Talk:Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya)
Jump to: navigation, search

Dates, bias[edit]

A lot of the dates are based on the Hijri calendar. For a wider understanding, CE dates should also be added.

Furthermore it is well-known the Imam Ibn Taymeeyah and Ibn ul Qayyim are not the most popular of scholars particularly among those who call themselves sufis. Reference should be given to their thoughts and quotes especially under sections such as "What scholars think of him". In its current state the article is exclusively praiseworthy.

I reverted to the newest version that wasn't a copyvio. An anon had replaced the whole article with a straight cut-n-paste from [1]. That is not only copy violation, it is also pietistic, non-encyclopedic material. Zora 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I can type the Arabic. But how do I insert it? Thanks - Beauty123

I agree about the bias. (Although I very much admire this personality.) I'd like to work on a more 'encyclopedic sounding' article with better style. - Beauty123


Quadell reverted me. Why?

--Striver 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Because adding a fatwa about masturbation, when no other fatwas are mentioned, is an odd choice. What's the point of including it? If it must be included, it belongs on Wikiquote instead. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration standard[edit]

I've added the arabic, and edited the intro biography abit, getting rid of the oo-oo's and the ee-ee's common to modern salafi transliteration. After looking at many of the arabic titles, I think that a standard system should be used. May I suggest the Library of Congress system of transliteration? Wilis.azm 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to contact the other Arabic-speaking editors (Mustafaa, Pepsidrinka to an extent, others I don't know) and get them to sign on. Is the LOC the standard academic transliteration? I'll need to do some investigation as to how one specifies a transliteration standard for Wikipedia. Otherwise, it sounds like a good idea to me. Zora 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

More complete section of books by Ibn al-Qayyim[edit]

I want to add a more complete list of books written by Ibn al-Qayyim. Any objections? ZaydHammoudeh 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling of the name[edit]

I hate to be a nagger, but the name is misspelled. It should be Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. The word Qayyim means "Dean" or "Priciple" like that in a school system. The word Jawziyya is the name of a school, so Al-Jawziyya is "The Jawziyya school." He was the son of the Dean of that school which means he is Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya - "The son of the Dean of the Jawziyya school." Ibn Al-Qayyim has a different meaning than this. --Abu Mahdhoorah 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To Reiterate... his name is Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya not Ibn Al-Qayyim. Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawzee is another scholar. The name should be changed. --Abu Mahdhoorah 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the proper name in is Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. You can see the full explanation here: Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya is grammatically correct, but does not accurately describe his father as the caretaker of that particular school. Excerpt: "caretaker of Al-Jawziyya. The word qayyim in this case is NOT a sifah. Qayyim here is ma'rifah and adding "Al" would be wrong. Ths would be Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and it is correct grammatically. the one who looks after Al-jawziyya. Here Al-Jawziyya is the maf'ul bihi (governed one) of qayyim. Since by virtue of the idhafah it is not ma'rifah, adding "Al" to the beginning is appropriate." Someone could see about change the page title. Meelash (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Needs to be NPOVed --Striver 10:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the POV Views. It should be fine at the present. As for deleted birht references, these information are already sourced in the two books. They are true References not external links. As for the sufism link, as ZaydHammoudeh said, Not subtantial poor link author's name is not even given. Just his first name. That is not reliable. --Islamic 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Islami, i do not know what books you are refereing to, make proper references, and we can skip the external link references. You know, use <re_f></re_f>. And dont just blindy revert my edits. --Striver 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Both references have the dates. Also, I have justified evey edit I made so please don't blidly revert. Bring it to discussion. --Islamic 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
WHAT references? Could you PLEASE be explicit? Pretend i am stupid, i DO NOT GET IT. --Striver 09:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Biography and Al-A'lam by Zerekly. As for the other changes, I have explained each edit. So please stop your blindy reverts. --Islamic 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hardly view it as you have explained anything. I don't view "rv POV edit" as an explnation. But i thank you for the biography, i will us it as a reference instead of the AA article in the places that it is possible, since you prefer it so. --Striver 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say this article still has serious NPOV issues, needs massive editing to make it sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like an obsessive hero-worshiping paean to Ibn Qayyim. Parts of it also sound like they are copied out of some old-school Muslim scholars' reference. ~~jackbrown

The following is pov

Because of their views, both the teacher and the student were persecuted, tortured by tyrannic rulers, and humiliated in public by the local authorities, as they were imprisoned in a single cell in the central prison of Damascus, known today as al-Qala.

Faro0485 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glaring factual error about his views[edit]

I recently noticed a glaring factual error while looking at his views on Sufism and the subject of his book "al-Wabil as-Sayib". Apparently someone got on here and claimed not only that ibn Qayyim was an "endorser" of Sufism, but that al-Wabil as-Sayib was about it. I almost thought this was a joke at first, as anyone who has read the book knows it has nothing to do with Sufism and anyone who is familiar with ibn Qayyim's works knows that he bashed Sufism. I edited the separate page for that book and this page needs to be edited to reflect the truth now as well. I'll post my reasoning from the other article here as well:
I really am shocked at the incredible disinformation that appears in this short little article. An endorsement of Sufism? Are you kidding me? Did the person who wrote this article even read the book? I am not sure if my Arabic font will work here on Wikipedia, but i'll try my best:
ومن علامات تعظيم الامر والنهي ان لا يحمل الامر على علة تضعف الانقياد والتسليم لامر الله عز وجل بل يسلم لامر الله تعالى وحكمته ممتثلا ما امر به سواء ظهرت له حكمته او لم تظهر فان ظهرت له حكمة الشرع في امره ونهيه حمله ذلك على مزيد الانقياد والتسليم ولا يحمله ذلك على الانسلاخ منه وتركه كما حمل ذلك كثيرا من زنادقة الفقراء والمنتسبين الى التصوف فان الله عز وجل شرع الصلوات الخمس اقامة لذكره واستعمالا للقلب والجوارح واللسان في العبودية واعطاء كل منها قسطة من العبودية التي هي المقصود بخلق العبد فوضعت الصلاة على اكمل مراتب العبودي
He is actually heavily criticizing Sufis when he writes:
وتركه كما حمل ذلك كثيرا من زنادقة الفقراء والمنتسبين الى التصوف
He is accusing followers of Sufism of being heretics and people who downplay "enjoining the good".
27 كتاب الوابل الصيب، الجزء 1، صفحة .
Volume one on page 27.
To verify I had a friend of mine who is a native Arabic speaker search this book and not only was it not about Sufism, it only contained one mention of it in the whole book; and not only did it contain only one mention of it in the whole book, but it mentioned it in a negative light. You can even see the disinformation in the supposed reference cited to support the claim, which is here:
This link is just a commercial link to a website where you can buy the book. It also summarizes what the book is about for the potential reader, which, surprise surprise, isn't Sufism.
Further more, ibn Qayyim was known in his day as a very harsh basher of Sufism so I really don't know what the editors who put this article together were thinking. This is absolutely unacceptable for a public encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and for the sake of the readers this has to be changed. If anyone takes issue with what i've written here then I invite you to buy the book and look through it, preferably in the original language (get a Middle Eastern friend to help you with that), and see that what i've said here is true. MezzoMezzo 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it is quite possible that whoever inserted the information had not consulted the book itself but had referred to particular websites discussing the book. ITAQALLAH 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very possible, perhaps I was getting a bit too worked up. It was just rather shocking to me. I've just noticed some other issues with this article as well, under the subsections for his views on the Shia and Sufis. For Sufism, under the false claim that he held a positive position toward it, there were three links:

  • The first one was just a link to a general site on Sufism and was completely irrelevant to the person this Wikipedia article is about.
  • The second article is a little more deceptive, as it is from The article is another more general defense of Sufism, which in passing mentions ibn Qayyim and ibn Taymiyyah, claiming that several books they wrote which were known to be about other subjects and criticized Sufism in what mention they did make of it were actually books endorsing Sufism. This comes as no surprise, as is a site that is known for intentionally posting factually and historically inaccurate material, even fabricating several pieces they have on their site.
  • The third article is a commercial one advertising that it sells the book mentioned above; not only is it not an appropriate reference but I think that also counts as a commercial link as well.

Lastly, the link under the views on Shiism subsection which claims that he hated the Shia is a totally unrelated link about nikah mu'tah. The subsection is about ibn Qayyim's views on nikah mu'tah and not the Shia position on it so I don't see what that reference is supposed to support. While I am not opposed to having a subsection for his views on the Shia - I always think that the views of historical figures enhances their articles - a wild claim and vaguely disguised insult backed by an unrelated source just doesn't make the cut. I am still shocked after seeing how a well known site such as Wikipedia has users posting such inaccurate information. I hope we can manage to improve on this more in the future. MezzoMezzo 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

a lot of Islam-related articles, especially articles like these, are indeed factually inaccurate and there is quite a lot of work to be done in that regard. i agree that isn't a reliable website. there should be a good amount of academic material available on Ibn al-Qayyim which i will try to get hold of. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to know i'm not the only one on the lookout for references and things like that. MezzoMezzo 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


"He was of the opinion that Nikah Mut'ah was prohibited at the first time by Umar" - This is a lie, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya do NOT hold this view and he did not say this in his bok Zad al Maad. Just another Answering-Ansar manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that does look a bit funny to me as well. It's been a while since i've checked out Zadul Maad but from what I remember, that doesn't sound correct. Unfortunately, the site Answering-Ansar is well known for distortions and, in a few cases, outright lies on many books and individuals. I'll check this out when I get the chance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
After having a fellow editor of mine kindly look in to it, it does indeed appear that Ibnul Qayyim did not hold that view and did not say it in his book Zadul Ma'ad. I hope he doesn't mind, but part of the discussion is here. On top of that, it seems odd that his position on mutah of all things would be posted here - i've read Zadul Ma'ad and there is a plethora of issues in there, many of which are given much more attention and detail than that. That is was included seemingly for no reason, and was wrong for that matter, almost seems like a stealth pushing of Shi'a POV, which i've seen in a number of odd places in articles on past Islamic scholars. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add paragraph of two on his views about the treatment of non-Muslims[edit]

I have just read an article "Eavesdropping on Radical Islam" by Emmanuel Sivan (Middle East Quarterly, March 1995, pp. 13-24), where Sivan writes,

Belhadj finds time for theological polemics on Christology. In his typically pithy style, he concludes that in the future Islamic Algeria, their status will be in conformity with a fourteenth-century treatise on dhimmis by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, a most restrictive interpretation of the rights of non-Muslims.

So I look here to finds what Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya's interpretation of the rights of non-Muslims is. And find nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

hagiography not scholarship[edit]

this article is pure hagiography and does not comply to standards of scholarship - it is more than a bias which has been noticed before - but then people like Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya have become popular points of reference these recent years...could someone please be so kind and write a proper biography?Theo Corner (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ibn Qayyim and Ansari[edit]

I added a paragraph on the appreciation that Ibn al-Qayyim had for the Hanbali Sufi Khwaja Abdullah Ansari. This was removed almost immediately without proper discussion. Hence I have added this to the talk section. I have provided references for this paragraph from the following papers: by Livnat Holtzman by Livnat Holtzman by Ovamir Anjum
Michael Fitzgerald and Moulay Slitine, The Invocation of God (a translation of Al-Wabil al-Sayyib min al-Kalim al-Tayyib), Islamic Texts Society.

This I believe is sufficient in validating the information added. (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion wasn't required when it was removed, because you weren't using reliable sources; rather, a proper discussion is required for you to add such unsupported material. Which you have done here so the matter is closed, but you should review WP:IRS before making such statements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?[edit]

The section "Sunni View" seems to have been copied and pasted almost word for word from the book "Diseases Of The Hearts And Their Cures" by Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah translated by Abu Rumaysah (Daar us-Sunnah Publishers), p. 134 - p.135 (please see In addition to Daar us-Sunnah being a publishing house existing solely to promote a certain sectarian POV that declares those with other views as non-Muslims, the text is copyrighted material and should therefore be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

There are reliable academic sources for the Sunni view on Ibn Qayyim such as the works of Livnat Holtzman and Jon Hoover. I will research these and replace the copyrighted material above. RookTaker (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section from reliable sources such as Caterina Bori and Livnat Holtzman and removed all copyrighted material from dubious sources.RookTaker (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


The article currently contains a brief note about Ibn Qayyim's imprisonment without any references / sources. The text of the sentence is rather vague. I have therefore removed the sentence and created a new section entitled "Imprisonment" with some more detail. I have used as my source for this section two academic essays by Livnat Holtzman. and — Preceding unsigned comment added by RookTaker (talkcontribs) 12:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

ISBN missing[edit]

For the citation

ed. Nizam al-Din al-Fatih, Madinah al Munawara: Maktaba Dar al-Turath, 1990.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet.


1. We need the bibliographical information in its original characters (i.e. its native language);

2. On WorldCat, I found only one entry for the editor, but his name was specified as "Muḥammad Niẓām al-Dīn Fatīḥ", not "Nizam al-Din al-Fatih"

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

information in "Natural sciences" not backed by source[edit]

The "Natural Sciences" section (I've changed the name to Astrology_and_alchemy) stated that Ibn Qayyim was "an astronomer and chemist", and that he "recognized that the stars are much larger than the planets". But the source, (Livingston, John W. (1971). "Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: A Fourteenth Century Defense against Astrological Divination and Alchemical Transmutation". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 91 (1): 96–103. JSTOR 600445. doi:10.2307/600445. ) says nothing about his being a "an astronomer and chemist" or understanding that planets were smaller than stars.

He is quoted as saying that Mercury is the "smallest heavenly body", but if he "recognized that the stars are much larger than the planets," ahead of all other astronomers, he doesn't seem to have understood that the Moon was smaller than Mercury. (I suspect by what was translated as "heavenly body" he meant planets, and was referring to Mercury having a smaller apparent magnitude than the other planets known to astronomers at that time.)

As a consequence I have edited that section to conform with the source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)