Talk:Ibrahim ibn Adham

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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Ibrahim ibn Adham is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge[edit]

The articles: Abu Ben Adhem and Abou Ben Adhem are all about the same person so I imagine they should be merged, just leaving the redirects? Nick Watts 11:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there happens to be another article aswell : Ibrahim ibn Adam. It is the same person.

Imranal 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Was a Saint"[edit]

I don't think this is correct usage. Does sainthood in Sufism expire at death? Horrorshowj (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the repeated discussion of his lineage? It's not really that important that it should be brought up again and again... 71.235.75.219 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note re 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention[edit]

There were three problems with this passage -- presently the article's final paragraph:

(1) The internal quotation marks were double rather than single.

(2) There were two quotation marks (both double) rather than one at the end of the quotation; the extra (double) quotation mark had no corresponding opening quotation mark.

(3) Most importantly, the quotation garbles the poem it quotes and paraphrases in a crucial way, using the phrase "whom love of God has blessed" twice rather than just once. The poem being partly quoted, partly paraphrased by the Convention describes Ben Adam/Ben Adhem/Bin Adham as NOT one of "those who love the Lord" -- that is the phrase that is supposed to be used in the first instance. But then, upon learning that Ben Adam (however spelled) is one who loves his fellow men, the angel returns with Ben Adam's name at the top of the list of those "whom love of God had blessed."

The quoted passage appears to have been copied and pasted from the on-line source:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1901/proceedings/1901_proceedings_vol1/day2.html

The unnecessary closing quotation mark, with no corresponding opening quotation mark, appears there. Also, the passage as it appears in the on-line source likewise uses the phrase "whom love of God has blessed" twice rather than just once. Thus, the error appears in the on-line source. However, I question whether what appears on-line is an accurate rendering of the official record written in 1901, much less of what was actually said, simply because it completely bungles and blows the entire point of the passage!

I have already corrected the first two problems, but I did not take the liberty of correcting the third. Ideally, further inquiry would reveal that the on-line source is itself in error. However, perhaps it is not, and the error was commited 109 years ago. In that case, I would recommend using the corrected phrasing, in brackets to indicate the modification.

Without the correction, the passage is utterly pointless. It would be better just to cite the poem and make no mention of Alabama.

66.32.14.139 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]