Talk:Sunnah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Top-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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Removal of sig from article[edit]

There was a signature, "Salim Elhaj", at the end of this article. I removed it, since Wikipedia articles have no single author: anyway, I don't think Mr. Elhaj would necessary want to attach his name to a text that anybody can modify, and that could potentially say something he disagrees with later. Googling for the text of the article turned up no hits, so it appears that Mr. Elhaj added the text to the article himself. I'm still a bit worried that it was plagiarized, though --- maybe someone should take the time to rewrite it. --Shibboleth 21:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PBUH[edit]

I have some problem with this appearing in a Wikipedia article. For one, it is obscure to those who are not Muslim (it is an abbreviation for "Peace Be Upon Him" and is said by the devout after each reference to Muhammad or another major prophet; an equivalent is SAS, which is a transliteration of the same words in Arabic); secondly it has the appearance of an endorsement of Islam by an encyclopedia (as does capitalization with regard to the titles of Jesus, such as Our Lord, the Son of Man, the Only Begotten Son of God, etc. imply an endorsement of Christianity). I feel that I have quite a bit of respect for the Islamic faith for an outsider (likewise the Jewish faith) and don't want to start something just to start something, and I'm not about to edit this without leaving this here to be pondered for some time (and may well do nothing even then) but wanted to throw it out there. Rlquall 23:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Muslims are not obligated to follow the Sunnah, they are only encouraged and strongly recommended. As opposed to the Quran which they have to abide by, the Sunnah are the actions of the Prophet (pbuh). As the Prophet (pbuh) was a perfect man, Muslims liked to imitate his doings, they will not be punished for not imitataing him and therefore it is not obligatiry for a musilm to follow the sunnah, though recommended. The Quran, on the other hand, is the word of God, and muslims must not stray from the Quran's path, therefore to be a good muslim, Musims must follow the Quran, the sunnah, hadith and other being additions that are strongly recommended for Muslims to follow. Doge120

To British readers, "Muhammad (SAS)" looks strange, since the initials SAS have many meanings in English. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sunnah Hardcopies, online texts etc.[edit]

Shouldn't there be information informing the reader where they can find copies of the Sunnah? The article on the Hadiths actually gives references on the Hadiths and how to find them. This isn't so with the article on the Sunnah. The external links, here, simply go to more information on where to read the Hadiths. Thanks MPA

-Most oi the Sunnah is taken directly from Hadith. Any account of Muhammad from the Sahabi are included in Hadith, and if one would give references or lists of Sunnah, then they'd have a huge list and would probably cite certain Ahadith for each. I'm sure there's probably some text you could find that would group the Sunnah like that, but it's not like one of the six major collections of Ahadith, and it would take a LONG time to make it complete and thorough.

Categories of Sunnah[edit]

Could someone please add a section (or link to to a separate article) on different categories of Sunnah such as Sunnah Mu'akkadah and Sunnah Ghair Mu'akkad. And also include examples of Sunnah (e.g. salah, sadaqah etc.). Zunaid 09:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Muslim_sunni is lying as usual... All these web-site belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, who are NOT mains stream Sunnis[edit]

Muslim_sunni, I am NOT the web-master of Sunna.info or Qibla.us - NOR - I have EVER attempted to insert ANY hidden links to ANY Wahabi web-sites. I have NEVER contributed to ANY Wahabi web-sites. Period. I am NOT a Wahabi but a mainstream Sunni whose family is Sunni for CENTURIES.

If you want to learn about the reality and tactics of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, please feel welcome to read this research report by The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) which concludes: At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors. (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf). To learn more about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, please, visit these links:

Here is the list of most of the web-sites which are owned / managed by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP group or their sympathizers or followers:

McKhan

Absolutist rejection of hadith and sunnah: Neutrality?[edit]

I don't like the forcefulness and phrasing used in this section. First of all, I know this article is supposed to be neutral and I know that it's a small nothing compared to everything else. But with each of those ayat there are different translations that can be used which also make sense. Also, the usage of the passage is directly revalent to how the meaning is interpretted. For instance, it might say that the Prophet isn't meant to protect misguided from Hellfire when speaking of his duty as a messenger. The capitalization isn't necessary, either. I don't have much time, but I'll cite one translation:

(from article) 5:99 "The messenger (Mohammad) has NO function EXCEPT delivery of the message."

(Shakir translation) 5:99 "Nothing is (incumbent) on the Messenger but to deliver (the message), and Allah knows what you do openly and what you hide."

Although others might dispute translators, translations, etc., I can't really look up any other translations at this time.

And "Qur'an Alone Muslims uphold only one sunnah: the Qur'an."?!? That is SO not neutral.


(I'm removing that last part about upholding only one trodden path, atleast, and changing the caps. I think the section should be removed as a whole, only stating in the article that there IS a faction of Quran Alone Muslims, not their reasons for being so. I suppose something similar could, and maybe should, be said about altering the traditional viewpoint of Sunnah.)

--MercMetal 7:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Z -6:00

This type of thing seems to be getting out of hand. I think people forget that the reason we are here is to write a general-purpose encyclopedia, not to espouse or force our particular viewpoint on the reader. This is not confined to any one segment of the Muslim population though, if you read any article objectively, you can tell the built-in bias of the writer in the way the article or section is presented in order to give it a certain slant. A lot of this article breaks several policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) by trying to conduct an analysis of the verses or sayings revealed, and by not providing reliable references for the statements made (indeed, for the entire article). It seems to be endemic to Islam-related topics that people always provide an interpretation or selective quoting of revelation, instead of reporting on others' interpretation of revelation as is required by the aforementioned policies. Zunaid 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting the neutrality aside, this whole section is glaring original research as the inferences drawn from the quotations cited can only be done through secondary or tertiary sources - not by us as WP editors. I have therefore removed this section. → Aktar (talkcontribs) — 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

fiqht[edit]

I noticew that one of the subheadings has the word "fiqht" in it (NB the "t" at the end.) I don't know much about terminology, but I see there is a word "fiqh" to do with this and I wonder if the spelling "fiqht" is a mistake. I don't know, so I haven't changed it: perhaps someone can check this. Boleslaw 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)DB

Male Circumcision[edit]

What has the Sunnah/Hadith got to say about Male Circumcision? Is it compulsory or just stonrgly recommended practice in Islam? Any quotes and other necessary citations to support this topic? --Fantastic4boy 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct Wikipedia Usage for Muhammed.[edit]

Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Islam for correct Wikipedia usage of Muhammed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSISLAM#Muhammad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talkcontribs) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh time travel??!![edit]

Correct if im wrong or reading this sentence wrong

"The tradition of recording sunnah was an Arabic tradition, and once they embraced Islam they brought the tradition to the religion[1]. The specific Sunnah of the Prophet was emphasized and singled out by the caliph Umar b. ‘Abd al-’Aziz in the beginning of the 1st century"

But how could this caliph have done anything relating to mohammed in the 1st century considering mohammed aint born till sometime in the 600's..Eleutherius (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: If it is not a mistake, then it means 1st Century Hijri, instead of C.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.176.205 (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed unsubstantiated statement[edit]

I removed the following statement from the introduction: "This is in contrast to the hadith, which contains just his words. However, the two doctrines were closely related in the beginnings of Islam." Only a person with absolutely no exposure to even the most basic hadith literature would make a claim of this nature. Supertouch (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Different connotations of the word sunnah[edit]

This article focuses almost exclusively on the connotation which is almost synonymous with the word hadith, however, there are several other connotations as well. In usool al-fiqh and in aqidah it has its own unique meaning. Supertouch (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear[edit]

The allegiance to the tribal sunnah, which had been partially replaced during the time of the Prophet by submission to a new universal authority, and the feeling of brotherhood among all Muslims which had replaced Muhammad's death.

This is not a sentence.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

The present definition is certainly not a universal one- it is not well-referenced either. Quite a few Islamic scholars like Javed Ghamidi, for example, hold Sunnah and Hadith to be distinct from each other - and Sunnah to be the example of Abraham. Shaad lko (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The following lines in the lead section are certainly not universally accepted:

//The sunnah of Muhammad includes his specific words, habits, practices, and silent approvals:[4] it is significant because it addresses ways of life dealing with friends, family and government.[5] Recording sunnah was an Arabian tradition and, once people converted to Islam, they brought this custom to their religion.//

Firstly, many scholars differentiate between Sunnah and Hadith. Secondly, many scholars state that Sunnah has not at all been recorded but transmitted through perpetual practice. This is the view of Imam Malik, Abu Hanifah and in present times Amin Ahsan Islahi.

Shaad lko (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian friend discussing sunnah[edit]

There is a sunnah on deciding when a married couple should get pregnant. She was talking about sunnah as a code of conducts about marriage and such. Where can I find the typical code of sunnah taught to Indonesian women/men? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Point of Citing Ghamdi?[edit]

This section appears irrelevant to the article and promoting this individual (npov?): "On a different note, according to the Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Sunnah predates both the Quran as well as Muhammad, and is actually the tradition of the Prophets of God, specifically the tradition of Abraham. A broad form of Sunnah was already being practised by the Christians, Jews and the Arab descendants of Ismail, when Muhammad reinstituted this practice as an integral part of Islam. Sunnah and Quran both are equally authentic and the former includes worship rituals like Salah, Zakah, Hajj, fasting in Ramadan as well as customs like circumcision. [12]"

Should it be removed? Missyis21 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Individuals are often cited on Wikipedia to back up statements. You havent really established how is citing someone's work a violation of NPOV? Or are you saying that Ghamidi is not an Islamic scholar? Shaad lko (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This is news to me! On other articles, only "reliable" secondary sources are allowed. Primary sources are generally not acceptable for Wikipedia according to the policy. If Wikipedia policy has changed on this matter, I think it's great... but I doubt it. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

1328101993 Rename.png Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on AbrahamIbrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FGM/Sunat[edit]

I noticed this article does not mention "sunat" or female prepuce removal commonly practiced among Muslim populations in southeast Asia. Is there any particular reason why? See this link (http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/) for a discussion of this topic. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What date was this document written?[edit]

I couldn't find in the article when it was written. Does anyone know or are there any theories? That would be useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogakai (talkcontribs) 05:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)