LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CLASSIFICATION NEW SUBCLASS KBP:

A STUDY ON ITS PERCEIVED USEFULNESS AND SUITABILITY FOR ISLAMIC LAW

BY

YOUNIS AHMAD ISMĀ‘ĪL AL-SHAWĀBIKAH

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Library and Information Science

Kulliyyah of Information and Communication Technology International Islamic University

Malaysia

MAY 2005

ii

ABSTRACT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CLASSIFICATION NEW SUBCLASS KBP:

A STUDY ON ITS PERCEIVED USEFULNESS AND SUITABILITY FOR ISLAMIC LAW Younis Ahmad Ismā‘īl al-Shawābikah, Ph.D.

International Islamic University Malaysia, 2005

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived usefulness and suitability of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) Subclass KBP for Islamic Law (IL). The study was done by examining the traditional and modern approaches to IL, investigating LCC Subclass BP treatment and in-house expansions for IL, and providing a brief description for the newly developed Subclass KBP and its treatment for IL. Qualitative techniques including analysis of the literature, OPAC search, and personal interviews were used in collecting the data necessary to answer the seven research questions of the study. The population of the study consisted mainly of 30 cataloguers and head of cataloguing departments (HOCDs) from ten university libraries located in Jordan, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Eight subject experts in IL were also selected on purposive basis from three universities located in the three countries. Ten end users (students) from the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) were also interviewed.

Resources analysis and interpretation indicated that Islamic legal schools laid

down the foundation for a systematic subject-based classification for IL (traditional approach). Modern Muslim legal scholars build on this approach and called for classifying IL on new basis. Muslim information scientists contributed in the classification of IL by adapting, expanding, and developing special schemes for IL. Analysis of Subclass BP for Islam showed that IL was inadequately treated. As a result, libraries applied different in-house expansions. Analysis of Subclass KBP indicated that the new schedule provides better treatment for IL than Subclass BP. In its online format, the new Subclass covers large amount of IL topics, incorporates common law topics in Furū‘ al-Fiqh, which is the largest section of the schedule, uses helpful searching and browsing techniques, and provides special functions and hotlinks to primary and secondary tables. However, the schedule partially respects the traditional approach to IL, especially in the internal arrangement of Furū‘ al-Fiqh.

As for the perceived usefulness of Subclass KBP, results showed that

respondents viewed KBP as partially useful for IL. Fourteen (50%) aspects of usefulness out of twenty-eight were perceived as useful, twelve (43.7%) as not useful, and two (7%) as inconclusive/undetermined. Furthermore, respondents identified thirteen strengths and eleven weaknesses for Subclass KBP.

Finally, respondents supported the opinion that Subclass KBP is suitable for

the classification of IL, although there was a tendency towards applying the schedule with some in-house modifications. Majority of the respondents disagreed with using Subclass BP or currently used in-house applications instead of Subclass KBP. Furthermore, the idea of developing a Subclass KBP substitute was not supported by respondents. Thus, it was concluded that although cataloguers perceived Subclass KBP as partially useful, they confirmed its suitability for the classification of IL. Additional recommendations for the Library of Congress (LC) and other libraries were provided. Implications for further research were also proposed.

iii

ABSTRACT (Arabic)

المستخلص في تصنيف مكتبة الكونجرسKBPالقسم الفرعي الجديد

دراسة لمدى صلاحيته وملاءمته للفقه الإسلامي يونس أحمد إسماعيل الشوابكة2004الجامعة العالمية الإسلامية بماليزيا،

في KBP أساسا إلى اختبار مدى صلاحية وملاءمة القسم الفرعي الجديد الدراسة هذه هدفت

التقليدي الإسلاميالمنهجتحليل من خلال لدراسةوقد أجريت ا. مكتبة الكونجرس للفقه الإسلاميتصنيف

الكونجرس تصنيف مكتبة في BPالفرعي تصنيف الفقه الإسلامي، والمعالجة التي قدمها القسم في والحديث

المعالجة كذلك، وقسم الهذا ام استخدللفقه الإسلامي، والممارسات المحلية التي اتبعتها المكتبات المختلفة في

لأهم الملامح والخصائص التي مختصر الإسلامي مع وصف للفقه KBPالتي قدمها القسم الفرعي الجديد

في جمع البيانات اللازمة للإجابة عن التالية أدوات البحث النوعية ثلاثا من الدراسةاستخدمت .يتميز بها

والثانوية، والبحث في الفهارس الآلية للمكتبات، وإجراء وليةالأتحليل وتفسير المصادر : أسئلة الدراسة

ثلاثين مفهرسا يعملون في عشر مكتبات جامعية في ثلاث منوقد تكون مجتمع الدراسة . المقابلات الشخصية

إلى ثمانية من أساتذة الفقه الإسلامي في ثلاث جامعات إسلامية وعربية، بالإضافة ،دول إسلامية وعربية

نتائج الدراسة إلى أن أشارت .من طلبة تخص الشريعة والقانون في جامعة الإمارات العربية المتحدة وعشرة

وقد . الإسلامي الإسلامية المختلفة أرست القواعد الأساسية لتصنيف منهجي موضوعي للفقه الفقهيةالمذاهب

التقسيم التقليدي لامي يراعي الفقه الإسلتصنيف بناء منهج عصري إلى الفقهاء المسلمون المعاصرون دعا

المسلمون المعاصرون في تصنيف الفقه من خلال العديد من خطط الببليوغرافيون ساهم كما. للفقه الإسلامي

مناسبة بمعالجةوقد كشفت نتائج الدراسة أن الفقه الإسلامي لم يحظ . والتعديلات الأخرىالخاصةالتصنيف

لتصنيف تعديل هذا القسم إلى فردية، لجأت، وبمجهودات المكتبات وأن العديد من ، BPفي القسم الفرعي

يغطي جدولا مقننا يمثل KBP النتائج إلى أن القسم الفرعي الجديد أشارتكما . موضوعات الفقه الإسلامي

من الجدول الأكبروتحتل فروع الفقه القسم . قدرا كبيرا من موضوعات الفقه ويجمعها في مكان واحد

إلى فروع وتقسيمات القانون المدني بالإضافةى الفروع والتقسيمات التقليدية للفقه الإسلامي لاشتمالها عل

أن الجدول الجديد لا يراعي المنهج التقليدي الإسلامي في التحليلوقد تبين من خلال . الوضعي ذات الصلة

وبالنسبة .هذه الفروع يتعلق بترتيب موضوعات فروع الفقه وفصل العبادات عن فيماتصنيف الفقه وخاصة

أظهرت نتائج الدراسة أن المفهرسين يرون أن الجدول صالح جزئيا، الإسلامي،لمدى صلاحية الجدول للفقه

وأن مفيدة، جانبا من الجوانب التي اختبرت فيها صلاحية الجدول كانت 28من بين %) 50 (14 أنحيث تبين

كما. مافائدته تحديد مدى علىم يكن المفهرسون قادرين ل%) 7(جانبا كانت غير مفيدة، واثنتين %) 43 (12

يتعلق وفيما .لهلجدول، وإحدى عشرة نقطة سلبية ل أربعة عشر نقطة إيجابية إلى أن هناكالمفهرسون أشار

لتصنيف الفقه الإسلامي كما ملائمبمدى ملاءمة الجدول للفقه الإسلامي، أيدت النتائج الرأي القائل بأن الجدول

به من المفهرسين أظهر ميلا نحو استخدام يستهانوعلى الرغم من أن عددا لا . ه مكتبة الكونجرسطورت

أن الأغلبية الساحقة استبعدت فكرة الاستمرار في استخدام القسم إلاالجدول بشئ من التعديلات المحلية،

وهكذا يمكن . بديل للجدولويرتطكما أن غالبية المفهرسين لم تؤيد فكرة . التعديلات المحليةأو BPالفرعي

iv

صالحا بشكل جزئي إلا أنهم أكدوا ملاءمته لتصنيف الجدولالقول بأنه على الرغم من أن المفهرسين اعتبروا

الدراسة ومعطياتها، تم تقديم مجموعة من التوصيات لمكتبة الكونجرس نتائجوفي ضوء . الفقه الإسلامي

. د من المجالات التي تصلح لإجراء المزيد من الدراسات كما تم اقتراح العديالأخرى،والمكتبات

v

APPROVAL PAGE

The thesis of Younis Ahmad Ismā‘īl al-Shawābikah has been examined and is approved by the following:

______________________ Yushiana Mansor

Supervisor

______________________ Ahmad Bakeri Abu Bakar

Internal Examiner

______________________ Yunus Soualhi

Internal Examiner

_______________________ Mumtaz A. Anwar External Examiner

________________________ Mohamed Ridza Wahiddin

Chairman

vi

DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own investigation, except where

otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit

references and a bibliography is appended.

Name Younis Ahmad Ismā‘īl al-Shawābikah

Signature:…………………………………… Date:…………………………………

vii

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

Copyright © 2005 by Younis Ahmad Ismā‘īl al-Shawābikah ALL rights reserved Library of Congress Classification new Subclass KBP: A study on its perceived usefulness and suitability for Islamic Law. No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder except as provided bellow. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may only be used

by others in their writing with due acknowledgment IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print or electronic)

for institutional and academic purposes The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in retrieval system and supply

copies of this unpublished research if requested by other universities and research libraries.

Affirmed by Younis Ahmad Ismā‘īl al-Shawābikah ------------------------ ------------------------ Signature Date

viii

DEDICATION

TO

ALL THOSE WHO ARE WAITING FOR THE REBIRTH

OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

TO

MY FAITHFUL WIFE AND FIVE SONS

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to tackle the task of thanking the many individuals who have been so helpful to me in the preparation of this dissertation. My sincere gratitude is to main supervisor Dr. Yushiana Mansor and the chairman of my Doctoral committee, who has been a constant source of invaluable advice from the genesis of this work. Her door has been always open, and she has provided answers to all my questions on all occasions. I am especially grateful to Dr. Ahmad Bakeri Abu Bakar, Dr. Noor Harun AbdulKarim, and Dr. Yunus Soualhi for their valuable comments and helpful assistance in study design and methodology. I also wish to extend my special thanks to Dr. Husam Muhammad Sultan al-‘Ulama, dean of libraries deanship of the United Arab Emirates University and Mr. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Teniaji for their valuable assistance and support. I also wish to thank the following members of the libraries deanship who supported my work: Tahir al-Sharif, Ahmad al-Hafiz, Ali Abdullah Du’alah, and Ahmad Taha. I am also very thankful to Qasim al-Khalidi, head of cataloguing department of Yarmuk University library and Sister Balqis Shuja’, head of cataloguing department of IIUM library for their valuable assistance. Finally, I owe a deep appreciation to my family for their unwavering support, patience, and encouragement.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iv Approval Page vii Declaration Copyright Dedication

viii ix x

Acknowledgments xi List of Figures xv List of Tables xvi List of Abbreviations

xxiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Problem Statement 7 Objectives of the study 8 Research Questions 9 Significance of the study 9 Scope and Limitation 10 Definitions 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 17 Overview Library classification theory

17 17

LCC suitability and usefulness LCC suitability for the Arab/Islamic subjects

23 25

LCC suitability for the Arab/Islamic subjects in general 25 Attempts aimed at modifying LCC to certain Arab/Islamic subjects

26

LCC suitability for Islamic religion disciplines 29 LCC suitability for other religions and subjects 31 Summary 34 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35 Study Design 35 Population and Sampling 38 Data Collection 40

Personal interviews 40 Resources analysis and interpretation 45 OPAC search 46

Procedures 47 Data Analysis 51 Verification

52

CHAPTER 4: OVERVIEW OF ISLAMIC LAW AND LCC SUBCLASS KBP

54

Overview 54 Islamic Law: Historical background and legal schools 54

Islamic Law: Historical background 54 Islamic legal schools 57

xi

LCC Subclass KBP 58 LCC: historical background and brief description 59 Subclass KBP: historical background 61 Principles of developing Subclass KBP 62 Features and characteristics of Subclass KBP in its online format

63

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS 72 Overview 72 How do Islamic legal schools and modern Muslim scholars

organize Islamic Law? 72

Classification schemes of early Islamic legal schools 72 Contributions of modern Muslim legal scholars 73 Subject experts and the classification of Islamic Law on new basis

81

Contributions of modern Muslim Information scientists 81 How does Subclass BP treat Islamic Law topics? 87

LCC treatment for religion in general 87 Subclass BP treatment for Islam in general 88 Subclass BP treatment for Islamic Law in particular 89

How do American and Arab/Islamic university libraries apply Subclass BP for the classification of Islamic Law?

90

OPAC search 91 Personal interviews with cataloguers and Head of cataloguing departments

93

Effect of in-house applications on end users 94 How does Subclass KBP treat Islamic Law topics? 94

Contents and organization of Subclass KBP 95 Subclass KBP and the traditional and modern approaches to Islamic Law

97

How do cataloguers, HOCDs, subject experts, and end users in the Arab/Islamic countries perceive the usefulness of Subclass KBP?

99

Respondents’ profile 99 Factors influencing the application of Subclass KBP 102 The perceived usefulness of Subclass KBP 103

How do cataloguers and HOCDs perceive the strengths and weaknesses of Subclass KBP?

127

Is Subclass KBP suitable for the classification of Islamic Law from the perspective of cataloguers and HOCDs?

130

Subclass KBP is totally suitable for IL 131 Subclass KBP is suitable for IL with some in-house modifications

131

Subclass KBP is not suitable for IL 132 Is a substitute for Subclass KBP needed? 132 How and where a substitute for Subclass KBP should be developed?

133

Summary for Subclass KBP perceived suitability

134

xii

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION 135 Overview 135 How do Islamic legal schools and modern Muslim scholars

organize Islamic Law? 136

Traditional approach to IL 137 Modern approach to IL 139 Strengths and weaknesses of the schemes of modern Muslim information scientists

141

How does Subclass BP treat Islamic Law topics? 144 LCC treatment for religion in general 144 LCC treatment for Islam in general 144 Subclass BP treatment for IL in particular 146

How do American and Arab/Islamic university libraries apply Subclass BP for the classification of Islamic Law?

147

OPAC search 147 In-depth interviews with cataloguers and HOCD 148 Effect of using in-house applications on end users 148

How does Subclass KBP treat Islamic Law topics? 150 How do cataloguers, HOCDs, subject experts, and end users in

the Arab/Islamic countries perceive the usefulness of Subclass KBP?

151

Respondents’ profile 151 Factors influencing the application of Subclass KBP 154 The perceived usefulness of Subclass KBP 155

How do cataloguers and HOCDs perceive the strengths and weaknesses of Subclass KBP?

182

Is Subclass KBP suitable for the classification of Islamic Law from the perspective of cataloguers and HOCDs?

184

Subclass KBP is totally suitable for IL 184 Subclass KBP is suitable for IL with some in-house modifications

185

Subclass KBP is not suitable for IL 186 Is a substitute for Subclass KBP needed? 186 How and where a Subclass KBP substitute should be developed?

187

Summary for Subclass KBP perceived suitability 188 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

191

CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTIONS

191 194 198

BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 APPENDIX I (English) 207 APPENDIX I (Arabic) 212 APPENDIX II (English) 217 APPENDIX II (Arabic) 218 APPENDIX III (English) 219 APPENDIX III (Arabic) 220 GLOSSARY 221

xiii

LIST OF FIGERS

Figure no.

Page

4.1 The concept of comparative/parallel classification as applied for classes B and K 63 4.2 The concept of comparative/parallel classification as applied for Subclasses BP

and KBP 63

4.3 An Extract from Subclass KBP in its online format 64 4.4 Scope notes of Subclass KBP in its online format 65 4.5 Confer notes of Subclass KBP in its online format 66 4.6 See references of Subclass KBP in its online format 66 4.7 Hot links to primary Table KBP2 66 4.8 Hot link to secondary Table K4 67 4.9 Display of classification hierarchy in Subclass KBP 67 4.10 Classification numbers surrounded by angle brackets 68 4.11 Link for Table KBP1 69 4.12 Extract from primary Table KBP1 69 4.13 Extract from primary Table KBP2 70 4.14 Link for secondary Table K4 71 4. 15 Secondary Table K4 71 4. 16 Romanised Arabic legal terms 71 5.1 Hanafite Legal School Classification scheme 73 5.2 Mālikite Legal School Classification scheme 74 5.3 Shāfi‘ite Legal School Classification scheme 74 5.4 Hanbalite Legal School Classification scheme 75 5.5 Imāmiyah (Shī‘ite) Legal School Classification scheme 76 5.6 Outline of Abu al-Nur’s scheme 82 5.7 IL in the schedule of the library of the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies 83 5.8 Subdivisions of class L (‘Ibādāt) in Sardar’s scheme 84 5.9 Subdivisions of class N (Law) in Sardar’s scheme 84 5.10 Summary of the IIUM library’s expansion on IL of LCC scheme 85 5.11 Outline of IL in Shawābikah’s adapted translation for Subclass BP 86 5.12 Subclasses of Part II, BL-BX: Religion 88 5.13 Main classes of Islam in Subclass BP 88 5.14 IL topics in number ranges BP140-BP157 89 5.15 ‘Ibādāt in Subclass BP 90 5.16 Synopsis for subclass KBP 95 5.17 Subdivisions of Furū‘ al-Fiqh in Subclass KBP 97 5.18 Summary for the traditional, modern and Subclass KBP approaches to IL 98

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table no.

Page

3.1 A comparison of quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry 36 3.2 Qualitative techniques applied to answer the research questions 38 3.3 Information and statistics about cataloguers and HOCD 39 3.4 Information and statistics about subject experts in IL 40 3.5 Information and statistics about end users of IL collections (students) 48 3.6 Timetable for conducting in-depth interviews 48 5.1 Subject experts in IL and the classification of IL on new basis 81 5.2 Classification numbers assigned to divorce in IL in selected American & Islamic

academic libraries 91

5.3 Call numbers assigned for a book on mortgages in IL by selected American academic libraries

92

5.4 Classification numbers assigned to selected subjects in IL in Zayid Central Library at UAEU

93

5.5 LCC schedules applied by libraries in Jordan, Malaysia and UAE 93 5.6 In-house applications applied by libraries using Subclass BP for IL 94 5.7 Respondents by Gender and job title 100 5.8 Respondents by experience in using LCC 100 5.9 Distribution of respondents by country 100 5.10 Respondents by Skill in classifying IL topics 101 5.11 Respondents by awareness of Subclass KBP 101 5.12 Attending seminars on Subclass KBP 101 5.13 The need for attending seminars on Subclass KBP 102 5.14 LCC format applied by respondents 102 5.15 Factors influencing the application of Subclass KBP 103 5.16 The usefulness of accessibility as perceived by cataloguers and HOCD 104 5.17 The usefulness of accessibility as perceived by end users (students) 104 5.18 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on user satisfaction as perceived by cataloguers

and HOCDs 105

5.19 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on user satisfaction as perceived by end users (students)

105

5.20 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on user satisfaction as perceived by subject experts

106

5.21 Summary for the usefulness of “accessibility and user satisfaction” 106 5.22 Using clear English legal terms 107 5.23 Providing equivalent Romanised Arabic legal terms 107 5.24 Providing necessary scope notes 107 5.25 Using necessary “See references” 108 5.26 Summary for the usefulness of “clarity of terms” 108 5.27 Browsing and searching easily for legal topics 109 5.28 Distinguishing general works on IL from general works on Furū‘ al-Fiqh 109 5.29 Distinguishing general works on IL from general works on the history,

development and application of IL 110

5.30 Subclass KBP treatment for works on Islamic Laws of specific countries 110 5.31 Providing instructions on how to use the number ranges KBP1-KBP190 111 5.32 Summary for the usefulness of “ease of use” 111 5.33 Subclass KBP coverage for IL topics 112 5.34 Uniting IL topics 112 5.35 Providing adequate treatment for non-legal topics 113 5.36 Separating ‘Ibādāt from Furū‘ al-Fiqh as perceived by cataloguers and HOCD 113 5.37 Separating ‘Ibādāt from Furū‘ al-Fiqh as perceived by subject experts in IL 114 5.38 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on the unity and integrity of Islamic studies as

perceived by cataloguers and HOCDs 114

5.39 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on the unity and integrity of Islamic studies as perceived by subject experts in IL

115

xv

Table no.

Page

5.40 Summary for the usefulness of “inclusiveness and comprehensiveness” 115 5.41 Reflecting contemporary scholarship and publication in the field of IL 116 5.42 Enriching and expanding the limits of IL 116 5.43 Facilitating the comparative study of religious law 116 5.44 Effect of Subclass KBP policy of incorporating common law topics on the purity

of IL 117

5.45 Summary for the usefulness of “modernism and innovation” 117 5.46 Respecting the traditional approach to IL 118 5.47 Providing necessary/adequate “Confer notes” 118 5.48 Usefulness of duplicating the number ranges1-190 of Subclass BP 119 5.49 Subdividing legal topics by law school 119 5.50 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on the physical arrangement of IL collections

as perceived by cataloguers and HOCDs 120

5.51 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on the physical arrangement of IL collections as perceived by end users

120

5.52 Summary for the usefulness of “systematic arrangement and relationships” 121 5.53 Subscribing LCC online version 121 5.54 Reclassification considerations 122 5.55 Effect of applying Subclass KBP on library assistants that are responsible for re-

shelving library collections 122

5.56 Summary for the usefulness of “technical considerations” 123 5.57 Aspects of usefulness that were perceived as useful 124 5.58 Aspects of usefulness that were perceived as not useful 125 5.59 Aspects of usefulness that were perceived as inconclusive/undetermined 126 5.60 Areas that were perceived as useful, not useful, or as inconclusive/undetermined 126 5.61 The perceived strengths of Subclass KBP 127 5.62 Coverage of the perceived strengths for the seven areas of Subclass KBP

usefulness 128

5.63 The perceived weaknesses of Subclass KBP 128 5.64 Coverage of the perceived weaknesses for the seven areas of Subclass KBP

usefulness 129

5.65 Selected perceived strengths compared with aspects that were perceived as useful

129

5.66 Selected perceived weaknesses compared with aspects that were perceived as not useful

130

5.67 Answers provided by respondents for the choice of “Subclass KBP is totally suitable”

131

5.68 Answers provided by respondents for the choice of “Subclass KBP is suitable for IL with some in-house modifications”

132

5.69 Answers provided by respondents for the choice of “Subclass KBP is not suitable for IL”

132

5.70 Answers provided by respondents for the choice of “is a substitute for Subclass KBP needed?”

133

5.71 Suggestions provided on “How and where a Subclass KBP substitute should be developed”

133

5.72 Summary for the perceived suitability of Subclass KBP 134

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AALL American Association of Law Libraries ALA American Library Association B Library of Congress Classification main Class for philosophy and religion BC Bibliographic Classification of Bliss BP Library of Congress Classification Subclass for Islam BR Library of Congress Classification subclass for Canon Law BU Library of Congress Classification subclass for the Roman Catholic Church,

The Holy See BX Library of Congress Classification subclass for Protestant Churches CC Colon Classification System DDC Dewey Decimal Classification DS Library of Congress Classification subclass for the history of Asia DSR Locally developed schedule for Iranian history DT Library of Congress Classification subclass for the history of Africa ed. Edition et. al. (et alia): and others etc (et cetera): and so forth HOCD Head of Cataloguing Departments IIUM International Islamic University Malaysia IL Islamic Law K Library of Congress Classification main Class for law KB Library of Congress Classification subclass for religious law KBM Library of Congress Classification subclass for Jewish law KBP Library of Congress Classification Subclass for Islamic Law KBR History of Canon Law KBU Law of the Roman Catholic Church, The Holy See KBX Library of Congress Classification subclass for law of Protestant Churches KF Library of Congress Classification subclass for American law KL-KWX

The law classification for Asia, Africa, and Pacific Area

KUIM Islamic University College of Malaysia LC Library of Congress LCC Library of Congress Classification scheme LCSH Library of Congress Subject Headings n. d. No date OPAC Online public Access Catalogue PIR Locally developed schedule for Iranian languages and literature PJ Library of Congress Classification subclass for Arabic language and literature QD Library of Congress Classification subclass for chemistry S.W.T. Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala (Praise be to Allah and the Most High) UAE United Arab Emirates UAEU United Arab Emirates University UDC Universal Decimal Classification UKM National University of Malaya UM University Malaya vol. Volume

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION♣

1.1 Background

The new millennium witnessed the accomplishment of one of the largest

projects in the history of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC); originally

known as the "Class K Project". In an article titled “Committee on LC Law

Classification Declares Mission Complete", Tillet (2002) wrote:

“With the help of the AALL Advisory Committee on Library of Congress Foreign Law Classification, the Library of Congress has finally completed the "K" classification for legal materials in March after 50 years of development. Under Chair Beacher Wiggins, director for cataloguing and Vice Chair Rubens Medina, law librarian of Congress, the Library of Congress implemented three Subclasses of KB-KBX for religious legal systems within Library of Congress "Class K: Law": KBR, history of canon law, 2001; KBU, law of the Roman Catholic Church, The Holy See, 2001; KBM, Jewish law; and the final draft of Subclass KBP, Islamic Law. Those new Subclasses signalled the end of the law classification development”.

Tillet’s comment signifies that it takes the Library of Congress (LC)

approximately 50 years to develop class K, which is considered one of the largest

classes of LCC. Religious law Subclasses were the latest schedules to be completed.

In January 2001, an experimental, initial draft of the LCC Subclass KBP for Islamic

Law (IL) was available online at the online version of the LCC known as

“Classification Web” (http://classweb.loc.gov). The purpose was to collect

suggestions and comments of users on the new schedule. At the same time, an initial

draft of Subclass KBP, as well as its associated tables and an introduction by Jolande

Goldberg were available for review at (http://loc.gov/catdir/cpso/Subclass KBP.html). ♣ For the equivalent English terms to all Romanised Arabic legal terms in this chapter, see glossary.

2

Moreover, the LC circulated a printed format of the initial draft to several libraries for

the same purpose. The final draft of LCC Subclass KBP for Islamic Law (IL) was

completed in 2002. In 2003, the final draft of the schedule was introduced in the

“Classification Web” for the actual use (See: http://classweb.loc.gov.). Later on, the

LC implemented the newly developed schedule for classifying works on IL materials.

Jolande E. Goldberg, who is a senior cataloguing policy specialist for law

classification at the LC, was assigned the task of developing the new schedule. In her

“Religious law in a secular setting: new classification approaches for Jewish, Canon

and Islamic Law”, Goldberg (2001) explained in detail the methodology followed in

developing the religious law LCC Subclasses. Two strategies were discussed:

parallel/comparative classification and uniform/symmetrical classification for Jewish

and IL. Schwartz (2001) discussed in brief some of the advantages and deficiencies of

the new schedule in her “Library of Congress Islamic and Jewish classification

schedule”.

As for other libraries that are using LCC for the classification of IL, especially

those in the Arab/Islamic countries, the decision on whether or not to apply the new

schedule represents a great challenge for those libraries. Such a decision should be

based on providing answers for many questions. For example, how can Subclass KBP,

which has been developed in the context of class K for law, be suitable for classifying

IL, which has been located in class B for more than 50 years? Is it more convenient

for cataloguers and libraries to apply a new schedule that differs completely from

local practices that have been developed over decades? Are the contents of this

schedule representing the real branches and topics of IL? Can libraries afford easily

the costs needed for reclassification of the old IL collections (in terms of money, time

and efforts)? What are the advantages and limitations of the new schedule that may

3

affect libraries’ decision to apply it? Will end users of IL collections (students) be

satisfied or dissatisfied if libraries decided to apply the new schedule?

These questions raise two important issues: the usefulness and suitability of

the new schedule for IL and the policies adopted by LCC for the treatment of IL. The

issue of suitability of Subclass KBP for IL is of great importance for many reasons.

First, it affects the physical arrangement of IL collections in libraries. Second, it

affects libraries in terms of the costs needed for reclassification of IL collections.

Third, it affects cataloguers in terms of abandoning local practices that they apply for

the classification of IL. And fourth, it affects users of IL collections in terms of

convenience, satisfaction and accessibility. Moreover, the issue of suitability of the

new schedule is related basically to the suitability of LCC and other Western

classification schemes for the Arab/Islamic subjects in general.

The issue of suitability of modern Western classification schemes for the

Arab/Islamic subjects such as Islam, Islamic history, Arabic language and literature,

Islamic philosophy, etc., is a common phenomenon that has attracted the interest of

Arab and Muslim information scholars. According to Mohammad (1991:8), such

schemes are unsuitable because “library science as developed in the west is bound to

reflect the image of Western civilization and ethos. Classification schemes, the rules

of cataloguing, lists of subject headings and other techniques of library science

employed to exploit the available material, all reflect the Western way of life”.

The inadequacy of the treatment of these schemes for Islam was noticed by Abu al-Nūr (1973), Sardar (1979), Momeni (1982) and Khurshid (2002). In a study

conducted for the establishment of a general Arab classification scheme, Abu al-Nūr (1973) critically analysed the treatment of Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and LCC for the Arab/Islamic disciplines, especially Islam. He laid the foundations for what he called the “Arab Classification Scheme” and already

compiled and published two of its main schedules: Islam and education. Sardar (1979) noticed the absence of any Islamic general classification scheme originally

4

developed to reflect the Islamic way of life. Instead, as Sardar indicated, “literature on Islam in particular is carried out by well-known general

classification schemes such as LCC, DDC, Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Bibliographic Classification (BC)”. As a result, Sardar developed his own scheme for Islam. In a study conducted to analyse the adapted translations of DDC in the Middle East Islamic countries, Momeni (1982) noticed that almost

all Arab and Islamic countries adapted and expanded schedules of the Arab/Islamic disciplines in DDC to meet the classification needs of their libraries. He argued that a great deal of literature investigating this issue concentrated on

DDC since it was the first classification scheme to be adopted by the Arab/Islamic libraries. Khurshid (2002) noticed the poor coverage of Islamic and Arabic literature, history, culture, customs, and religion in Western classification

schemes. He argued that this deficiency is attributed to the fact that these classification schemes were developed in the Western world and heavily oriented

towards Western languages and literature, cultures, customs, and religions. Khurshid also indicated that although LCC has relatively better coverage of Islam, Arabic language and literature, and Middle East history, it still lacks

specificity. As for LCC in particular, some academic and research libraries in the Arab/

Islamic countries applied the system during the 1970’s. Others converted from DDC

to LCC after large number of American research and academic libraries converted to

LCC in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. In the beginning, no effort was made to adapt or

expand LCC schedules for the Arab/Islamic disciplines. Later on, Sultānī (1995)

indicated several Iranian attempts to adapt and expand LCC schedules for Islam,

Iranian languages and literature, and history. Further information on these attempts is

provided in chapter two, section 2.2.2.

In addition, several Arab and Muslim scholars raised the issue of LCC effectiveness and suitability for classifying the Arab/Islamic subjects. Good

examples are the studies of Suwaydān (1982), Khatīb (1989) and Shawābikah (2001). LCC, as Suwaydān (1982) noticed, is not suitable for classifying the

Arab/Islamic subjects without adaptations and changes. Khatib (1989) confirmed Suwaydān’s viewpoint and listed in detail the shortcomings of LCC schedules for the Arab/Islamic subjects. Shawābikah (2001) indicated that LCC Subclass BP is

suffering several shortcomings and deficiencies that affect its suitability for Islamic religion disciplines. More details are provided for these studies in chapter

two, sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. As for the second issue of LCC treatment for IL, the policies adopted by LCC for

the treatment of IL represent a major critical issue for more than fifty years since the development of LCC Subclasses BL-BX for religion. Schwartz (2001:

497) best described the issue by saying:

5

“Islamic and Jewish Law “has, for years, been the orphan of the Library of Congress Classification scheme. Left without a place of its own it has been either shoehorned into the religion schedules, or set aside in homegrown organisational schemes. In either case access to these materials was often compromised and retrieval difficult”

Schwartz simply analyses the problem by describing IL as an orphan of LCC. Although IL has a great literary warrant, it lacked an adequate place in the

religion schedules and was disciplinary scattered over several LCC schedules. As a result, it was difficult for users to access and retrieve IL materials in

libraries applying LCC. The problem of IL in LCC is basically part of the problem of religious law in general. According to Kuperman (1995), American law cataloguing practices evolved reflecting the perspectives of the Anglo-American legal system. As for

LCC, the result is an almost total bias in favour of arrangement by jurisdiction, since from a Western perspective; laws are issued only by

jurisdictions, not by religious or ethnic groups. Since the publication of the first edition of class B for Philosophy and religion in

1948, up to the development of Subclass KBP in early 2001, the LC complied strictly with this American perspective towards IL. While other libraries using LCC were strictly applying classification numbers assigned for IL in Subclass

BP, or to some extent amending them to meet their local classification needs, the LC has never used Subclass BP for subjects of IL that address commercial,

criminal and domestic relation matters. This is why a large number of bibliographic records for IL created by the LC before 2003 are without call

numbers. Instead, they were assigned the notion “LAW ISLAM”. Similarly, some American academic libraries with large collections on IL such as Harvard Law School library, Ohio State University library, and Arizona State University library follow the same practice and assign IL books class numbers

taken from locally devised schemes (prior to the new Subclass KBP application).

LCC adopted two different policies for the treatment of IL. First, the previous

approach by which general works on IL, Usūl al-Fiqh and Islamic legal schools were

assigned the number ranges 140-157 in Subclass BP for Islam. IL branches were

totally ignored and no place is provided any where in the schedule. The second

approach is the newly developed Subclass KBP in class K for law. Hence, prior to the

new Subclass KBP development in 2003 for more than fifty years, some libraries were

applying the old policy, while others were using different kinds of in-house

applications.

6

1.2 Problem Statement

Since there were no sufficient class numbers for the branches and topics of IL

in Subclass BP before the development of Subclass KBP, general works on IL and

‘Ibādāt were mainly classed in Subclass BP. Works addressing matters of domestic

relations, commercial and criminal law such as divorce, women, public finance,

Islamic banks, etc, were classed in other main classes, especially, law and social

sciences.

Some libraries were using special expansions or adaptations to avoid the

scattering of IL branches in different places. In the light of the decision of the LC to

apply the newly developed Subclass KBP for IL, libraries are now facing a new

challenge and have to decide whether to accept or reject the implementation of the

new schedule. If a decision to apply the new schedule is made, IL collections in

libraries will be located in two main classes: B and K. If a decision is made not to

apply Subclass KBP, libraries will continue using their local practices for the

classification of IL.

Taking into account such considerations, the main problem of this study is to examine the perceived usefulness and suitability of Subclass KBP for the

classification of IL. The strengths and weaknesses of the new schedule will also be analysed. Realising the fact that IL rests in substance and in principle on the

Qurān and centuries of elaborations by Islamic legal schools, the study also aims at linking the new schedule with its historical background by reviewing different classification schemes made by early Islamic Legal schools and modern Muslim

scholars. LCC different policies for the treatment of IL through its Subclasses BP and KBP are examined. Moreover, the effect of LCC treatment for IL through

its Subclass BP on libraries is also investigated.

1.3 Objectives of the study

7

1. Investigate the classifications made by early Islamic legal schools and modern

Muslim scholars for IL.

2. Investigate the treatment of Subclass BP for IL.

3. Examine the effect of Subclass BP treatment for IL on libraries and end users.

4. Investigate the treatment of Subclass KBP for IL.

5. Examine the usefulness of Subclass KBP for IL from the perspective of

cataloguers, HOCDs, subject experts, and end users.

6. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Subclass KBP from the perspective of

cataloguers and HOCDs.

7. Examine the suitability of Subclass KBP for the classification of IL the

perspective of cataloguers and HOCDs.

1.4 Research questions

This study is going to answer the following research questions:

1. How do Islamic legal schools and modern Muslim scholars organise IL?

2. How does Subclass BP treat IL topics?

3. How do American and Arab/Islamic university libraries apply Subclass BP for the

classification of IL?

4. How does Subclass KBP treat IL topics?

5. How do cataloguers and HOCDs, subject experts, and end users in the

Arab/Islamic countries perceive the usefulness of Subclass KBP for IL?

6. How do cataloguers and HOCDs in the Arab/Islamic countries perceive the

strengths and weaknesses of Subclass KBP?

8

7. Is Subclass KBP suitable for the classification of IL from the perspective of

cataloguers and HOCDs in the Arab/Islamic countries?

1.5 Significance of the study

Needless to say, LCC treatment for IL represents a real and crucial

challenge for both cataloguers and libraries applying LCC in the Arab/Islamic

countries. However, a careful review of the literature reveals that no single study

has been carried out to investigate the usefulness and suitability of LCC for the

classification of IL.

Since the development of the new Subclass KBP came as a solution for the

problem of IL in Subclass BP, the findings of this study will provide cataloguers and

libraries with the necessary feedback, advantages, disadvantages, and special features

of the new schedule. Moreover, the findings of this study will assist the LC in

obtaining the necessary feedback on the usefulness and suitability of the new schedule

as perceived by cataloguers in the Arab/Islamic countries.

This investigation may also encourage new attempts to examine other

problems and shortcomings in Subclass BP and may motivate the LC to make a

comprehensive revision of this Subclass if necessary. Moreover, the study will

highlight potential problems of applying Subclass KBP in the Arab/Islamic university

libraries. Furthermore, the findings may:

• Facilitate the process of decision-making by chief librarians, head of cataloguing

departments (HOCDs) and cataloguers in considering applying Subclass KBP.