned polite to sign your posts -- this is easy to do by typing ~~~~ 4 tildes. There's also a signature button on the edit button bar above -- hard to figure out: to the right of the W with a red circle/line button, to the left of the horizontal bar button; the image looks sort of like a scrawled signature.

--Nemonoman (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RLoutfy's edits.

[edit]

RLoutfy has contributed by including informative points from the book "Islam in South Asia" by Jamal Malik. However they appear to have misquoted that reference at a few points - I have added requests for citations at these points in case they refer to other sources.

The bulk of the "views" section they have added does not contain anyone's views at all, but appear to be statements drawn from the text that the contributor probably found objectionable. I've therefore renamed the section to "opposing views". This probably is not the correct heading title and could be changed to something more representative of its content.

In actual fact Fatawa Alamgiri would not be remarkable for any of the bullet points mentioned in this section and it's unclear why they have been inserted. They probably belong in their respective wikipedia entries on slavery, inheritance, mahram etc.

RLoutfy has also misreferenced many of their references, which are to a text called Muhammadan Law rather than Fatawa Alamgiri itself. It is not correct to claim that the original work has been referenced by refering to footnotes of another text that claim to be quoting from the original text. I will correct this.

90.219.98.154 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked again the Malik reference as well others cited. I see the support. I have a copy of the original document and after checking, have added the complete cite to Fatawa-i Alamgiri/al-Hindiyya document. A secondary reliable source is also cited.
By original document you mean Fatawa-e Alamgiri I take it? 90.219.98.154 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read the book by Malik again. I have to admit I only briefly skimmed through the section as it is freely available online, so for example misunderstood that the Hisbah office was established *before* and not during Sher Shah Suri, which again calls for a cite that it was actually a Mughal establishment, since before Sher Shah Suri there was only Babur, who didn't have much time for empire building. You however have also misread the book, since it does not say that the Fatawa re-established the Hisbah office, in fact it cites the Hisbah as an example of something in opposition of the Fatawa being out of the control of the Ulama. I will return the article later to clarify. I note the edits you have performed and it only makes the article better. 90.219.98.154 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You allege, "In actual fact Fatawa Alamgiri would not be remarkable for any of the bullet points mentioned in this section". How is a Hanafi sharia-based law document formalizing slavery of non-Muslims etc not remarkable? Why is the Fatawa-i Alamgiri content on slavery useful in Slavery specific wiki article, for instance, but not this article? RLoutfy (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are unremarkable statements since they are consistent with Hanafi fiqh, and this is a text of Hanafi fiqh. Why do you consider them remarkable in this context? They would have a place in an article about the issue of slavery in Islam, or maybe Hanafi fiqh (although again these rulings don't appear to be specific to the Hanafis). 90.219.98.154 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To further explain, a discussion on the Fatawa should be about its contemporary and current relevance, and the impact it had. Its discussions on slavery are unlikely to have had impact as they were well known rulings already. 90.219.98.154 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your last point, read WP:PST. Relying purely on "Fatawa Alamgiri itself" as you advise, would be relying entirely on a primary source. A secondary source with primary source is the recommended wikipedia guideline, which is what the current article does. RLoutfy (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to claim you're quoting the Fatawa when you are quoting a secondary source. Another reader (like myself!) might be misled into thinking you were quoting from an actual translation of the text, when you were not. 90.219.98.154 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While replying, please follow wikipedia's talk page format at WP:TP. It is easier to read if the reply at a given time is collated, and in chronological order, instead of being interspersed.

This is an article on Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, not Sher Shah Suri, not Babur, not Hisbah, not Hanafi fiqh, not etc. This article shouldn't sidetrack. I have a copy of the original Fatawa-i Alamgiri. It is okay to cite non-English sources, read WP:NOENG. The current article cites both non-English as well as a secondary source providing English translation. You allege that the article claims,"Fatawa re-established the Hisbah office". It doesn't, not even close. Read again. The slavery sections in Fatawa-e-Alamgiri are extensive and indeed consistent with other historical Hanafi texts. That, in part, is why some specifics is relevant and due in this encyclopedic article. Wikipedia readers cannot be presumed to be aware of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, etc literature. RLoutfy (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: Which edition of fatawa alamgiri do you have? 12:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]


It's hypocritical of Wikipedia to talk about NPOV, yet you don't see any page on ancient Jewish or Christian laws talk about the laws of pillages and slavery, even though the Bible and the Talmud was rife with such laws. You don't see Wikipedia citing laws from the Bible that was compiled by Christian scholars to serve past Christian Tyrants, such as Oliver Cromwell and his likes.

121.121.46.210 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A digest of the Moohummudan law

[edit]

The article quote extensively from "A digest of the Moohummudan law". There's two issues with this. Firstly, the source seems to be a 19th century British interpretation of Hanafi Islamic law. Given the biases of the colonial British, that doesn't seem to be a reliable source, at least not one to base much of this article on. It is quite likely that there exists more reliable works of modern scholarship; those should be used instead. Secondly, the work reads like a primary source. Hence whoever selectively quoted it on matters is projecting his/her POV on this article, as that work covers not just "slaves" and "pillage" but various diverse topics.

What might be appropriate is to quote the beginning section of the book and attribute it accordingly. Bless sins (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original is in non-English language. The cited source is a translation. That suffices, is better than a personal translation by a wikipedia editor, and is acceptable per WP:NOENG. If you find a more recent reliable source/translation, that would be welcome. I stumbled into this article recently, while reviewing Slavery and religion article, and did a few random checks. The summary verified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A translation would be a WP:PRIMARY source. One can not simply, mindlessly copy an entire translation into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Certain aspects of this work may indeed be more notable, but that decision is to be made by a reliable source, not an editor. By selectively quoting the source, the editor is simply projecting a particular bias onto the article.
Secondly, the lack of a reliable source does not elevate the reliability of a questionable source. WP:NOENG allows for "citations to non-English reliable sources".Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A translation is always an interpretation and analysis. That is why translations by different scholars sometimes vary significantly, and translations of the same primary text are rarely identical. Translations are a secondary source, not a primary source. It is the original text that is the primary source. Indeed, WP:NOENG allows non-English sources, but the same guideline states, "However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones." Please quit selective wiki-lawyering. There is no "mindless copying of an entire translation" here. The article embeds quotes and extracts from the sources, which is appropriate per attribution guidelines of wikipedia. Just because you allege a source is unreliable out of your own personal wisdom or prejudice, it does not make it so. If you find additional scholarly English translation, we can certainly summarize it too for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's two issues here.
1) Whether the source is a reliable secondary source. Translations are usually considered primary source. For example, the translation of the Bible is a primary source. This source does contain some analysis in the beginning, but not for the most part.
"Just because you allege a source is unreliable out of your own personal wisdom or prejudice, it does not make it so."
I have provided reasons as to why I don't consider it reliable. What is your reason for considering this reliable?
2) Whether the source is being selectively quoted in a POV manner and WP:UNDUE manner. The text deals with many issues, including marriage, rituals, business transactions etc. Yet why does the article focus only on "Pillage and slavery"? That is obviously the POV of the editor who inserted the material.Bless sins (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bless sins: we are going in circles. Let us set aside our disagreement on whether translations made centuries later, far removed from the time under study, by author(s) who did not live in that period, are primary or secondary. This article cites specific pages and footnotes, to the extent I have checked. The content guideline WP:Primary states, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care; summarizing what the primary source states is okay, but the editor cannot do analysis or interpretation. The content verifies, so your first concern does not apply even if the source was treated as a primary source for a moment. On your second point, I encourage you to add more information such as on marriage, rituals, etc with source(s) cited for WP:V. Because that would indeed improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion" section needs revision

[edit]

This article lists some arbitrarily chosen, very specific examples of laws in this text. This is problematic because:


  • None of these laws are unique to this text nor is this the first text to explain them.
  • Some of these laws are partially quoted or misquoted.
  • The cited original text is an edition published in 1980, it is unverifiable as the corresponding pages are different in the newer publications available on the web.
  • The laws chosen to be emphasized seem to be those which are controversial to modern society. This feels like an underhanded attempt to criticize rather than an unbiased article on the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.5.100 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE

[edit]

The fatawa Alamgiri is a vast text. Selectively quoting certain parts out it make no sense and violates WP:UNDUE, unless it can be supported that these selective quotations are given weight in reliable secondary sources. Since this page is being linked from the main page, I'm hiding that text for now.VR talk 06:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fatawa_%27Alamgiri&oldid=1205012602"