Talk:Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: it was moved—jiy (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting this move because (like with Imam Shafi'i being moved to Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i) this should use the name of the person, not their title. See Talk:Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i for some discussion of this. I realized that such a page name doesn't exist yet so I could just move it... but, I figure this process might be worthwhile. gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw Britannica used "Ahmad" which does seem to be more common and I trust their judgment so I have changed the request... if that fails I still think 'e' is better than what we have now. gren グレン 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Satyadasa 08:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC). Yes, 'a' is a better transliteration
 * Support moving to "Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Ahmad with an "a" is closer to the standard pronounciation. --Yodakii 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it for a while, I think "Ahmad bin Hanbal" would be better. But either way is alright until we have an official Arabic naming policy. --Yodakii 17:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that may be better for proper reasons... but, I think ibn (is it pronounced bin?) is more often in spellings. Especially in encyclopedias... and for book namings I see that more. gren グレン 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, in standard Arabic, "ابن" is pronounced "bin" between names. I've seen both transliterations used, and if everyone else prefers "ibn", its fine with me. --Yodakii 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major Criticism
This is not a good article. It is much too long, too detailed and too admiring. I haven't got time to edit it just now. But I will be back!


 * I agree that the article is somewhat lengthy. I think that the material is all relevant though; I think all that needs to be done is to rewrite it (whilst keeping the information already here) in a more concise form. I do think there are too many red links. Not too long ago, I blued many of them, but an awful lot still remain. Perhaps the section on Hanbali scholars could be made into a separate article if there is enough to write about them. I could be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced that substantial biographical articles on the individual Hanbali scholars could be produced (which is why I'd rather see a separate article lumping them all together). MP  (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still too admiring. (2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eq8i (talk • contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More details
I have a copy of the book whose reference I added to the article. It contains many details about the life of Hanbal and has numerous quotes (well-sourced). I'd like to have a go at a major revamping of this article. We can include a lot more details on Hanbal's opposition to Mutazilaism, interaction with Shafei and other important incidents in his life. Of course, being a book written by a Muslim scholar, we'd have to be careful to pick out the factual items from the POV ones. MP  (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Flogged by Al Mansur
How is this possible if Al-Mansur died about four years before ibn Hanbal was born? (I think it was al-Ma'mun who had him flogged) DigiBullet 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth
I have provided many sources to prove that Ahmad was born in Baghdad. To be exact, 7 official and reliable source + 9 web links just in case anyone wants to verify on the web. The original claim (that he was born in Merv) has no sources, yet I come and find that my edit was deleted and the original unsourced claim rewritten. Is this a game or what? How many more sources do I need to prove my tiny piece of information? --Maha Odeh 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. It's worth noting that the other languages (Arabic Dutch, Spanish, French, Русский and Melayu all seem to agree that he was born in Baghdad. Is there a political thing here that justifies changing facts in history that I don't know about? --Maha Odeh 05:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most scholarly sources say he was born in Marv (I'll add the sources shortly), and something hosted in tripod.com (a personal web page) is not a reliable source, read WP:RS. --Mardavich 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean other than the 7 scholarly sources I provided? Did you actually check them? Don't forget that it seems that the sources that were added by others and the weblinks that were also added by others seem to agree too.


 * Until you do get more sources that are more reliable than mine (some of which were already sourced in the article, by the way) I'd say we keep it as Baghdad. Besides, why change the name at the begining?  Or do you know how Arabic names are said better than everyone else including Arabic sources.  You can check Arabic Name to verify.  I'll remove the tripod link. --Maha Odeh 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am adding more sources as we speak, tripod and Islamic websites are not reliable sources. --Mardavich 05:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My sources are:
 * Ali al-Masudi, Murooj Al Thahab wa Ma’adin Al Jawhar – Part 4 (The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems); known as “He was the first Arab to combine history and scientific geography in a large-scale work”
 * Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah Part 10, “considered to be one of the most authoritative sources on Islamic history” while he was “a master scholar of History”.
 * Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat Al A’yan – Part 1, According to Britannica, ibn Khallikan chose "factual material for his biographies with intelligence and scholarship" and this book "
 * Al-Dhahabi, ‘Siyar A’lam an-Nubala’, which is mentioned in the Article in “further reading”.
 * Abbad, Abdullah, Usul Mathhab Al Imam Ahmad.
 * Main source in English is Encyclopaedia of Islam, Part I, page 492. It says in the article about it: “EI is considered by academics to be the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies”


 * The weblinks include some not-so-trustworthy sources but it also includes some very trustworthy ones. You see, it was very hard to find sources in English.  Now, if the two Western scholars did not base their information on the above, I'd say then that there information seems baseless.  To be realistic, Are you trying to say that Edward Granville Browne and John Malcolm (whom by the way seem to have had a focus on the overall history of Persia not on the biography of Ahmed + they are orientalists!!!) were able to find an inscription on a stone tablet in Merv that made the claims of four of the most authoritative sources in Islamic history void and null!


 * This is truely unbelievable. --Maha Odeh 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked up your sources, Browne is not valid because his book is not only not a biography, but also not history, it is "Literary History", i.e., the history of Persian literature; moreover, his lifelong work focus on two things, the Baha'i faith and Persian literature, both irrelevent to the matter at hand. Malcolm's book, on the other hand, is a history book; however, it is not a biography and I doubt that the birth of one person is going to affect the history of Persian hence it seems unlikely that he mentions it, if he did, it is even more unlikely that he researched the matter before mentioning it because it was probably besides the subject.


 * Accordingly, I would say that you need to find other sources. Maybe something that is more focused on Ahmed.  --Maha Odeh 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I removed the majority of the contents of this article as it was copied from http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1193& in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether this website is acceptable as a reference is highly debatable in the first place. Supertouch (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious and Unverified
"This proved to be historically significant, since the Hanbali doctrine remained the only school representing the views of the founders of the other three juristic schools..."

Found in the discussed article, the above sentence implies that scholars after Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not follow the sentiment of their respective schools of jurisprudential thought. This in effect asserts that the likes of Imam Nawawi and Imam Bayhaqi, prominent followers of Imam Shafi, did not follow Imam Shafi. It is a dubious claim and should be deleted. If there is no further discussion I will be doing so at the end of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezien (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate name in the body
At times, the subject of the article is referred to as "Ahmad," "Imam Ahmad," and "Ibn Hanbal." Imam Ahmad definitely needs to be out as it is an honorific and not his name, so it's a toss up between the last two. I'll agree to either of them as long as it's consistent throughout the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ahmad ibn Hanbal. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070516185823/http://www.islamicawakening.com:80/viewarticle.php?articleID=1193 to http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1193

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of Salafi/Sufi flame wars from wikipedia
I took the liberty of removing these two sections:

Relics
As has been noted by scholars, it is evident that Ibn Hanbal "believed in the power of relics," and supported the seeking of blessing through them in religious veneration. Indeed, several accounts of Ibn Hanbal's life relate that he often carried "a purse ... in his sleeve containing ... hairs from the Prophet." Furthermore, Ibn al-Jawzi relates a tradition narrated by Ibn Hanbal's son Abdullah, who recalled his father's devotion towards relics thus: "I saw my father take one of the Prophet's hairs, place it over his mouth, and kiss it. I may have seen him place it over his eyes, and dip it in water and then drink the water for a cure."Ibn al-Jawzī, The Life of Ibn Hanbal, In the same way, Ibn Hanbal also drunk from the Prophet's bowl (technically a "second-class" relic) in order to seek blessings from it, and considered touching and kissing the sacred minbar of the Prophet for blessings a permissible and pious act. Ibn Hanbal later ordered that he be buried with the hairs of the Prophet he possessed, "one on each eye and a third on his tongue."

As for other traditional reports, al-Dhahabi relates that Ibn Hanbal "used to seek blessings from the relics of the Prophet." Citing the aforementioned report of Ibn Hanbal's devotion towards the Prophet's hair, al-Dhahabī then goes onto staunchly criticize whoever finds fault with the practices of tabarruk or seeking blessings from holy relics, saying: "Where is the quibbling critic of Imām Ahmad now? It is also authentically established that Abd Allāh [Ibn Hanbal's son] asked his father about those who touch the pommel of the Prophet's pulpit and touch the wall of the Prophet's room, and he said: 'I do not see any harm in it.' May God protect us and you from the opinion of the dissenters and from innovations!"

Visitation to the Prophet's grave
When asked by his son Abdullah about the legitimacy of touching and kissing the grave of the Prophet in Medina, Ibn Hanbal is said to have approved of both these acts as being permissible according to sacred law.

Reasons
This is because I sincerely believed that these two sections are indirect refutations against the Salafis who are against such actions due to:

1. There are contradicting reports about the permissibility of touching and kissing the Prophet's grave. If one were to show only the reports that support this action, they also need to show the reports that the close associates and students of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal had never done such things on the prophet's grave. This is a very sophisticated jurisprudence issue that requires a new wikipedia page for further discussion. I believe that putting this section on Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s page will greatly affect wikipedia’s NPOV policy and skewed this articles to purport the image as though Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal supports the beliefs and actions of the Sufis on the graveyards.

2. The Salafis certainly doesn’t oppose to the act of seeking blessings through the prophet’s relics. However, what the Salafis today dispute are the authenticities of the relics that we have nowadays. This is added to the fact that some scholars which are of the Prophet’s descendants, such as Sheikh Mahir Yasin Al-Fahl, a famous hadith scholar from Iraq, had stated that there had been no authentic relics from the Prophet that had survived to this day

With regard to these reason, I removed the two sections above to keep out the flame wars between the Salafis and the Sufis from imposing their view of jurisprudence to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s page and thus affected the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. 175.143.63.236 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This content appears to be properly sourced. If there are alternative scholarly or prominent religious views on this subject, they should be reflected proportionally, as required by NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Counter Arguments
I dont know where's come from. but i have are many undeniable critical sources that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Rahimahullah are staunchly opposed any ideas of Sufism, including the belief of blessing from relics or saints patronage. some attributance that he respected some 'Sufi scholars' are even debatable that there's implied cases from what i have known so far either Ibn Hanbal did not realized those scholars sufism or either sources mistook those scholars that Ibn Hanbal admired & respected as practitioner of Sufism Ahendra (talk 19:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speculative at best - are these neutral sources?
 * No sources provided. Stating ‘undeniable critical‘ is self imposed strengthening of stance 120.18.196.62 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

GF Haddad? Seriously?
GF Haddad and his works should never be cited. That guy was an anti Salafi through and through who had the habit of portraying ancient Islamic scholars through his own view. I understand that one of the users removed articles references from islamicawakening.com due to fear of copyright violation. However, replacing that content with a Sufi oriented content from GF Haddad really affects the NPOV of this page, seeing that this entire page looks like a direct copy from GF Haddad’s website livingislam.org where it portrays Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal as though he’s a Sufi advocate, ignoring the complex relationship that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal held with the Sufis of his time, mainly Al-Harith Al-Muhasibi, where in the end, one fatwa from Imam Ahmad caused the famous Sufi figure to be buried with no more than 4 people attending his funeral.

175.143.63.236 (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Haddad is a prominent religious scholar, so there's nothing wrong with using his book. If some of his views appear to be strongly marked by a particular religious or ideological perspective, they should be attributed per WP:BIASED. The text you removed included citations from multiple sources, and the removal itself was a NPOV violation. Eperoton (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 175.143.63.236 well you are partly right, if those are really copied then needs to be removed.--79.75.61.198 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary things
User:Kansas Bear and User:Eperoton. It is not necessary to mention that he was Muslim in the beginning, as this obvious. Other articles do not use such term. He was also Persian, since he studied and spent time there and have its descent too. Regarding his enormous influence, is a different argument. Let's start with this first of all. Do not try changing the argument or use irrelevant things in order to show what you both did was correct. Thank you.--79.75.61.198 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Muslim jurist is what the sentence says not “Muslim”. And, secondly you have presented NO sources for Persian ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Islamic jurist" would be more to the point: scholar of Islamic law, not just a jurist who was Muslim. I don't see "Persian" or "Iranian" mentioned anywhere in sourced text, so this needs a citation. I see that Melchert writes that Ibn Hanbal "grew up speaking Persian at home", but to call him Persian we need a RS which explicitly calls him Persian. Eperoton (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear good manners would be appreciated and dont throw stones. While Eperoton, thanks for pointing the issue and being clear. The reason for I added is persian is because the article says: Ahmad ibn Hanbal's family was originally from Basra, Iraq, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal died on Friday, 12 Rabi-ul-I, 241 AH/ 2 August, 855 at the age of 74-75 in Baghdad, Iraq.. Also he was born in Iraq. He has just Arab ancetry. So am I not right? Kansas bear is asking for sources, (which i have but can't add them) and the article itself contains things without any surces. Hope that you can help me with this.

Secondly, i agree that Islamic jurist would be better. Thirdly, he was the most (not an) influential and vigorous scholar during his lifetime anyways, that's why i removed that part. Help is needed. Thank you very much.--79.75.51.7 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Kansas Bear good manners would be appreciated and dont throw stones."
 * And with the IPs first response, we see how they are trying to make this personal. Typical.
 * 1. Comment on content not on the contributor, which you have chosen not to do.
 * 2. I see nothing in my response which indicates "bad manners" or "throw[ing] stones", you think you have a case contact an Admin. If I were "throw[ing] stones", I would have mentioned the edit war you have initiated, since 16 November, based on your own personal opinion, but I didn't.
 * "''Kansas bear is asking for sources, (which i have but can't add them) and the article itself contains things without any surces.
 * Actually, Eperoton says the same thing, "I don't see "Persian" or "Iranian" mentioned anywhere in sourced text, so this needs a citation."
 * Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. I, page 272;
 * "Life. Ahmad b. Hanbal was an Arab, belonging to the Banu Shayban, of Rabi'a, who had played an active role in the conquest of al-'Irak and Khurasan. His family, first resident in Basra, moved to Marw with Ahmad's grandfather, Hanbal b. Hilal, governor of Sarakhs under the Umayyads and one of the early Abbasid propagandists. Ahmad was born in Rabi' ii i64/Dec. 780, a few months after his father Muhammad b. Hanbal, who was serving in the army of Khurasan, had removed to Baghdad, where he died three years later." --Henri Laoust --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IP user: I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to add the sources you have. Regarding your statement about other unsourced text, per WP:V, a source doesn't always have to be provided, it just has to exist. However, when unsourced material is challenged, it can only be readded with a citation.
 * I also don't understand your objection to the statement about influence. The article says that he was enormously influential during his lifetime. If you're arguing that this generalization isn't strong enough, what's the point of removing "during his lifetime"? If we establish that a wider body of RSs support a stronger generalization, then we can make it. Otherwise, we have what appears to be a properly sourced statement about his stature during his lifetime and another one addressing his later fame. Eperoton (talk)
 * Guys are you serious? The article is saying that he was born, raised and died in Persia (iraq). Didn't he? Please just answer these question.--79.75.55.233 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You have nothing but your own personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't infer a person's ethnicity in a multi-ethnic area like 8th-century Iraq. That would be WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Kansas, you shut up. Eporoton, are you saying that being Iraqi was the same as Arab i those times? If so, why doesnt it apply for other articles. More wiki users is needed, maybe we should move this conversation to somewhere else, or maybe an administrator need to interfere. Hanbal possess arab ancestry, that's it, but he is persian. The whole article as well as other sources are saying so. Only Imam Maalik, for example, was the only Arab among the founders of these Islamic schools.--79.75.59.26 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please maintain a WP:CIVIL tone.
 * The policy WP:OR states that WP editors can't edit based on their inferences. To state that Ibn Hanbal was Arab or Persian, we need a WP:RS which explicitly makes that statement. There's a strong source cited (quoted above) for the Arab part. If we find RSs which state that he was Persian, we'll have to reflect both these views per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, there's nothing we can change there regardless of what views you or I may hold on this point.
 * If you'd like to expand this discussion beyond the three of us, please see WP:DR for the options. Eperoton (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Typical response from a POV pushing IP. No sources, just their opinion(s) and their inability to accept facts.
 * "Kansas, you shut up."
 * The Formation of Hanbalism: Piety into Power, by Nimrod Hurvitz, page 28;"The second reason is that ibn-Hanbal is of pure Arab stock.''
 * Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane, by S. Frederick Starr, page 151;"Ibn Hanbal was an Arab....."
 * The Rise of Islam, by Matthew Gordon, page 102;"Of Arab descent, Ibn Hanbal was born into the Banu Shayban...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, as I said again, he spoke more Persian than arabic. Typical response from a POV pushing IP. No sources, just their opinion(s) and their inability to accept facts. This is not true. Sources are available and which opinion are you referring to? Why should I just claim this and that belong to a particular ethnicity. Yes, he is of Arab descent, but he is also persian. Can't someone have two or more ancestry. Wasn't he born in Iraq? The article Hanbali itself is saying that he is Iraqi. Other sources say  Imam Hanbal was born in Central Asia to Arab parents in 780. Look as this book too Virtues of the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Volume Two. A guy was born, studied and died in a non-Arab country, and you still claiming that he is fully Arab. He was both. Sources have been provided now. You can do further research. Just type it on google. Eporoton, you are saying that There's a strong source cited (quoted above) for the Arab part, you are right, but what do you mean by arab PART? isn't that referring to his ethnicity only? I understand that you guys do not have the time to do so, but you only have few seconds to undo and to reply me. Again he was both Persian and Arab. Simple. This is not my view.  This is a fact with plently of sources available. Thank you.--79.75.39.92 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We now have multiple sources stating that he was Arab, and that's what the article should say. We also have sources stating that he grew up speaking Persian at home, and we can make that precise statement in the Early Life section. We can't also call him Persian unless we have a RS explicitly making that precise statement. Eperoton (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Gibril Haddad work
@Shadowwarrior8: Regarding this diff, I don't see the "self-published, polemical and primary" issues with Gibril Haddad, an established subject-matter expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 Primary sources issue was not for Gibril Haddad, but for another source. The source isnt self-published, that was a mistake, but the publishing house | Muslim Academic Trust is still polemical; known for anti-Salafi works. Hence the book cannot be considered a Neutral authority on the subject matter.

Its preferrable to ignore these types of works for more reliable academic references. At best, Haddad should be referenced by attributions such as "According to...", "In his opinion.." ,etc. and more preferrably in blockquotes; after referencing academic sources on the subject.

But these sections do not cite any reliable sources and just refer Haddad as if he is the final authority on these matters, giving him UNDUE WEIGHT

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Haddad presents the Sunni orthodox viewpoint, here on the subject of a founder of one of the four Sunni orthodox theological schools, so I am not sure how his perspective constitutes undue weight on the subject. All of mainstream Islam is 'anti-Salafi', if you will, as Salafism is outside of mainstream Sunni Islam. In any case, rather than removing this material, wouldn't a better option be to either support it with other sources, contrast it with alternative viewpoints or simply add maintenance tags noting the need for better balance? Haddad is still a reliable source. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 Maybe Salafism is a heretic sect in your personal view and to various religious groups, but not in Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT.

Maybe Haddad represents "Sunni orthodoxy" in your view and to many of his supporters, but not according to another person. Wikipedia doesnt take sides in contested definitions of heresy/orthodoxy.

As for what you proposed later, I do not object to including Haddad's viewpoint as such (his viewpoint in sections where there are other Neutral, reliable sources arent deleted). But i object to giving him UNDUE WEIGHT

If you can get a reliable, Neutral, source in support of his stance then include Haddad's viewpoint; or include his viewpoint alongside a contesting view, it would be fine. Or if you edit Haddad's views neutrally and then include maintenance tags, it would be ok for one or two sections, but I would prefer to wait for other academic sources.

That being said, the equivalent to what you are suggesting is someone putting Salih al-Munajjid's works and presenting his views as the sole, uncontested views of Ahmad. certain authors maybe reliable in some areas, but violate WP:NPOV in other issues. More reliable, academic sources are needed on these issues. Solely presenting a one-sided view may constitute WP:DISRUPT. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shadowwarrior8:Okay, a couple of points here. For one, please don't assume to know my perspective or that I am pushing a POV (WP:AGF). Secondly, the words "prominent orthodox Sunni" are just verbatim sitting there on the Gibril Haddad page - that is why I linked to it, so you could go and form an opinion based on the evidence, which leads me onto the following question: what makes you think Haddad is not an academic source? He has been a tenured professor of Islamic studies, has 150 ijazas, etc. - just read the lead summary of his profile. He is about as academically grounded as a modern Islamic scholar can be. Moreover, the work in question appears analytical in tone - it contains references to primary works and sources, and then overlays this with analysis, interpretation and commentary. And even if you personally view Haddad as irredeemably WP:BIASED, it still doesn't make him unreliable, especially not in conversation about the founder of a Sunni orthodox school. On the contrary, he is exceptionally well placed to comment. In terms of the juxtaposition you appear to be imagining between mainstream Sunnism and Salafism, I would note that on the 'Salafi' side, if you will, it is very hard to estimate how many Sunnis worldwide have Salafist leanings. Outside of the Gulf I have seen estimates like 5-6% in Egypt, 10% in Sudan, but small percentages. One way or another, it isn't due to overemphasize Salafi perspectives on most Islamic subjects, and it is not neutral to treat mainstream Sunni voices as only valid in the context of contrasting Salafi voices. That is simply presenting a false dichotomy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323

Firstly, I didnt assume anything negative so this whole comment wasnt required. I only reminded over your assertion | here that Haddad represented orthodoxy while salafism represented a non-Sunni heresy.

I didnt say Haddad is unreliable, but that he is known for his Bias. So it would be better to put in a neutral academic, rather than Haddad alone Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shadowwarrior8: Well I apologise if I overinterpreted, but you mentioned my 'personal views' twice and introduced the word 'heretic' in my voice, so I just wanted to clarify that I was speaking purely from the perspective of descriptions that have been reliably attributed to Haddad here on Wikipedia. On the subject of bias, he is clearly identified as having argued polemically against Salafis, yes, but this page is not remotely about Salafis; it is about Ibn Hanbal, and there is no particular reason to assume that his said anti-Salafi bias pervades his each and every opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)