Talk:Hanbali school

Islam Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

starting from "Al-Khallal" the text should be moved to individal pages.

In the list of scholars Ibn-taymiyyh is mentioned twice - 'King of Hearts81

It appears that in addition to ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Jawzi is also mentioned twice. I think someone should go down the list and make sure there aren't any more repeats...a change in formatting wouldn't hurt either, as it's hard on the eyes the way it is now. I can do it when I have the free time, though it would be nice if someone else could handle that. MezzoMezzo 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Perspective

This article reads very POV, and furthermore it reads POV from a terrorist perspective. --The Lizard Wizard 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) All muslims don't view the world from a terrorist POV.[reply]

Putting aside the matter of terrorism, in any case this is an eulogy, not an article. Tagged as NPOV. -- 212.63.43.180 10:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an article other than the examination of various POV? The labelling as a POV should'nt be used in times of controversy(terrorism and islam), or when an article is problematic to some, it becomes a form of "veto" against a point of view. Only the methodology used by hanbalism should be this "thouroughly" examined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.14.78 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very problematic to say 3% or 5% of muslims are followers of hanbalism, and would like to see reliable references regarding these figures. I would like to note that there is a difference between the school of thought adopted by a state and that followed by individuals within that state. The relation between the two is somewhat complex, as a citizen is not obliged to follow the state's school of thought. But it is undoubted that hanbalism is the fastest growing school of thought with the muslim world.

this article, especially the section on doctrine, has been butchered by some Salafis/Wahhabis... 69.113.7.9 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2cents RE: POV

Clearly it is someone determined to prove a point that has written this article. The article reads too much like a Brochure for the Hanbali Madhab. Perhaps the author feels defensive of the Hanbali Madhab in this day and age of Islam-phobia.... but that is no excuse for language that so obviously carries a POV. I agree that the POV tag should stay on the article until someone can come along and fix the article. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is shockingly biased, and probably longer than it needs to be. I'd recommend a complete re-write. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not biased at all. All it does is inform, it doesnt try to convince anyone of anything. It information is also backed by good sources.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Day to Day Differences

I would be most interested to know the practical day to day differences between this Madh'hab and others of the Sunni tradition. For instance, it is suggested towards the end of the article but not clearly stated that, followers of the Hanbali Madh'hab do not believe that Muslims should play board games like Chess or musical instruments. Is this the case? I think a section on the difference between Hambali followers and the wider Sunni community as it affects modern day Muslims on a day to day basis would be an important addition to this article. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is said that they do not play chess or music has nothing to do with them being from Hanbali madhab but but because they are good followers of Islam. Also it should be noted that music(with instruments) and chess(if it is used as gambling) is forbidden by the four schools of jurisprudence, so it is not only in the habali madhab but it is more stressed in this madhab.

Big time POV problems...and other problems...

I do not believe the map is completely accurate and it looks like someone drew it in Windows Paint. It shows Egypt as majority Hanafi which is not true. There is a sizable population of Hanafis in Egypt due in large part to the Ottomans. However, the majority is Shafi`i. It also shows Sudan as Shafi`i which is incorrect. Sudan is majority Maliki. There are many other problems with the map. Please remove the image from this Wiki entry. It is erroneous.

This Wiki entry also ignores the significant Hanbali populations in al-Sham (Palestine, Jordan, and Syria) and presents Saudi Arabia as the only Hanbali bastion. I don't want to assume, but is this a slap at the Syrian Hanbalis whom the Salafis feel are too Ash`ari influenced?

The Hanbali madhhab was far from "extinction" and did not require Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab to save them. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the Creed of Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab, to assert that the Hanbali madhhab would have died without him is completely fallacious. Many of the Hanbali scholars of Syria, while influenced by Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab and admiring him greatly, would not have ceased to exist as his movement had little impact on the Arab world outside of Egypt (Muhammad `Ali Pasha's war against them from there) and the Arabian Peninsula.

Overall, the article is clearly written from the Salafi/Wahhabi perspective. The Salafi perspective should certainly be known and documented in this Wiki entry as they are, indeed, a school within the Hanbali school of thought, but to make the entire Wiki entry from their perspective only is not right. That's like the Wiki entry on Sunnism being written from the Sufi perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute/Disputed

Some of the language in this article is very dubious/unscholarly in its tone/language. I have come to this article online to look up a term in an Islamic philosophy book and am somewhat disappointed! It reads like a personal treatise or religious pamphlet, for example:

"which represented the first three blessed generations of Islam, untainted with foreign dogmas" - so other approaches are tainted?

or "A scant reading of the Islamic history illustrates that the Hanbalis are known for having an outstanding character, fearlessness and eagerness for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil" - it would have been helpful if this reading - however scant it was - was referenced for all to see!

Considering the NPOV style and lack of referencing, I am unable to check the veracity of this article's content. I suggest that an editor more knowledgeable in the subject remove most of it and start again - it is too long to start going through, sentence by sentence and start correcting/referencing. Pob1984 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Surely there must be criticisms regarding this school of thought? I'm refering to "Islamic Law of Business Organization Partnerships" by Imran Ahsan Khan Nayazee. And in his comparason between the schools, On Page 236:

"A closer examination reveals that the Hanbalis do not apply their principles consistently. In fact, the reader gets the feeling that they have borrowed the forms mainly from the Hanafis and have changed the Hanafi stipuations that were objected to by Al-Shafi'i. The situation is further aggravated when the Hanbali jurist for some odd reason suddenly import a provision of Shafi'i law that one partner can terminate the agency of the other and the partnership may still continue. In reality, this knocks out the concept of contract partnership and participation from their law"

Faro0485 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and erroneous information

There is an issue with the following statement:

"Due to this it is noted that there have been, in comparison to other schools, very few Hanbalis who inclined towards unorthodox views...".

I would disagree with this immensely. There have been a number of Hanbali scholars over the centuries who have held views on aqeedah/creed that were contradictory to the views of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his students. Many of the anthropomorphists within the Sunni Islamic tradition have claimed to belong to the Hanbali school, having taken his views on textualism (or one may say literalism) to an extremity. This phenomenon does not hold true within the other schools. Therefore making this statement biased and erroneous. I will be returning in a few days to remove it unless someone gives reason not to do so. M2k41 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]