Talk:Ibn Hazm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lineage[edit]

Does it really make sense to claim to be Persian in order to identify with Arabs (even if Britannica says so)? Slackerlawstudent 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

While I agree that a giant template shouldn't be the main source of information for an article... that means the article needs to be expanded, not the template needs to be removed. The philosopher template is a standard and it should be at least discussed before it is removed. Personally I could go either way on the issue but User:FranksValli should also weigh in on this since he did most of the work for the template. It is cumbersome for such a small article. I have read many of your complaints on the template's talk page but I still don't believe that removing it without discussion is proper. If FranksValli agrees to have it removed then I will offer no resistance. gren グレン 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that the article needs to be expanded and the template needs to be removed. :) The philosopher "standard" should be removed from every philosopher article. It is useless, ugly, unencyclopedic, and reeks of "baseball card" mentality, where pretty boxes are more important than well-written, in-context prose. I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of articles which use that template suffer for it in terms of prose quality and usefulness. I'm fine with discussing this as much as you feel it merits, but FranksValli is not God. He's just really nice, smart fellow who's put a lot of work into a template that does not belong on Wikipedia, and, more relevantly, does not belong on this article. What pages like this need are work put into improving the content, not into the mechanical motions of making them look like they have more information than they really do by filling them with pretty infoboxes. Polish is useless when there's so little to polish. -Silence 10:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't readd any typos, just alternative style. My issue with your edit is that this is your first time to the article and you just remove the template. Other users have been working on this article and do not necessarily agree with you. FranksValli is not God but that goes both ways. Becaues you do not like the philosopher box does not mean you have a right to remove it. It is not a policy by any means, it is a matter of consensus on the article. The box does have many problems and I would have been very receptive towards a comment on the talk page asking to phase it out. I just find it to be rather rude that you came and removed it and when I asked for time for discussion you removed it again. Do you at least understand my concern? On a project involving many so people it may take time to wait for discussion but it is necessary. There is no policy about the box there is per article choice. You may believe that it has no place on wikipedia but that does not make it so. It is the manner in which you convey your point that is the problem. Please, next time add a message to the talk page first so some discussion can be had on the issue. It makes things more pleasant all around. gren グレン 11:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Becaues you do not like the philosopher box does not mean you have a right to remove it." - Of course I have a right to remove it. Are you saying that I have no right to make edits to Wikipedia articles? That seems rather contrary to the spirit of this entire encyclopedic project, as does your possessive attitude towards articles—especially articles that are so meager in content! I can understand why people might grow overly attached to articles they've slaved over and made into elaborate, full works, but why all the drama over a stub?! Hell, it's almost a substub, seeing that it consists of only two sentences and a short list. Don't the stub tags specifically encourage new people to come to the article and contribute however they can? If you want to lay claim to this article or try to propose a policy saying that people don't have "the right" to do any non-trivial edits to articles without giving a proper waiting period or warning beforehand, then the place to do that is at the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, not on a random article, since it seems like a rather major difference in the way the system works.
"Other users have been working on this article and do not necessarily agree with you." - Nor do they necessarily disagree with me. That's why I made the change to the article: so I can find out. Reverting the change immediately, even before there are any specific complaints with the removal of the box (in fact, you yourself have half-endorsed my change!) means that much fewer people will see the change and be able to voice their opinion on it here on the Talk page. Blind reverts out of fear of trying new things aren't healthy; that's the only reason I reverted your revert, in lieu of any specific complaints regarding the new version yet.
"It is not a policy by any means, it is a matter of consensus on the article." - Consensus is only necessary where there is a dispute. There is no dispute yet, you're just scared that there will be one, and are going out of your way to try to find out if there's any possibility of starting one. Rather confusing. -Silence 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"and I would have been very receptive towards a comment on the talk page asking to phase it out." - That's good. But you should be equally receptive to direct edits to show how the article will look if we do decide to phase it out. If you aren't receptive to both, its your attitude towards editing and article possession that needs to change, not my methods.
"I just find it to be rather rude that you came and removed it" - I wasn't aware that editing Wikipedia articles was considered "rude" these days. I thought it was considered helpful to spend time going up to articles and trying to improve them, even when you don't waste time chitchatting about it first when you don't have any reason to believe that there will be some controversy (which there isn't yet, though you seem to hope there will be one). I won't make that mistake again: editing = bad, not editing = good.
"and when I asked for time for discussion you removed it again." - And you don't think that I found it rude for you to revert the edit without even giving people any time to discuss it? It goes both ways.
"Do you at least understand my concern?" - Of course. You're afraid that I'm not considering this specific article's needs and am just trying to enforce my opposition to the template on a bunch of articles I'm unfamiliar with. However, in making this assumption regarding my intentions, motivations, and behavior, you are not assuming good faith. I perfectly welcome you to question my specific changes to the article, but what you seem to be doing instead is questioning my "right" to significantly edit an article (even when the edit is a good one!), as though I haven't yet earned the privilege to edit any article I want. This seems rather unWikilike to me.
"On a project involving many so people it may take time to wait for discussion but it is necessary." - That's why I'm discussing now. I'm always welcome to discuss a problem after it arises, but I only rarely go to the ridiculous measure of assuming there will be a problem before there is one. It's impossible to predict what people will object to, so the best course of action is just to put your edits out there and wait and see what people think. Which is what I did. But apparently that's not good enough for you, and I need to write up, seal, and stamp in dried blood a certificate clearly detailing in point-by-point fashion exactly what my intentions are regarding a minor edit to an extremely small stub on Wikipedia. Sorry, but that level of preplanning is simply counterproductive. We're discussing now, so start citing specific objections to the edit I made, not to the way I made it in.
"There is no policy about the box there is per article choice." - And if there was a policy, we'd have the right to break it for the sake of this article, per WP:IAR. Common sense matters more than policy.
"You may believe that it has no place on wikipedia but that does not make it so." - Correct. Whether I believe something or not has nothing to do with whether it is true. Even if I believed that this article had a place on Wikipedia, it still wouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. And even if it had a place on Wikipedia, it still wouldn't have a place on a tiny little stub like this.
"Please, next time add a message to the talk page first so some discussion can be had on the issue." - Sorry, but no. Never. I'd sooner die. Thanks for asking nicely, though. -Silence 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my attempt to not assume good faith. You are right that you can do that and you would IAR I just stated my opinion that I did not find it polite. Since I don't care so much about this one way or another I am now removing myself from this discussion. Please make sure that there is agreement on what happens between the users. gren グレン 11:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tahrif[edit]

I will hopefully at some point... but in case I forget or in case someone else would rather do it before I get around to it... Tahrif has a section on Ibn Hazm that is longer than this current article... it could definitely be merged into here. In fact, I think there are Hazm facts around Wikipedia that could help to make this a respectable article someday. gren グレン 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founder of Zahiri madhhab?[edit]

I'd like to know if there's any basis for stating that Ibn Hazm founded the Zahiri movement. As I understand it, he renovated and modifed the Zahiri line of thought significantly enough that he might be justly considered the founder of his own madhhab. However, Ignaz Goldziher identifies the father of Zahiri thought as Abu Sulayman Dawud ibn Ali ibn Khalaf, who supposedly had a following in Iraq well before Ibn Hazm's time (which was called by the name Zahiri, as well as Dawudi). Has Goldziher's portrayal been superceded by more recent scholarship, or should the article be changed? Breadhat 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with ibn Hazam[edit]

The articles are about the same person. As such, these two articles should be merged and anything not included by this main article should be taken from the other one. ZaydHammoudeh 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of works[edit]

I removed the list of works because it was unsourced, contextless and messy. We could use a better version and I'm making this section so it will be easy to find what once was there. gren グレン 08:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

I deleted a large quote. It was not illustrating a point in the article. I think it belongs on wikiquote.S711 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (quote:[reply]

"In an effort to explain sensual matters between man and woman, Ibn Hazm eloquently noted:

I will describe something to you which you may readily enough observe with your own eyes. I have never seen the woman who, happening to be in some place where she senses that a man is looking at her or listening to her voice, does not make some wholly superfluous gesture, remote from her usual habit, or offer some entirely gratuitous remark with which she would otherwise have dispensed, in either case quite at variance with how she was talking or behaving immediately before. I have noticed – and indeed the matter is only too apparent and obvious, and there is no concealing it – that she will take great pains how she articulates her words, and will pay elaborate attention to the manner in which she varies her postures. It is the same with men, as soon as they sense a presence of ladies.")

why[edit]

was the section "views on women" removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.42.203.114 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Spherical Earth?[edit]

Many scholars of Islam held the opinion of spherical earth. Ibn Taymiyyah, although born much later than Ibn Hazm, even claims that there's a Muslim consensus that the Earth is round way back in the era of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (6/586)

Please don't quote me Ibn Baz or Ibn Uthaymeen about the issue of spherical earth, because even they believe in the idea of spherical earth. The only thing is that they believed in the Geocentric Model of the Universe. There's nothing peculiar or traditional about this, since major rationalist scholars, such as Fakhruddin Ar-Razi also believed in the geocentric model of the universe.

However, several Salafis before Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen do believed in Heliocentric model of the universe, such as Jamal Al-Deen Al-Qassimi, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Mu'allimi and Abd Al-Razzaq Hamza in their respective works Dala'il Al-Tawheed, Rissalat fi haqeeqat al-Ta'weel and Al-Qa'id li tasheeh al'aqa'id. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.52.234 (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn Hazm. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ibn Hazm. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn Hazm. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060528210756/http://www.britannica.com:80/eb/article-3449. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ibn Hazm[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ibn Hazm's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EOI":

  • From Moses in Islam: Juan Eduardo Campo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. p. 483. ISBN 9781438126968. Archived from the original on 10 May 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
  • From Taqwa: "Taḳwā." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Augustana. 26 April 2013
  • From Al-Mu'ayti: D. J. Wasserstein, "Mudjāhid, al-Muwaffaḳ ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿĀmiri, Abu ʾl-Djaysh", The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 292–93.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if it might not be the Encyclopedia of Islam (EOI) entry on Ibn Hazm rather than any of the above. It's not open access unfortunately. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Shi'a Islam[edit]

Ibn Hazm doesn't want to worship Allah, and when he discovered that Persian people tried to break into the Muhammadan faith through Shi'a teachings he condemned them.

(I want this point to be highlighted in this article).

16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.45 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.45 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)~

Shi'a[edit]

Ibn Hazm doesn't want to worship Allah, and when he discovered that the Persian people are trying to connect with the Qur'an through Shi'a teachings related to Ali, he condemned them.

(I want this point to be highlighted in the article).

16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.45 (talk) 43.242.178.45 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Influenced?????[edit]

No mention of ibn arabi, ibn sabin, ibn al arif.... 80.31.68.48 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_Hazm&oldid=1207476203"