Talk:Ulama

message: 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)
thread_title: Incorrect Translation!

message: 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)
thread_title: Links

message: Ulema → Ulama – Ulama is a more common transliteration.
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support as nominator. Although it remains dubious whether ulama really is the more common transliteration, I'm going to go out on a limb as say it is (with Google results backing that up). joturner 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (2006)

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Blatant Islamisation of Wikipedia  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Improving the article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2017 

message: 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)
thread_title: Usage of the word ''‌‍‘alīm'' in the Quran

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Sounds good, thanks. Eperoton (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Partly aristocratic" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress