Template talk:Usul al-Fiqh

This template 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

Islam

This template 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

Ahkam

The Ahkam section needs to be changed - those five levels are disputed amongst the sunni madhahib, I think a note should be made about this. For example, the Hanafis differentiate between Wajib and Fard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salleyye (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it. --Striver 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Ijma

Shouldn't Ijma rate just below--or, IMHO--above Ijtihad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IFaqeer (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No comment. Be bold. --Striver 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad template

I just noticed this template -- it is extremely badly done. It is too long and detailed and since most of the terms are transliterated Arabic terms that would be unfamiliar to non-Muslims (and to many uneducated Muslims) it is close to useless. What the heck does the average English speaking reader make of Usul al-fiqh? An exotic Syrian delicacy involving figs?

I removed it from the mullah article, where it was longer than the article and completely unbalanced the formatting. If you want to use this template, it needs to be drastically revised. Zora 09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For people who have read up a bit on basic Islamic studies, these terms all have meanings which are obvious. Some things on Wikipedia are more technical, and Islam has a lot of technical language. DivineReality (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly titles section

The ordering of the scholarly titles at the bototm of this box seems arbitrary. Not sure which is the best ordering. Probably I would recommend English alphabetical. ZaydHammoudeh 02:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wiki so yes, order by the English alphabet RooZ 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning of Ahkam

Shouldnt Wajib be higher up on the list than Halal? 83.218.150.38 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed incorrect line

I removed a line that was added on incorrectly "*love (husband and wife)" that did not seem to be a title, it only linked to english word love. --Dishcmds (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UsulALFiqh.svg

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. There is a concurrent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Proposal: clarify "user-generated" in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY occuring relating to the policy MOS:CALLIGRAPHY that is mentioned in this discussion. The outcome of that discussion will likely affect the outcome of this one. It may be necessary to move this discussion there (see Template:Moved discussion to) at some point. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma, I don't think this calligraphy counts as user-generated as it is taken from this book. Usually, user-generated content is defined as publicly produced through platforms on the Internet and outside of professional routines and practices. The calligraphy is also used outside of Wikipedia on multiple web pages like here. — Kaim Amin (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the file info, it was vectorized from this image, by you. Aren't you a user who has created this vectorization and uploaded it Commons?

But just as important as user-generated is documented usage outside of Wikipedia. Where does the calligraphy ultimately come from? Which major Islamic organizations have used it? What makes it significant in the topic's context per MOS:IMAGEREL?

If such use can be documented, a straightforward copy of it (without additions such as the shadow, the colours, the circle; i.e., not user-generated) might be fit for Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I vectorized that calligraphy means nothing as it already existed and was produced by an actual artist. Representing Islamic topics with calligraphies has been established for a long time. As the calligraphy is under PD, the usage of this doesn't even have to be wide-spread. Its usage is already well-documented as it's being used on the cover of an actual book.

Distinctive images in a sidebar can provide useful information about the page's subject matter. Most pages using this template don't have any other images. A colourful image draws attention to a page and encourages a reader to look at it.

This calligraphy is not user-generated, it's usage outside Wikipedia is documented and it does represent the topic. This image can be used for aesthetic purposes as in any other sidebar template. Kaim Amin (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add the circle, the colour and the shadow or not? Please be clear, yes or no?

Usage in one book in my view does not mean well-documented as per MOS:CALLIGRAPHY or significant as per MOS:IMAGEREL. That's open to discussion though if the image is not user-generated. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those simple shapes have no effect on the calligraphy or on anything. I only added them for mere decorative purposes and to keep consistency with some other Arabic calligraphies on commons. I can simplify it more if needed.

You can't just wipe a published book out of existence, all the webpages referring to this book or the calligraphy can be archived. I already explained the reason for using this image. I don't see any other problem as long as MOS:CALLIGRAPHY doesn't require widespread use and explain the rationale for it. Kaim Amin (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, you added the shadow etc. This means it's user-generated. As for 'well-documented' or 'significant' not requiring widespread use, I kinda disagree in this case (I don't see how this image might otherwise be significant), but I won't object in this case if it's an exact copy (without being a copyright violation). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this logic nothing on commons is usable on wikipedia. The question of whether anything is user-generated is only applicable to the calligraphy in this case. The fact that the book can be found on multiple websites and I can provide links for it, makes it well-documented. I'll reinstate the image if there is no other valid reason against it. Thanks. Kaim Amin (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that it is user-generated clearly refers to everything added to the calligraphy. Pictures of real-world calligraphy as featured in articles like Muhammad, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar etc. have nothing added of this kind, and are also on Commons.

If you reinstate this image it will be without consensus. I asked other editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles to voice their opinion here. (Just for reference, this is a link to the original discussion.) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clearly user-generated graphic and it also serves no encyclopedic purpose—it is merely decoration (as you mention above). Al Ameer (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity on the difference between "user-generated" in the context of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and the strict definition of "user-generated content":
A distinction needs to be made between what "user-generated content" may mean in the context of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, and a strict definition of user-generated content:

User-generated content, per the Mainspace article the MOS wikilinks to, refers broadly to any content (text, images, videos, etc.) created by non-professional individuals and uploaded to online platforms. In this sense, any image uploaded by a Wikipedia editor, regardless of its source, could technically be considered user-generated content.
In a context-specific definition in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, "user-generated content" is not simply content uploaded by a Wikipedia user but rather content created by them without prior external documentation or scholarly significance.

"User-generated" under MOS:CALLIGRAPHY is if a user personally creates Islamic calligraphy (e.g., a self-made drawing, digital artwork, or stylized text) and uploads it to Wikipedia without prior recognition or established use, it qualifies as user-generated content under MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and is not suitable for Wikipedia. That I agree with.
If a user extracts, vectorizes, or enhances an existing historical manuscript, widely circulated book, or calligraphy from a respected source using software (e.g., converting it to SVG for better resolution), this does not count as "user-generated" under MOS:CALLIGRAPHY because:

The original content already has documented use outside Wikipedia.
The vectorization process is an improvement, not an original creative work.
Per Commons:Transition to SVG and Help:SVG, SVG is the preferred format for images, making such creations and/or conversions beneficial.

"User-generated" in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY does not mean any content uploaded by a user but rather content created without prior recognition or documentation. If an image is faithfully derived from an authoritative source, even if improved or vectorized by an editor, it is not "user-generated" in this context. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significance per MOS:IMAGEREL:

Per MOS:IMAGEREL, images in an article should be pertinent to the subject and contribute to the reader’s understanding in an encyclopedic way.

In an article on Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), Islamic calligraphy is significant and meningful if it visually represents a core concept of Fiqh, illustrates key legal doctrines, or originates from historically recognized manuscripts. (As explained here): For example:

A Quranic verse foundational to Islamic law or a Hadith used as a legal precedent.
A well-known legal maxim in calligraphy, such as الضرر يزال ("Harm must be removed") or الأمور بمقاصدها ("Matters are judged by intentions"), which illustrate legal reasoning in Fiqh.

If the calligraphy is a widely recognized representation of Fiqh—from authoritative texts, institutional use, or historical sources—it serves an encyclopedic purpose by illustrating the cultural and scholarly tradition of Islamic law. This maintains its documented usage and does not classify it as "user-generated" under MOS:CALLIGRAPHY.

Additionally, and my reason for its placement in the sidebar navigation template (such as Template:Fiqh for the Islamic jurisprudence article), is it enhances both navigation and encyclopedic value because:

It is widely recognized as a symbol of Islamic jurisprudence.
It visually identifies the subject while enhancing the template without overshadowing its navigation function—similar to how flags, coats of arms, or logos are used in templates.

Thus, if the calligraphy has a well-documented historical or scholarly basis, it meets Wikipedia’s image relevance criteria and should be retained. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask that we pause removing images related to this discussion based on our own interpretation of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, which is clearly conflicting, until some consensus is reached, like the removals here and here as there are more examples at Category:Islam sidebar templates. I've marked the section MOS:CALLIGRAPHY as {{under discussion}} too. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may regard what you call vectorization (in this case: the addition of a decorative circle, a colour and a shadow around the image) as an improvement, others may regard it as a deterioration, but one thing is beyond any doubt: it changes the image so as to have a very different visual style from the original. This change was added by an internet user, and such changes are certainly covered by 'user-generated' as intended in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY.

Consider for example the first article I linked as OP in the original discussion: at the time, Ali had a vectorized image based on an original calligraphy on display in the Hagia Sophia, but now that MOS:CALLIGRAPHY is in place, Ali has an actual picture of that calligraphy itself in its Hagia Sophia setting. Now that is an improvement from an encyclopedic point of view. Allowing vectorization would undo that improvement entirely, since there are hundreds of such vectorized images on Commons which would be used to again replace more encyclopedically relevant images, as happened just recently on Ali.

I am very skeptical that the particular image under discussion here should have a well-documented historical or scholarly basis, as you say (evidence until now has included a few book covers and Islamic websites, nothing historical or scholarly), but if it does then we surely need a straightforward copy of the original image. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I'm understanding you clearly, for the sake of agreeing to disagree, if the green background was removed from this debate. And we looked at only the calligraphy as black strokes on a white background, you would then accept that as not user-generated, and sufficiently covered by sources to meet MOS:CALLIGRAPHY?

Regarding original discussion you referenced to establish consensus on those statements in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY:

I propose we need a better description and definition of user-generated content... linking to user-generated or WP:USERGENERATED is just too vague and leaves too much room for debate.

Secondly, I support your problem statement in that discussion actually, and even your comment later to clarify about blanking articles of images, also someone said to discourage the use of calligraphy as the primary representation when we have images available and the need for calligraphy to be from historical or architectural sources/historical coins/postage stamps.

Then lets say we make simple black on white calligraphy for use at Template:Usul al-Fiqh and Template:Fiqh like seen at Template:Islam until an image is found? (like suggested paragraph above).

I agree with your Haga Sophia point. I don't mean vectorize photographs of real-life objects, I mean vectorize PNG/JPEG that have calligraphy strokes only. I also agree that for example not to vectorize the title of an Islamic holy book calligraphy, but to use the image itself. waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if an image were made only copying the calligraphy itself, for example with black strokes on a white background as you mention, I would not regard that as user-generated. Sufficiently covered by sources would be debatable, but I would not object in this case. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good, @Kaim Amin it seems there's happiness (at least here) that this type of image, in @Apaugasma interpretation of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and it's term "user-generated content", can be used in articles as long as it is black strokes on a white background. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waddie96, Yes. but I noticed that the original image is already reinstated on the template. So I'm waiting for the discussion on MOS:ISLAM to be resolved. Kaim Amin (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son, Kaim Amin, and Waddie96: just wanted to let you know for transparency's sake that I have made a proposal to change the text of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY at the talk page of MOS:ISLAM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this discussion going to run concurrent to the one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Proposal: clarify "user-generated" in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY which basically directly affects the very nature of the debate here as now a policy change proposal is being made to the very backbone of this discussion of whether the image should be kept or not, or should we move this discussion (in whole) there to consolidate the discussion. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I started the discussion there I was thinking we could put this one on hold for some time, but perhaps that wasn't the brightest idea. I'm sorry for all of the confusion that caused. In any case I think that it's best to leave to current image there for now. If someone would like to make a black-on-white (or even better, black-on-transparent) version of it though, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that this doesn't just count as plagiarism? If this artwork was created for this book, and it's being replicated here without permission, that's surely infringing on the rights of the original designer or artwork holder. Has anyone emailed the publisher for permission to replicate their cover art? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had also already been wondering about that. I'm fairly ignorant about this type of thing though. @Kaim Amin: as the creator of the image, can you answer this question? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaim Amin asked me this at my request for this image's creation at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/2025#Create Usul al-Fiqh Arabic calligraphy, see there for the explanation as to why it is not plagiarism. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book was printed in the US where calligraphies are not copyrightable and that calligraphy in my opinion does not pass the Commons:Threshold of originality in so far as coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were it a mere horizontally scripted line of calligraphic text, I would agree. However, when a phrase is converted into a calligraphic monogram, it takes on much more of a semblance of a piece of crafted art or design. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 906.4 ("Typeface, Typefont, Lettering, Calligraphy, and Typographic Ornamentation"): As a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, I'm not enough of a US copyright legal expert to interpret that directly, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Speaking personally, one thing I find objectionable about the way this has been rendered is the over use of additional ornamentation. I would actually prefer it if it was black and white (or a close enough monochrome) like in the original work. I don't see the need or the use for the double ring around the monograph, definitely no use for the frilly edge around it, and no particular reason why it needs a green background. These are modifications from the original that serve no purpose. It's a style I've seen frequently for this type of digital rendering, and it's clearly purely aesthetic, which is why we don't need it. The original work didn't use this ornamentation, and we don't need it either. It makes it seem less encyclopedic. The original form is actually more clean, clear and direct. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, @Apaugasma, @Waddie96, If there's any confusion about copyright this is not the place to talk about it. I think a DR should be started on commons for documentation purposes and to get experts' insight.

And I don't think this discussion should be kept ongoing parallel to the one on MOS:ISLAM. Kaim Amin (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of calligraphy

Moved to § File:UsulALFiqh.svg

– Duplicate query about the same revert action. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: this revert of the addition of the calligraphy File:UsulALFiqh.svg into the template warrants further exploration but is not consistent with the current practice which provide a necessary precedent. Like in Template:Islam and more notably Template:Fiqh and Template:Hadith, etc. (found at Category:Islam sidebar templates), calligraphy is used. MOS:ISLAM as you've referred to, refers to editing Islam-related articles ... to make articles easy to read by following a consistent format, not how templates should necessarily appear. Islamic honorifics, as referred to in your quoted MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, states should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations or images.. Hence, this is in an image in a template and not within the body text of the article. The calligraphy is not user-generated, but well-documented with use outside Wikipedia: 1, 2, 3, 4. waddie96 ★ (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant bit in MOS:ISLAM is MOS:CALLIGRAPHY: Images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy should have a well-documented usage outside of Wikipedia and not be user-generated.

Whether such an image appears in a template or in an article is of no consequence. This image, with its user-generated addition of a colour, a circle and a shadow, is clearly different from the images you link to. The images in some of the templates you link to are also user-generated; I will remove them shortly.

Discussion about this particular image is taking place in the section above (#File:UsulALFiqh.svg), where I've already indicated that I would not object to a straightforward copy of the image as used outside of Wikipedia. Please discuss there. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve restored this due to the discussion at MOS:ISLAM. This image does not appear unacceptably user generated per Wikipedia policies, and if it may be the consensus to remove it from the template isn’t there yet. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]