Talk:Ẓāhirī

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  Xareen (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proper Sourcing

message: 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)
thread_title: Music misconception

message: 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)
thread_title: Accurate Delineation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unify terminology 

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

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703102411/http://www.okaz.com.sa/okaz/osf/20060615/Con2006061525519.htm to http://www.okaz.com.sa/Okaz/osf/20060615/Con2006061525519.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312172413/http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/r-i-consensus.html to http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/r-i-consensus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 
# 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)
thread_title:  AhleHadithExpert's edits