Talk:Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari/Archive 1

Bias View in this articles
I'm concerned the status of this articles which is not representing the famous views amongst muslim, rather selected view of Salafies as per pointed out in history section, the link to salafi publication website his highly concerned on the basis of the nature of salafi views which rejecting anyone else views. Adyabdul (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand your concern, what you've inserted is even more POV.


 * First of all, you changed the "Views" section to "Views of Salafis" even though the views of Salafis aren't contained in there. All that section has is one paragraph that contains the views of a Western person, one section that contains al-Ash'ari's own views which happens to be cited by a Salafi website, and one paragraph sourced by work from a Muslim that is not Salafi.  It is quite obvious from reading the section that it is not the viewpoint of Salafis, so I don't know why you changed the title to that.  It is very obvious that that section isn't he point of view of Salafis.


 * Second of all, you created a section for the view of "Sunnis". This is extremely POV on your part, as Salafis ARE a kind of Sunni, just like Sufis or any other group.  Please check the Salafism article - this is highly POV on your part.


 * Third of all in that section, you openly claim in your version of the article that what you've inserted is more accurate than the so called "Salafi view". I want to ask you this honestly, and please answer this question: do you really think that is being neutral?


 * After answering that, here are my suggestions, and please understand that since Wikipedia works by consensus, that you can't simply shout other editors down and get your way. The sources you've added should stay as another point of view, but the factually incorrect comments on a Westerner, a non-Salafi, and historical information being "Salafi views" must be removed.  Second, the claim that the information you've inserted is more accurate than other information needs to be removed.  I believe this is an acceptable compromise.  Please let me know what you think. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I accept your comments on title changes on View of Salafies and Ahl Sunnah, however, the statement that Al-Imam actualy adopted Athari creed still POV, it is much accurate to shows both of the views. First we need to acknowledge the contraversial here,

1) Salafies claims that Al-Imam adopted athari creed and Al ibanah is the last book

2) Ash'ariyyah claims that Al-Imam and his student teaching Ash'ari creed and Al Ibanah is amongst the first from his departure and somehow tampered, not GF Haddad allegation only, and definately not sufi!

To make this articles more accurate, i'll state both opinion in same weight. Arent you agree? Adyabdul (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the View, so it will be in the same non POV non bias views, let stay this way okay. Adyabdul (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I corrected some grammatical stuff and removed honorifics per WP:MOSISLAM. Other than that, your edits look fine.  I think we can consider this one resolved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise to Allah.. Agreed Adyabdul (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth
Your lack of honesty is appalling. If your concern were the word 'orthodoxy' you could simply edit that word instead of continuing to blank my entire edit. Your choice of anthropomorphism is hardly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please mention your POV's here and try to resolved it on talk page first. Please follow the above example. Oniongas (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias
Supertouch has shown extreme bias with respect to this article. It is unfortunate that he decided to reword entire sections of this article to try and further his view that all Asharis are non-Orthodox. As such, I have reverted the changes to provide a more balanced view on tihs subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob lockett (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your persistent lack of honesty is astounding. Were this your true complaint with my Dhahabi quote you could simply edit the word orthodox - something I have actually done myself in an attempt to reach common ground. Looks like you have taken lessons from your master al-Kawthari... Supertouch (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont edit the article till you reach to consensus on talk page. Please go through WP:3RR, WP:CONS, WP:DR, WP:FAITH. One more revert and you will be reported as Vandal to admins. Oniongas (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As I was simply reverting the article to how it has remained since the edit war I don't think the one more revert rule should apply to me. Supertouch (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is you who has been dishonest. You claim that "Were this your true complaint with my Dhahabi quote you could simply edit the word orthodox - something I have actually done myself in an attempt to reach common ground." You did not remove the word Orthodox - it is still their in the article, if you were to actually read it:

"Salafi writers claim that toward the end of his life, al-Ash'ari adopted the creed of orthodoxy"

and in another quote

""A section of the people (i.e., the Thahirites and other orthodox people) "

I understand that you are trying to put forward the creed of the salafi sect but this does not give you the right to claim that the sunnis are not Orthodox which you necessarily imply with the above statements.--Rob lockett (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:37 September 9, 2009 By Supertouch in which I made my comment "Let's be mature..."

Retraction of Previous Position
-	Salafi writers claim that toward the end of his life, al-Ash'ari adopted the creed of affirming the attributes that Allah affirmed for himself without interpreting them, affirming that Allah 'rose above his throne' and possesses a 'face' and 'hands' as mentioned in the Qur'an though not similar to anything in creation. The renowned historian, Al-Dhahabi said of Ashari: "I saw four works of Abu al-Hasan relating to theological fundamentals in which he mentioned the principals of the school of thought of the early scholars, the salaf, pertaining to the attributes. He said in each of them, 'We leave them as they are,' and then saying, 'This is my position by which I practice my religion and they are not to be interpreted upon other than their apparent meanings.'" Al-Dhahabi then quoted Abu al-Hasan, in Abu al-Hasan's book entitled 'Al-'Amd fi al-Ruyah,' listing the books he authored, saying the following, "... And a book about the attributes, the largest of our books, in which we contradict what we had previously authored in correcting the Mu'tazilah school of thought. Other Muslim authors, however, dispute the historicity of this; and believe that his work, al-Ibaanah, was tampered to suit the orthodox school of thought.

The first place was were I did edit it and it was you who changed it back to orthodox as the History section clearly shows. Although, you are right in one regard, I did only change it in one of the two places. Supertouch (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
The main problem with this article is that it has a strong salafi bias. Consider the following quotes: "Salafi writers claim that toward the end of his life, al-Ash'ari adopted the creed of orthodoxy," "Other Muslim authors, however, dispute the historicity of this; and believe that his work, al-Ibaanah, was tampered to suit the orthodox school of thought."

The above quotes imply that the salafi sect is orthodox and all others non orthodox. This clearly compromises the impartiality of the article.

Further, references to works such as al-Kawthari should be included as al-Kawthari is a classical scholar whose works are accepted by the majority of Sunni Islam. --Rob lockett (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can take this step by step. Here is my proposal for a first step:

Retraction of Previous Position Some scholars hold that Abu al-Hasan entered a third phase in which affirmed Allah's attributes as mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah without interpreting them in a manner contrary to their apparent meanings. The renowned historian, Al-Dhahabi said of Ashari: "I saw four works of Abu al-Hasan relating to theological fundamentals in which he mentioned the principals of the school of thought of the early scholars, the salaf, pertaining to the attributes. He said in each of them, 'We leave them as they are,' and then saying, 'This is my position by which I practice my religion and they are not to be interpreted upon other than their apparent meanings.'"[14] Al-Dhahabi then quoted Abu al-Hasan, in Abu al-Hasan's book entitled 'Al-'Amd fi al-Ruyah,' listing the books he authored, saying the following, "... And a book about the attributes, the largest of our books, in which we contradict what we had previously authored in correcting the Mu'tazilah school of thought.[15] Other Muslim authors, however, dispute the historicity of this; and believe that his work, al-Ibaanah, was tampered to suit his opponents. They also refute the claim that al-Ibanah was his final book. The scholar al-Kawthari states:
 * Al-Ibana was authored at the first of his return from Mu‘tazilite thought, and was by way of trying to induce [n: the Hanbali literalist] Barbahari (d. 328/940) to embrace the tenets of faith of Ahl al-Sunna. Whoever believes it to be the last of his books believes something that is patently false. Moreover, pen after pen of the anthropomorphists has had free disposal of the text—particularly after the strife (fitna) that took place in Baghdad [n: after A.H. 323, when Hanbalis ("the disciples of Barbahari") gained the upper hand in Baghdad, Muslims of the Shafi‘i madhhab were beaten, and anthropomorphism became the faith (‘aqida) of the day [16]]—so that what is in the work that contradicts the explicit positions transmitted from Ash‘ari by his own disciples, and their disciples, cannot be relied upon [17].

This is borne out by hadith master (hafiz) Dhahabi[18], as well as Ibn ‘Asakir’s Tabyin kadhib al-muftari.

As you can see most of my changes are to the first paragraph. As for the second I say this: without a doubt you quote of al-Kawthari contains clearly biases terms and titles - Hanbali literalist, anthropomorphists, and your claim that Ash'ari are Ahlu sunnah. I object to these terms on the same grounds that you object to my aligning Salafiya with orthodoxy. Also, your claim that this was 'borne out' by al-Dhahabee is unacceptable as it is unsupported by the quotation you are citing. That quotation actually seems to indicate that al-Ibaanh was in fact one of his latter works as is mentioned by the editor in a footnote (yes, I am well aware that he used the passive verb tense in stating this, hence my use of the word indicate. That being said, seeing that the head editor of Siyar is of the Asha'ri persuasion, this footnote should be accepted as unbiased support for the claim that al-Ibanah was of his last works.). In addition, you seem to be only vaguely aware of Ibn 'Asakir's position and not have his book in front of you. While it seems likely that he was in support of your claim, a specific reference is necessary.Supertouch (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob Lockett Revisions
You did more than just change the word 'orthodox', you removed the 'well referenced' quotes from al-Dhahabi. Please let us maintain some amount of honesty here as dishonesty will do nothing to further your agenda. Here is a comparison of my and your edits:

Retraction of Previous Position
Salafi writers claim, however, that toward the end of his life al-Ash'ari adopted the anthropomorphic creed, even affirming that Allah literally 'rose above his throne' and possesses a literal "face" and literal "hands" as mentioned in the Qur'an. Orthodox Muslim authors however, dispute the historicity of this; and believe that al-Ibaanah was tampered to suit with the anthropomorphist school of thought.

Retraction of Previous Position
Salafi writers claim that toward the end of his life, al-Ash'ari adopted the creed of orthodoxy, affirming that Allah 'rose above his throne' and possesses a 'face' and 'hands' as mentioned in the Qur'an though not similar to anything in creation. The renowned historian, Al-Dhahabi said of Ashari: "I saw four works of Abu al-Hasan relating to theological fundamentals in which he mentioned the principals of the school of thought of the early scholars, the salaf, pertaining to the attributes. He said in each of them, 'We leave them as they are,' and then saying, 'This is my position by which I practice my religion and they are not to be interpreted upon other than their apparent meanings.'" Al-Dhahabi then quoted Abu al-Hasan, in Abu al-Hasan's book entitled 'Al-'Amd fi al-Ruyah,' listing the books he authored, saying the following, "... And a book about the attributes, the largest of our books, in which we contradict what we had previously authored in correcting the Mu'tazilah school of thought. Other Muslim authors, however, dispute the historicity of this; and believe that his work, al-Ibaanah, was tampered to suit the orthodox school of thought.

This clearly illustration that your claim to be doing only minor editing is bogus. Also, your usage of the word 'anthropomorphic' is very clearly biased. If you subsequently edit that portion of the article, I suggest you choose a word somewhere between my choice of 'orthodox' and your use of 'anthropomorphic.' I will attempt to render this a manner that will be mutually acceptable. Supertouch (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above me, some people try to change small wordings that will make people think that if we accept that Allah has "eye" and others things which confirmed in Quraan without likening it to the creation then we made anthropomorphic statement, while it is known that anthropomorphism is made by people who say that Allah has an eye that is just like creation. There is big difference in both statements. The exact reality of "eyes", "shin" and others things he affirmed for HIMSELF is only known by Allah but should not be interpreted to mean something not even in the language of Arabs or what the text is saying.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied material
Per the edits of User:Whpq on the Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani page in which material was removed that User:Rob lockett copied from another website. I realized that this user was doing the same thing on this page. He copied the material he added in his edits from this website: []. It seems obvious that this would fall under the same rule, however, I am hesitant to remove it myself because the outcome of that edit war was that we would discuss matters first on the talk page. It seems that this user's section should be removed without discussion. What do you think? Supertouch (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with supertouch. That website is from Keller who is very known to be part of a sufi order and is very anti-athari school and always try to say they are anthropomorphic even though they refuted is claim along time ago.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Salafi bias
Supertouch is a Salafi bigot, taking Salafi REVISIONIST literature as academic truth and deleting all links and sources that debunk and refute his Wahhabi propaganda. All of the following links expose the falsehood and academic dishonesty of fundamentalist when it comes to classic Sunni literature and scholars:


 * **********


 * Unfortunately, the first of the links you have listed are not considered reliable sources. If you think me biased in saying so, note that a few edits ago I removed a link to a Salafi site for the same reason.--Supertouch (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Supertouch is so obviously a Salafi as you can tell by his ideology charged edits. Trying to promote the ridiculous myth that most Muslim scholars were literalistic like them, even though most scholastic information by specialist on medieval islam (such as *) demonstrates that this is a falsehood.

"Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of a person—as do the Bayaniyya [the followers of Bayan ibn Sam‘an al-Tamimi (d. 119/737)], the Mughiriyya [followers of al-Mughira ibn Sa‘id al-‘Ajali (d. 119/737)], the Jawaribiyya [followers of Dawud al-Jawaribi, (d. 2nd Hijra century)], and the Hishamiyya [followers of Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi, the teacher of al-Jawaribi in anthropomorphism]—is only worshipping a person like himself. As for the permissibility of eating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him, his ruling is that of an idol-worshipper. . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists of Khurasan, of the Karramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelievers because they affirm that Allah has a physical limit and boundary from underneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne (Baghdadi, Usul al-din [Istanbul: Matba‘a al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337)." Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037)

A direct quote from a traditional Imam.

The truth is that NO ONE outside of the 5 small relatively short lived heretical sects (Jawaribiyya,Mughiriyya,Bayaniyya,Hishamiyya,Karramiyya), Ibn Tayamiyyah (and his small band of followers like al-Dhahabi) and a MINORITY of Hanbali jurist believed in anthropomorphism and literalism (even though Imam Hanbali himself condemned both literalism and anthropomorphism).*[]*[]*[]. The Mutzali were not the only ones to criticize it, which is what salafis and ORIENTALIST believe.

Also, the Ashari creed has been the mainstream theology in the muslim world for over a thousand years since Al-Ghazali, so to claim that Al-Ashari later rejected his atomic kalam for a literalist creed (which Supertouch in a bias manner keeps calling "orthodox") is pure nonsense.

And one more thing, Izalat al-Khafa was written by Shah Waliullah, not Al-Ashari nor al-Dhahabi, and the line cited in Supertouch's past edits was not found in Izalat al-Khafa, which reveals Supertouch's bias propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.205.162 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ksweith (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.205.162 (talk)