Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Religion Start‑class
WikiProject iconQiyas has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Religion. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

terms like 'illah, etc, need appropriate symbols that I cannot acces from this computer.

Reid 12:04, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mu'tazilite interpretations[edit]

A couple (at least) of unreferenced, judgemental and not generally accepted assertions here:

"Mu'tazila, [...] being a distinct sect from both Sunni and Shi'ite Islam" - really? Says who? The WP page on Mu'tazila has them as a (mostly extinct) school of Kalam. Identifying them as a distinct sect, if it's not original research, should be added to the WP page on them (i.e. not here) with proper references.

"Primarily being a school of dogma and not jurisprudence" - a "school of dogma" is just a derogatory characterisation that has no objective foundation, AFAICS. e.g. "the school I follow is sophisticated and orthodox theology, the school you follow is just dogma"

The whole section is sectarian rather than encyclopaedic in tone. Helvetius (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Helvetius:, if my memory serves me correctly then I believe I wrote that section. I can assure you that the intention wasn't POV pushing.
Regarding the first issue, then as a general rule Mu'tazila were not considered Sunnis nor did they consider themselves Sunnis. I know you're asked for sources and not just an editor's statement and I will get on that in a few days or so, but I'm just mentioning it here again. They referred to themselves as "Ahlut-Tawhid wal-'Adl" to distinguish themselves from "Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah" (Sunnis). I have seen a single source referring to them as an offshoot of Sunnis - Jordan's "500 most notable Muslims" list - though the source is generally regarded as a political tool rather than a scholarly academic one. I'll try to bring some sources for this later.
Regarding the second issue, then I actually didn't view the word "dogma" as negative because most educated Muslim theologians followed some dogma. Sunni scholars usually followed one of three competing dogmas (Ash'ari, Athari, Maturidi) while Shi'ites also have several dogmas (like the difference between Sheikhiyya and Usouliyya). If you want to change the word to something less offensive then hey, I'll even help brainstorm about that. I'm not attached to the passage that much, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind it.
I hope this cleared some things up about the intent behind the writing. If you're ready to adjust the language in either part, there are no objections from me. If you want more input first, I'm ok helping with that too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a verifiable source to the idea that the reason for the Mu'tazili adopting the name Ahlut-Tawhid wal-'Adl was to intentionally distance themselves from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah (also when this term began to be used is not reference in WP, AFAICS), then it should be included. Otherwise it should be indicated that the judgement that the Mu'tazili were not part of the Sunni tradition is the opinion of hostile tendencies, mostly long after the fact.
The WP page for dogma indicates the analogous term in Islam is 'Aqidah - which looks right. The Mu'tazili were a school of Kalam (theology) not 'Aqidah - at least according to the pages on them and Kalam - which fits with the statement that they were not a particular Madhab of Fiqh (i.e. that they initially followed Hanafi ideas on Qiyas). So I propose to substitute theology for dogma here. Helvetius (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey User:Helvetius, I'm fine with the word change myself - as long as the picture painted is accurate, the specific wording shouldn't be an issue to split hairs over (on my end I mean). Regarding the position of the Mu'tazila in relation to other Muslim groupings (for lack of a better term), then that might take a few days if you can bear with me. My computer has had loads of problems lately and I'm finding it hard to log on and devote time to Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qiyas. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Qiyas was used to deduce new beliefs and practices on the basis of analogy with past practices and beliefs (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]