Talk:Ahmad ibn Hanbal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam / Muslim scholars / Sunni Islam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
 
WikiProject Iraq (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: it was movedjiy (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I am requesting this move because (like with Imam Shafi'i being moved to Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i) this should use the name of the person, not their title. See Talk:Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i for some discussion of this. I realized that such a page name doesn't exist yet so I could just move it... but, I figure this process might be worthwhile. gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw Britannica used "Ahmad" which does seem to be more common and I trust their judgment so I have changed the request... if that fails I still think 'e' is better than what we have now. gren グレン 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Satyadasa 08:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC). Yes, 'a' is a better transliteration
  • Support moving to "Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Ahmad with an "a" is closer to the standard pronounciation. --Yodakii 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a while, I think "Ahmad bin Hanbal" would be better. But either way is alright until we have an official Arabic naming policy. --Yodakii 17:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that may be better for proper reasons... but, I think ibn (is it pronounced bin?) is more often in spellings. Especially in encyclopedias... and for book namings I see that more. gren グレン 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, in standard Arabic, "ابن" is pronounced "bin" between names. I've seen both transliterations used, and if everyone else prefers "ibn", its fine with me. --Yodakii 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major Criticism[edit]

This is not a good article. It is much too long, too detailed and too admiring. I haven't got time to edit it just now. But I will be back!

I agree that the article is somewhat lengthy. I think that the material is all relevant though; I think all that needs to be done is to rewrite it (whilst keeping the information already here) in a more concise form. I do think there are too many red links. Not too long ago, I blued many of them, but an awful lot still remain. Perhaps the section on Hanbali scholars could be made into a separate article if there is enough to write about them. I could be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced that substantial biographical articles on the individual Hanbali scholars could be produced (which is why I'd rather see a separate article lumping them all together). MP (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still too admiring. (2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eq8i (talkcontribs) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More details[edit]

I have a copy of the book whose reference I added to the article. It contains many details about the life of Hanbal and has numerous quotes (well-sourced). I'd like to have a go at a major revamping of this article. We can include a lot more details on Hanbal's opposition to Mutazilaism, interaction with Shafei and other important incidents in his life. Of course, being a book written by a Muslim scholar, we'd have to be careful to pick out the factual items from the POV ones. MP (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Flogged by Al Mansur[edit]

How is this possible if Al-Mansur died about four years before ibn Hanbal was born? (I think it was al-Ma'mun who had him flogged) DigiBullet 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

How frustrating it is to find that the first reference is in Arabic - this is the English WP ! MP (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth[edit]

I have provided many sources to prove that Ahmad was born in Baghdad. To be exact, 7 official and reliable source + 9 web links just in case anyone wants to verify on the web. The original claim (that he was born in Merv) has no sources, yet I come and find that my edit was deleted and the original unsourced claim rewritten. Is this a game or what? How many more sources do I need to prove my tiny piece of information? --Maha Odeh 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. It's worth noting that the other languages (Arabic Dutch, Spanish, French, Русский and Melayu all seem to agree that he was born in Baghdad. Is there a political thing here that justifies changing facts in history that I don't know about? --Maha Odeh 05:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Most scholarly sources say he was born in Marv (I'll add the sources shortly), and something hosted in tripod.com (a personal web page) is not a reliable source, read WP:RS. --Mardavich 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean other than the 7 scholarly sources I provided? Did you actually check them? Don't forget that it seems that the sources that were added by others and the weblinks that were also added by others seem to agree too.
Until you do get more sources that are more reliable than mine (some of which were already sourced in the article, by the way) I'd say we keep it as Baghdad. Besides, why change the name at the begining? Or do you know how Arabic names are said better than everyone else including Arabic sources. You can check Arabic Name to verify. I'll remove the tripod link. --Maha Odeh 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I am adding more sources as we speak, tripod and Islamic websites are not reliable sources. --Mardavich 05:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My sources are:
  1. Ali al-Masudi, Murooj Al Thahab wa Ma’adin Al Jawhar – Part 4 (The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems); known as “He was the first Arab to combine history and scientific geography in a large-scale work”
  2. Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah Part 10, “considered to be one of the most authoritative sources on Islamic history” while he was “a master scholar of History”.
  3. Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat Al A’yan – Part 1, According to Britannica, ibn Khallikan chose "factual material for his biographies with intelligence and scholarship" and this book "
  4. Al-Dhahabi, ‘Siyar A’lam an-Nubala’, which is mentioned in the Article in “further reading”.
  5. Abbad, Abdullah, Usul Mathhab Al Imam Ahmad.
  6. Main source in English is Encyclopaedia of Islam, Part I, page 492. It says in the article about it: “EI is considered by academics to be the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies”
The weblinks include some not-so-trustworthy sources but it also includes some very trustworthy ones. You see, it was very hard to find sources in English. Now, if the two Western scholars did not base their information on the above, I'd say then that there information seems baseless. To be realistic, Are you trying to say that Edward Granville Browne and John Malcolm (whom by the way seem to have had a focus on the overall history of Persia not on the biography of Ahmed + they are orientalists!!!) were able to find an inscription on a stone tablet in Merv that made the claims of four of the most authoritative sources in Islamic history void and null!
This is truely unbelievable. --Maha Odeh 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked up your sources, Browne is not valid because his book is not only not a biography, but also not history, it is "Literary History", i.e., the history of Persian literature; moreover, his lifelong work focus on two things, the Baha'i faith and Persian literature, both irrelevent to the matter at hand. Malcolm's book, on the other hand, is a history book; however, it is not a biography and I doubt that the birth of one person is going to affect the history of Persian hence it seems unlikely that he mentions it, if he did, it is even more unlikely that he researched the matter before mentioning it because it was probably besides the subject.
Accordingly, I would say that you need to find other sources. Maybe something that is more focused on Ahmed. --Maha Odeh 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

I removed the majority of the contents of this article as it was copied from http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1193& in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether this website is acceptable as a reference is highly debatable in the first place. Supertouch (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious and Unverified[edit]

"This proved to be historically significant, since the Hanbali doctrine remained the only school representing the views of the founders of the other three juristic schools..."

Found in the discussed article, the above sentence implies that scholars after Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not follow the sentiment of their respective schools of jurisprudential thought. This in effect asserts that the likes of Imam Nawawi and Imam Bayhaqi, prominent followers of Imam Shafi, did not follow Imam Shafi. It is a dubious claim and should be deleted. If there is no further discussion I will be doing so at the end of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezien (talkcontribs) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate name in the body[edit]

At times, the subject of the article is referred to as "Ahmad," "Imam Ahmad," and "Ibn Hanbal." Imam Ahmad definitely needs to be out as it is an honorific and not his name, so it's a toss up between the last two. I'll agree to either of them as long as it's consistent throughout the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

I expected to find Nimrod Hurvitz, The Formation of Hanbalism, London 2002, under "Further Reading" because this book is cited sometimes. Is there a special reason for not mentioning the book? --R. la Rue (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)