Focusing on the three jurisprudential issues of "temporary marriage (Nikah mut'ah), heretical divorce and women's inheritance", Madelung in his article entitled “Shiite attitudes toward women as reflected in figh" has studied some of the differences between Imami and Sunni jurisprudence, as well as disagreements between Shiite sects and their origins and areas. Madelung, relying on historical method, considers the theological debates and historical contexts of Shiite and Sunni opposition as the main source of their conflicts in women's jurisprudential issues, and discusses the dissimilarity of the women status in these two perspectives.
This research, using historical, hadith and jurisprudential sources, as well as descriptive-analytical method, reveals criticism directed at the content and methods used by Madelung in his article. In this study, first Madelung's views and documents are explained, then the content of the documents is examined, by evaluating the document and the meaning of hadith and historical documents, and in the last stage, methodological critique is presented. Based on the research findings, Madelung considers the status of women in Imami jurisprudence higher than that of Sunnis. In his view, this is not due to the positive attitude of Shiites towards women, but the result of their belief in the high status of Fatemeh Zahra (PBUH) and the right of Ali (AS) caliphate, as well as historical opposition to the second caliph (Umar). In terms of content, there are criticisms as follows: ignoring the Shiite theological system, a purely historical approach to the teachings of Shiite jurisprudence, and overlooking the documents of jurists in jurisprudential issues, especially in the field of women's jurisprudence. In this case, the Madelung method is examined. Criticisms can be leveled at his method, including references to non-original sources, a selective approach to the use of sources, citing undocumented content, and finally providing conflicting analyzes.