Talk:List of Muslim philosophers

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Human_history#Modern_history|modern period]] The anchor (#Modern_history) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Cleanup

The atricle needs reasonable sectioning. I also moved another list fropm elsewhere; needs merging. Mukadderat 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first entry for al-Kindi to a fuller form. This is the shape I would like to see the entire list take. Anybody disagree? Kleinecke 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists were almost identical. I merged them. Kleinecke 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO a list of Muslim philosophers should be just that - a list, arranged chronologically, of Muslim philosophers. In the list I would put the philosophers full name and dates. Maybe ONE word of description (such as Shi'i).

I would be generous about who is considered a philosoper (but I would exclude pure theologians). I would also exclude all collectives and schools from the list. If they must be mentioned I would append a second annotated list. That means merging the two parts of this article into a single list. If I find soem free time I'll try it. Meanwhile - anybody have any objections? Kleinecke 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After investigation I conclude that the entire second half of the article is Persian-oriented which is not bad, but is one sided. I admit to a immense prejudice against Shi'ites (I am definitely a Sunnni infidel) and I do not trust myself to work impartially with Shi'ite material. So I will just ignore the second half. Kleinecke 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Persian orientation, it's just a list. If anything - I don't see why the first few entries are bolded. I'll unbold them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.26.222 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Iqbal was a sunni

Allama Iqbal was a sunni philosopher can any one correct with reference. regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mawlana Faizani.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mawlana Faizani.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mevlana.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mevlana.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mevlana.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Muslim Philosophers and Islamic Scholars

There is a broad and clear line between being a "Muslim Philosopher" and an "Islamic Scholar". Personalities belonging to the latter category should be added in List of Islamic studies scholars or List of modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam.

For all new additions, a reference(of being a philosopher) from a credible source should be provided. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are no early philosophers represented?

Many of the greatest philosophers are missing from this list. I have added Avicenna, but what about Ibn Arabi, Averroes, Al-Kindi, Alhazen? This seems an urgent need. HGilbert (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

@Kleinecke: Hello. I would like to add some more philosophers to the list. I would also like to add some explanation about each philosopher which falls under the category Philosophy. I would be happy to use your advice too. hadi.anani talk

I edited the article once more so that it does not have the problem labeled on the top of the article page, so I am going to remove the label. Hadi.anani (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity

I think this section does not add to the article at all. In fact, the editor is trying to explain how the divisions were done and what references were used, which are not necessary to be mentioned and the readers themselves will understand by checking the references. Removing this section will not hurt the article. Mhhossein (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing tag

@Nikkimaria: Hey, Do you think the tag can be removed now? Hadi.anani did the rewording the article. Mhhossein (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and the lead

Almost the entirety of the lead is cited from Tabatabai, Nasr and Corbin, all of whom collaborated together and were all very pro-Shia. There really ought to be more Sunni perspectives in the lead, because a lead claiming the Shi'ites saved Islamic philosophy, which is entirely cited from Shia sources a bit a dodgy.Bosstopher (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Islamic philosophy gives essentially the same picture as that given here. I have added some references to and content from it. The extensive tagging (three different tags!!!) was over the top and I have removed all of these. The list is essentially in good shape; let's address any problems individually. (For example, what Sunni philosophers are missing? Or what source should be integrated into this?) HGilbert (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lead went into way too much detail about one small theme. I have removed some of the minutiae and repetition. But I think the whole discussion of attributing the flowering of philosophy to the work of the Imams is out of place. This is a list; a brief introductory history is helpful, but speculation about causal relationships seems to belong elsewhere. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this. HGilbert (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tabatabai's ideas about the roles of the Imams, if contained in the lead, should probably be mentioned while describing the philosophies of Tabatabai, Corbin and Nasr themselves. I'm thinking of adding a section on modern Muslim philosophers (including the Nasr, Tabatabai, Corbin group), and then moving the stuff about the persistence of philosophy in Shi'ite Persia at the end of the second paragraph. As for Sunni philosophers missing, I'm not really sure myself although Abduh and co. should probably be talked about in a section on modern philosophers. I just thought it seemed suspect that the lead came across so pro-Shia while being mostly based off of sources from Shia writers. The lead seems much more balanced right now, you've solved a lot of the problems.Bosstopher (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HGilbert Bosstopher. Hello. Thanks to your recent edit the lead is more balanced now. However, I do not think that the view of Corbin and Nasr (whose books are among the most famous histories of Islamic philosophy) on the development of later Islamic philosophy should be omitted from a lead which is going to give us a short summery of history of Islamic philosophy. The same view can be find in Mohammad Sharif's History of Muslim philosophy which I added to the lead's references.Hadi (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the continuing development of Persian philosophy as Corbin's idea makes this seem a controversial question, whereas it seems to me that the existence of Persian philosophers after the twelfth century is quite undisputed today. I would use Corbin as a reference for this but simply state it as a fact, so that the third paragraph would begin

A vivid philosophical activity persisted in the eastern Muslim world, especially Persia, through works of Shiite philosophers such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Mir Damad, and Mulla Sadra.<ref>[[Henry Corbin|Corbin]], ''History of Islamic Philosophy''</ref>

What do you think of this? HGilbert (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but to English-language/western readers who are not so familiar with Islamic philosophy, I thought, it might not be a matter of fact. Hadi (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full name / short name

The formatting of the full and short names is inconsistent and unsatisfactory. Any ideas? HGilbert (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HGilbert. feel free to edit it yourself. Hadi (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

Dear Anders Feder. Hello. I have seen your good work on Islam articles, so I thought you may have the time to help improve this article so that it could be nominated as a good article. I guess it would need some copy editing. What do you think? Hadi (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Muslim philosophers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Muslim philosophers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Abul ala maududi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revise this entry

This is a very clumsy article. The desriptive column duplicates information that appears elsewhere and renders the article vitually unreadable, especially on a phone. I strongly suggest this column should be deleted and the article be made to look like the article on Scholastic philosophers. BevRowe (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]