Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Muslim scholars

	Islam portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.

Proper Sourcing

While there isn't a huge amount of information available in English, it can be found. The Arabic version of this article is nearly as detailed as the articles of the other four schools of thought; let's try to do the same in English. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignaz Goldziher, the Hungarian scholar of Islam, has done extensive research on Zahiris. His research is compiled in a book The Zahiris: Their Doctrine and Their History, a Contribution to the History of Islamic Theology (Brill Classics in Islam). This book is available on Amazon ISBN 9004162410 Xareen (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a great resource, and I just ordered it from that Amazon link. There is quite a bit in Arabic, though my Wiki-knowledge is rusty due to a long absence, and I'm not sure of the rules for translations done personally by Wiki editors. This book should be a great help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music misconception

I just removed the section about music, as this is actually a combination of two common misconceptions:

That the Zahiri madhhab has an official position on music, and
That said position is unique among Sunni schools of thought.

Regarding the position, then the madhhab is a set of principles rather than a set of positions. If we were to take a survey, however, then the overwhelming majority of Zahiri scholars have historically considered music to be impermissible, not permissible; Ibn Hazm was actually an anomaly in the school due to his permitting of music. Dawud al-Zahiri, from whence the madhhab takes its name, was famous for his opposition to music. Most modern Zahiri scholars such as Ibn Aqil (Saudi Arabia), Ibn Tamim (Kuwait) and Zubair Ali Zai (Pakistan) also consider music to be impermissible. While there still is no official position, to say that the Zahiri madhhab does not prohibit music is merely a commonly held misconception by people who think that "Zahiri madhhab" equates with "anything Ibn Hazm says." As for this position supposedly being unique, then this is also a misconception. Historically, the Maliki madhhab also had a number of figureheads, such as Qadi Iyyad, who held music to be permissible. While Imam Malik himself did not, those Malikis who did based their opinion on the practice of the people of Medina, who traditionally held music to be permissible. The bottom line: there is no official Zahiri position on music (though if there was, the majority held it to be impermissible). Also, figures in other schools also shared Ibn Hazm's view of music, so his position isn't unique within Sunni Islam. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Delineation

After pouring into more research on this school, it has become clear to me at least - perhaps others will take another view - that many who are commonly referred to as Zahiris agree with them on many issues without actually being followers of the school. The obvious group are Salafis, who have some similarities but many differences as another member highlighted in this article. Likewise, the Ahle Hadis movement in South Asia took a lot of inspiration from the Zahiris but very few of them are actual Zahiris. I think a proper line should be drawn between sympathizers with the school and members of the school. In most cases, a member of the school should either be someone who called themself a Zahiri, or someone whose ideas are so obviously Zahiri that it can be inferred. Shawkani, for example, praised the Zahiris a lot and called their way the truth, yet he never said "I am a Zahiri" and he disagreed with the school on many points. Muqbil Wadi'i, on the other hand, openly called himself a Zahiri, called others to join the school and agreed with them on their main points. Individuals who called themselves Zahiri openly yet still disagreed with the school, such as Albani who called himself a Zahiri yet disagreed with them and mainly followed the Salafist way, become problematic. I would like to have a discussion on this matter so editors can put their ideas together and organize the article in an accurate way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Content was recently merged from Sunni Islam, though the more relevant discussion can be found on that article's talk page. Per Wikipedia:Merging, however, I am still required to open a discussion here. I would suggest reading my comments on Talk:Sunni Islam first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unify terminology

"Zahiri" and "Zahirite" are used interchangeably, both as adjective and as noun. Would it be a good idea to pick a form and stick to it?—Wegesrand (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Sunni Islam template

Please comment on this RfC, related to the Zahiri school and the Sunni Islam template. Eperoton (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ẓāhirī. 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) 02:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AhleHadithExpert's edits

@AhleHadithExpert: Please discuss your proposed changes here and gain WP:CONSENSUS. There are several problems with your last edit:

You undid a reference clean-up by Ogress
You again inserted an incomplete citation that was pointed out before, at the start of the "Imam Bukhari" section. Please provide a page or name of the encyclopedic entry you're citing. Also, please provide a quote that supports your generalization.
It's unclear what your issue is with the sentence you keep trying to delete from the lead. Please elaborate.

Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]