Talk:Abu Hanifa

Changing his date of birth in Gregorian Calender only
His date of birth in the infobox was 80 Hijri and 699 AD. but as we all know that the difference between Gregorian and Hijri date is 621 or 622 years because our Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) made Hijrat in 622 A.D. so the correct Gregorian date will be 622+80= 702 A.D and similarly his death date should be 150 Hijri or 150+622=772 A.D.

Jat from Sindh
The source which talks about the alleged Jat origin of the subject doesn't mention his ancestors religion, they only say Jat. Also it clearly states that they were from Sindh, why is it being removed? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Because this definitely looks common sense to me. Abu Hanifa was a Muslim; so definitely Jat Muslim is a much preferred link. Still, I think other editors can be opined. @Kansas Bear what do you think of this issue? Regarding Jat/Jat Muslim dispute? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would simply write what the source states. Nothing more. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kansas Bear well, it's not like they are two entirely different things. Jat Muslims are after all a sub-section of Jats, so the link would have been more precise. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove Sindh and Jat link. Your clarification has been answered. His ancestors have not been mentioned as Muslim Jats but only Jats. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sindh or any other link had not been removed. It would be better if next time you actually note what you are reverting. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, simply what's written in source(Andre Wink) is sufficient, you altered it without any reason. His ancestors have been mentioned as Jats from Sindh not Jats of any particular religion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was only moved down. Nothing removed. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Jats were originally Hindus and a group of them became Muslims over the centuries. As per the Jat origin theory mentioned on the page, his ancestors were taken slaves by the Islamic invaders. It's quite possible that his family converted to Islam after that. At what point did the conversions happened, we don't know. Also, this is merely a theory that he was of Jat origin, mentioning a subgroup of Jats is stretching it a little too far.

Origin
Abua Hanifa was Pashtun from Kabul Akmal94 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced and unexplained changes
Wanna explain your unsourced and unexplained changes instead of randomly reverting? Please be aware of WP:CONSENSUS. For example, you added unsourced Arab origin, added Iraq and linked it to the country (not a country by this time), you added several people under "influenced" and "influences" but none of them are supported in the article. You also use "Abu Hanifah" despite the article clearly being named "Abu Hanifa". HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. Kufa is a city in Arabia, and I didn't know Arab must refer to ethnicity in the description. I deleted this.
 * 2. Baghdad is a city in Iraq.
 * 3. Malik was a student of his. But looking back I don't see him in the article, so I'll delete this for now and add a source later. Al-Fudayl is mentioned in the article. The rest are just organized in a consistent manner.
 * 4. I will change the name.
 * I'm a new editor still learning the hang of things. I would very much appreciate if you explain the mistakes in an understatanding way. Yasinzayd (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Thanks.
 * 2. Yes, but Iraq was not a country by then, which you linked it to.
 * 3. There are more than just Malik, please re-check. I accidently wrote "none of them are supported in the article.", but I meant "some of them aren't mentioned in the article".
 * 4. Thank you.
 * If you're looking for explanation, then please refrain from edit warring next time. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

More recent changes
you removed multiple sections and useful well-sourced information. Additionally, the introduction is now worse and fails to conform to other articles of this style (see WP:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles and WP:Manual of Style/Arabic). You also removed the native name, more accurate birth date, children, Arabic module, several individuals from influences (all of whom were sourced), and the entire sections on name and appearance details, as well as citations, grammar fixes, addition of details, and general corrections throughout the article.

For example, Abu Hanifa wasn’t a “Hanafi”; it was a school named after him, which was also removed from notable ideas. He also never founded a “school of theology”; his followers only came to follow the Maturidi school, which came centuries later without him taking any part in the creation of. You also removed details from the introduction, although I admittedly should've wrote "al-Dhahabi named him as…" to make it sound more neutral; either way, simply quoting someone is not bias, and this is done on dozens of articles.

There are also several grammar and romanization mistakes again which fail to conform to the MOS (such as capitalizing the definite article al-, which should be lowercase except at the beginning of a sentence, several words such as “Zūtā”, which should be “Zuta” unless strict romanization is necessary, and dozens of other examples). Additionally, the article returned to non-neutral wording against Wikipedia’s policy, such as “Imam Al-Shafi’i” and “Imam Malik”. (What’s amazing is the introduction says he’s “known reverently as Imam Abu Hanifa”, while using this exact reverent title in the infobox next to it for others. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be neutral? As for titles such as Shaykh al-Islam, these are already indicated to be reverent titles.)

I put a now-deleted citation needed template for some blatantly uncited information in the text (which was kept, yet cited information removed). Also deleted are several citations I put which improved the article, and fixes to other citations already in the article by getting rid of terrible spelling and grammar and adding the template. The infobox went back to using commas, despite infoboxes needing flatlist and plainlist templates for lists. You also removed two entire sections which gave good information: name and appearance, and the text is now rampant with grammatical errors again which I had sorted out.

There are many examples of such mistakes; the article is now worse, less consistent, and doesn’t conform to Wikipedia rules. If you have problems with the article, discuss them here before rolling-back to an old revision without a word of explanation or reasoning, and in the process wiping away hours of work and good changes to the article. The only thing I agree with is shortening the occupations. Yasinzayd (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

AI generated pictures and sourcing
I don't think AI generated pictures should be used in articles, unless they're articles about AI generated pictures. It's difficult or impossible to assess the accuracy of them, and what sources they draw upon, and it comes close to AI-assisted original research. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)