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

Requested move 18 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ijtihad per consensus. While the term "Ijtihad" is not widely known among the general public, there is broad agreement that it is common enough in academic discourse, and that the current descriptive title is unnecessary in face of reasonably established common name. Besides, Arabic terms already dominate in Category:Islamic terminology so this move would affirm consistency.
I will also WP:BOLDly move Consensus in Islamic law to Ijma per Walrasiad's suggestion. No such user (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent legal reasoning in Islamic lawIjtihad – Ijtihad absolutely dwarves the use of the convoluted term "Independent legal reasoning" in English-language scholarly literature about the subject. "Indendent legal reasoning" + "Islam" gets about 700 Google Scholar hits; ijtihad gets 41,000. Almost all the terms in Islam on the periphery of ijtihad are already named in naturalised phonetic English, such as taqlid, jihad, etc. Ijtihad is a big enough concept in Islam to be treated in the same manner, just as it is in scholarly sources. Even independent of this, there would be a case for the change based on pure consistency, as ijitihad also blows away terms like taqlid in terms of usage. See taqlid on Google Scholar (just over a third the ijtihad tally) and Ngram. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Of course you won't find exact hits for "Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law" or even "Independent legal reasoning", because it's a descriptive article title, as mentioned in WP:AT. The proposal has not, to me, met the burden of proof that "ijtihad" has seen greater usage (in reliable English-language sources) than any other descriptive way of describing the concept. Red Slash 21:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why would we use a descriptive title for something that has a name? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that name doesn't exist in English? If there's a word in German ("Restorisvampenfloridangattor"?) for the Restoration of the Everglades, whoopdi-doo, that's great for de.wikipedia, but our titles need to be in English. The supporters of this move, to me, need to convincingly prove that this concept is commonly referred to in English as "ijtihad". Red Slash 18:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red Slash: You don't find those 41,000 Google Scholar hits compelling? 'Independent legal reasoning' is not a descriptive title, it is a less common, literal translation, and those exact words ARE used, in the 700 Google Scholar hits I provided, normally presented as a translation of 'ijtihad'. Opposers of this move need to show how 'independent legal reasoning' is common. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, those Google Scholar numbers are ghost-hits, i.e. those references don't exist. Scanning to the end of your search, it only reaches around 1,000. Secondly, the majority of those articles are non-English (most are in Indonesian and Malay, as far as I can tell). Thirdly, Wikipedia articles are written for the general public, not scholars. Walrasiad (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Google Scholar hits – I tried several other combinations and none came particularly close to Ijtihad, and that seems like the best word to explain it anyway, as opposed to some translation. Britannica uses it as well. Skarmony talk 22:46, 25 March 2022 UTC
  • Neutral (leaning Support) I very much believe article titles should be translated into English wherever possible to ease comprehension to a general audience. Nonetheless, I am leaning support in this case because Itjihad is a technical term of Islamic jurisprudence, and it is common to leave technical legal terms untranslated (think only of all the Medieval Latin and Middle English legal terms we retain in article titles untranslated, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.). It is frequent enough to come across this term in texts, and is helpful to those looking to find more about it. However, I stop short of "support" because its main rival "Ijma" is left at "Consensus in Islamic law", and it would be inconsistent to move merely one article. So for consistency, either move both Itjihad and Ijma, or leave both where they are. On the other hand, I should note that the parent article of Islamic jurisprudence is untranslated at "Fiqh", and the various child articles on forms of independent reasoning are also left untranslated: eg, "Qiyas" (reasoning by analogy), "Istislah" (reasoning by public benefit), "Urf" (reasoning by custom) (although it seems we are missing an article on "Istiham" (juristic preference)). Walrasiad (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the proposal due to two major reasons:

1. Ijtihad is a common name in academic as well as daily discourse. One can find a normative usage of the term Ijtihad in English language encyclopaedic and academic sources, as opposed to the specific term "Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law". For example, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam (2004) has an entry named Ijtihad at pg. 134 ( here ) but no such entry for "Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law"

2. The current title is too lengthy and may be confusing to many readers to meet WP:CRITERIA as opposed to the term Ijtihad Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:UE; most reader familiar with Islamic Law will not recognize the word Ijtihad, but they will recognize the current descriptive title. It is also not established that the proposed title is the common name; while it is more common than the specific descriptive form in use, that doesn't mean it is more common that descriptive forms in general. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BilledMammal: You want to argue FOR "Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law" on WP:RECOGNIZABILITY? I'm incredulous. To whom is that recognizable? Who is going to search for "Independent legal reasoning..." ? The translation is no better for recognizability than the term from which is it dubiously derived (again, just 700 Google Scholar hits). Ijtihad is overwhelmingly used AS IS in academic literature where its meaning is perfectly well understood. My second major argument was from the perspective of consistency, whereby there are plenty of comparatively lesser terms in Islam that go by their transliterated names. Ijtihad is a huge theme and its usage is supported by tertiary sources. I don't see how WP:UE is relevant, as this is just about HOW one transliterates and Ijithad is already transliterated quite plainly. If you have an ax to grind against transliterated foreign terms in general, perhaps I could direct your attention towards Category:Buddhist philosophical concepts, where you will find a positive wealth of WP:UE-floating terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a descriptive name, I understand what it is referring to, but as Ijithad I would have no idea - although I expect there may be a better descriptive name. You do, however, have a point about consistency; if we are using the Islamic term for articles on more obscure terms then we should use it here - or use descriptive titles for all obscure Islamic terms. For the moment, I've struck my oppose and am neutral on this proposal. I will look into the Buddhist articles. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.