Talk:Ulama

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

this article is improving rapidly - good work! some link to Muslim Brotherhood, tarika, and Taliban is probably required, as the disenfranchised ulema in Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc., played some role in the rise social and political groups.

Ulama (Plural), Alim (Singular), and all its derivatives with different transliterations and spellings mean Scientist(s) in Arabic. They come from the root: 'ilm', meaning Knowledge. 'Iloom' is then derived from that, which means Science; 'Pursuit of Knowledge'. 'Alim' is then composed of that which means Scientist (Male singular), be advised there is also 'Alimah' which also means Scientist but is in the female singular form. Ulama is then composed of those, and it means Scientists, the final plural form.

These words do not imply in any way shape or form a reference to only Muslim "scholars". How this article derived only the meaning of 'Muslim Scholar of Islam' out of the above Arabic words is far fetched. As a Muslim and Arab who natively speaks Arabic and English, this is a grave mistake. Ulama can be used to refer to any Scientists of any religion or background as it is simply the Arabic word for Scientists. Is anyone editing this article a native speaker of Arabic and English? (Meaning on a native-level.)

If these words are being used specifically in the context of Shi'a Islam to mean different things then it should be stated in the beginning paragraph of the Article. But those words are Arabic and their meanings are Scientist(s), possibly Scholar(s), certainly not 'Muslim Scholars of Islamic Studies'. Unless Wikipedia aims to change the Arabic language, taking Arabic words which mean something quite generally and declaring that it means only one very specific diverging thing is wholly incorrect. Please address this or I will. Thank you. 72.145.129.154 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added them since it enlighted how the Jurist work, one desribed it regardin one issue, the other critizised them --Striver 03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent version of the article, some symbols in the words ulema and Shia did not display properly in my browser. I assume that may be the case with other users, so I have changed to the spelling to an easier transliteration. My apologies to those who wished to improve the transliteration of those words. Pecher ^Talk 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the same was the case with some other words, like sharia, so I have simplified the spelling throughout. Pecher ^Talk 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These symbols are from the insert section at the bottom of the composition page. I have therefore restored them because they are part of the standard set used on Wikipedia. em zilch 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ 2603:90D8:2F0:A30:EDA1:10C1:14CD:C868 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'm not sure that this is fair to our readers. Ulema, without any special characters, is widely used in academic and popular literature. One could probably consider it an English word. Insisting on used the word in characters that mean nothing to 99.9% of the readers is showing off, don't you think? If we had a little box in which we gave it in various characters (Arabic, Persian modified Arabic, Turkish, and transliterations) just ONCE, then any people who were fluent in those languages AND English could check our translation. But for actually finding out who and what the ulema are, "ulema" is just fine. Zora 03:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, I can see the basis for your argument there, whereas "I can't see Wikipedia's compositional character set" just isn't an effective comment.

I was most distressed to find yet another article so effectively Islamised (and by the same culprit Jagged 85). This article provides an obscenely large, but irrelevant section on what is purported to be the history of the 'Ulama/Muslim clerics and scientists. As far as I can make out, it repeats many of the tired, uncorroborated outside of a small circle of academics, claims about the Islamic origins of common and civil law. Now, were this confined to the Wikis on Common Law and Civil law, it wouldn't be so bad. Yet, here, we have a section supposedly about the historic development of the cleric in Islamic history; instead, we get information on the putative Islamic origins of components of both common and civil law. Yes Makdisi is a reputable academic, but should his infinitesimaly small, minority viewpoint on the origins of common law be displayed here? The answer is no - the section on History of the 'Ulama should either contain information strictly about the 'Ulama or should be removed!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.236.9.80 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we start with etymology of the word, than a history of the concept, etc etc? Faro0485 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged85, the person who put the problematic material in, has been RFCed and inshallah, will not be disrupting Wikipedia in the future.

"Ulama in contemporary usage by Muslims refers to the religious elite of scholars at the top of the sectarian hierarchy" – the preceding statement is false. there is no hierarchy, and there is no sectarian fellowship in Islam, this is a biddah and not consistent with the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad According to Muhammad Asad, (1934) a Jewish-born Austro-Hungarian born journalist who reverted to Islam, who wrote extensively in the area of comparative religion, Asad says "it is westerners who identify "theocracy" with the political power exercised by an established church-organization -in their case, the medieval Christian Church and its priestly hierarchy. Islam, on the other hand, does not admit of any "priesthood" or "clergy" and, therefore, of any institution comparable to the Christian Church" (Asad, M., (1934) Islam at the Cross Roads, Arafat Publications, Delhi), . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali20805 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 April 2015‎

Re-adding "hierarchy", sourcing with (Hanif. Islam and Modernity. p. 318.) cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Islam, Islamic scholars have the practical role of clergy whatever you choose to call them. Also while the Koran ironically refers to Christians and Jews as seeing their rabbis and priests as God, if anything Muslims are deferential and worshipful of the Ulama to an almost absurd degreed, the Ulama abuse this respect to seize political authority and set up petty dictatorships. In Christianity and Judaism we're allowed to have our own opinions, the rabbi and priests opinion is merely advisory, we're not expected to be subservient in all things, especially in political matters which they are usually wise enough to butt their noses out of. Nor do they condemn us as heretics and apostates deserving death and the slightest disagreement. The only figure in Christianity treated with as much exuberant reverence and subservience as the average Ulama is in Islam, is maybe the Pope. And the Pope is wise enough to stick to non-political matters and is more of a spiritual figure than someone you are ordered to blindly follow.

The Ulama are basically deferred to in all respects regarding what is the Divine Will, and people are commanded to not think for themselves and to just follow the Divine Will at all times, it's almost a totalitarian system. But they abuse this and substitute in their own will, and take on the power of the Prophet for themselves to impalement their own ignorant and irrationalist political will. They just waltz around giving uneducated, bigoted, and intolerant opinions, declaring it the divine will and commanding the death of anyone who disagrees. It's a truly toxic relationship. Islam is not the religion of Muhammad, it's the religion of the scholars, they manufactured the Hadith, and the Koranic chronology which underlies the doctrine of abrogation, in the 2nd century after his death to reform the religion into something that would place everyone subservient to them. They manufactured the intolerant, ignorant religion of they desired in retrospect, picking what they wish and abrogating what they did not, manufacturing isnad and chronology and condemning to death rationalists with their ignorant Hanbali mobs.

I'd also like to point out that the devolved notion of the Ulama in Sunni Islam is only really the case since the fall of the Ottoman caliph, before that the Ottoman caliph more or less organized Sunni Islam and had a hierarchy of Ulama, which he himself abused to declare his own will the Divine will. In Twelver Shia Islam in contrast things are much more organized because religious authority never devolved in the way it did in Sunni Islam.

BTW, anytime someone says "just the sunnah and koran", reminder that you are speaking to a Salafist and to implicitly insert "Ibn Taymiyyah" and "al-Wahabbi" into that list. The Salafists are ignorant bullies who abuse injuctions against sects and the myth of a single united Islam as a bludgeon to force everybody to bow down before their extremely deviant and innovative sect which has numerous reactionary and bigoted opinions never before seen in the history of Islam. It is depressing to what degree they have been successful. The Prophet of Salafists is not Muhammad, it's Ibn Taymiyyah, the way they waltz around screeching about how they're the only true followers of the Sunnah and everyone else is an apostate kafir worthy of death blindly following traditional madhab, while they themselves bow their heads low to Ibn Taymiyyah in all matters, citing his Fatwah with greater authority than Koran, is truly a joke.2601:140:8900:61D0:7D5D:5138:8396:3B07 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have tried to improve the article. Considering the disputable POVs, I have presented information in a neutral way. The main issue was of the definition of Ulama itself so I have created an "Etymology" section which is the most appropriate section and quite helpful for definitions of the word upon which the entire article is based. Here I have presented both the Arabic as well as the widely interpreted meaning of the term. The connection to religion within the Arabic term and the other term not confined to religion and only based on science is focused. At the last section, "Controversial aspects," I have also explained that it is equally important to check the context in which the term 'ulama' is being used because that defines the word itself. Other editors are encourage to provide other reliable sources and content to improve the article. Should you feel the need to discuss for change or improvement please reach me on my talk page. Pixarh (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. "History" and "Functions and requirements" can be worked upon to improve better. Pixarh (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add original research to wikipedia. Your cited source made no mention of this difference in the religious/scientific definition of the word alim. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 17:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Very logical. This is why the concluding lines were summarizing what was listed above anyway. Nothing new was added there. Pixarh (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those lines were not summarizing the material cited. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and improve this article. Even if I took the hypothetical viewpoint of an Islamic scholar, I would consider large parts of the article as representing blatant, uninformed propaganda. In its current form, it is a disgrace to a community which, over the centuries, has contributed far more to the advancement of science and education than we may imagine from what is going on in many countries today, and from what is sometimes written in Wikipedia. From my point of view, the article has to be rewritten almost from scratch, and furnished with reliable and relevant information. Any of those who discussed this ten years ago still alive and kicking?--HajjiBaba (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section does not provide any information about the usage of the word in the Quran. There is no quotation provided. Instead, the modern interpretation of the word "alim" is discussed i.e., that a modern definition of "alim" might include other scholars and scientists as well. How could this help our understanding of the ulama? I've therefore deleted the section.--HajjiBaba (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HajjiBaba: There's a case for mentioning some philosophical controversies as they impacted the ulama, but we shouldn't give the impression that the term ulama normally includes the falasifa. In particular, Hourani doesn't include philosophers in the chapter The Culture of The Ulama. Lapidus' A History of Islamic Societies has a good discussion of the differences between the cultural milieus represented by the ulama and philosophers. Eperoton (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, Eperoton and btw thank you kindly for your edits. Actually, I have relied largely on Hourani (2013 pb. ed., section "The part of reason", p. 75 as cited in the references). Admitted that the philosophers' and ulama's social and intellectual milieus were only partially overlapping. However, a brief look at the reception of Aristotlean and neo-platonic philosophy by Islamic scholars (who, for most parts, had gone through the traditional alim's education) will help understanding al-Ghazali and his influence on Islamic scholarly reasoning (his "restoring of the faith") after 1200 AD. However, I'll try and adapt the section.--HajjiBaba (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, al-Ghazali is quite relevant here (for his influence on the attitude among later ulema both to philosophy and to Sufism). One could say that Ibn Rushd and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi straddled both worlds, and of course Hellenistic philosophy had further reverberations among Shia thinkers. We just want to keep things in perspective. Eperoton (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By your edits, you've found an excellent way of solving the issue you've raised earlier. Thanks!--HajjiBaba (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The designation makes some sense in the Ottoman context, which perhaps influenced the word choice used in the source, but as a general statement I believe it's misleading and doesn't reflect the vast majority of RSs. To the extent that the author meant it as a general statement, I would argue that it is WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the definition, I think we should give substantial weight to standard academic references:

• The Ulama entry in EI2, which says that the term "denotes scholars of almost all disciplines ( lug̲h̲a , bayān , ḥisāb , etc. [q.vv.]). However, the term refers more specifically to the scholars of the religious sciences ( faḳīh , mufassir , muftī , muḥaddit̲h̲ , mutakallim , ḳāriʾ etc. [q.vv.])"
• The Ulama entry in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, which is cited, but not really reflected: "The Arabic term ulama [...] refers to Muslims scholars specializing in the Islamic religious sciences."
• The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: "By implication, one is an ʿālim on account of particular religious knowledge (the Qurʿān, the ḥadīth, and fiqh or religious law) [...] This textual background has always connoted specifically religious knowledge, either in the sense of gnosis or in the sense of knowledge of exoteric religious law."

Currently, we're giving excessive weight to rather marginal sources, e.g., the Rowman Altamira encyclopedia, which is written by a single author with no academic credentials, the book Islam and Modernity, whose author and publisher I'm not familiar with, and the paper on Ottoman ulema where the tagged expression comes from. Eperoton (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are still as they were (and have remained so for almost ten years...) before we started our edits from this version. As the re-edit goes on, I plan to include more appropriate references. The sentence about ulama being the "aristocracy" of Islamic society does not even make sense for the Ottoman Askerî, so I've deleted it without further ado. The introduction, in particular, awaits a thorough re-edit. So far, I've only deleted some parts of the text which did not make sense and rearranged the rest to create some text which is readable and not altogether wrong.--HajjiBaba (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. Eperoton (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulama. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607054813/http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf to http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf

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) 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]