Talk:Al-Taftazani

Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 02:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Publication years?
If he is born in 1322, the publication years 738 (his first work written at age sixteen) to 789 of his books seem wrong. Actually, they seem exactly 600 years off. Or are these years of the Islamic calendar? --dagonet (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The publication years are hijri years. --Polysynaptic (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. --dagonet (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

background

 * Elias John Wilkinson Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, Volume 1, London, 1900. excerpt from pg 202: "..the next work in Turkish poetry is versified translation of Sa'adi's Bustan or 'Orchard' made in 755 by the great and famous Persian schoolmen Sa'd-ud-Din Me'sud-i-Teftazani."


 * Gerhard Endress, An Introduction to Islam, translated by Carole Hillenbrand, Columbia University Press, 1998. excerpt from pg 192: "Death of Sa'ad al-Din al-Taftazani, Persian historian and philosopher at the court of Timur"
 * Allen J. Frank, Islamic Historiography and "Bulghar" Identity Among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia, Brill, 1998. excerpt from pg 83:One of the most curious aspects of the Tawarikh i-Baghdadiya are the repeated references to the great Persian theologian Sa'd al-Din Taftazani (1322-1389), who did in fact associate with Timur.

Also he was born in Khorasan region of Iran in the village of Taftazan:


 * Halil Inalcik, "The Ottoman Empire", Published by Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2000. except from pg 175:"The Ottoman ulema equally respected Sa'ad al-Din al-Taftazani from Iran and Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani from Turkestan, both of whom followed the tradition of al-Razi and whose work formed the basis of Ottoman Medrese education"

Please provide actual quotes from the sources list on his backgrounds.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Theere is a village of Taftazan  here :  and Halil Nalcik is right about the geography. The source in the entry had listed Turkmenistan by the citation was this: " Taşköprüzade A. (1896). Mevzuatü'l-Ulum. (Kemaleddin, Taşköprüzade Mehmed, Trans.). İstanbul:İkdam. (Original work published 1870)". There was no Turkmenistan in 1870, so how could some author have mentioned such a geography? I think the source was misplaced here. But there could be another village of Taftazan say in Turkmenistan, but it should be sourced.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I obtained the book: "DeWeese, D. (2004). Central Asian Culture and Islam. In Martin, R. C. et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (pp. 138-141). Vol. 1 (A-L). New York: Macmillan Reference USA". It did not have the claim that the user made.  This is a serious ethical violation of wikipedia conduct.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sharh ul Aqaid in Nasafiyye
The Sharh ul Aqaid in Nasafiyye is a theological work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.124.235 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with editors
If anyone has an issue regarding edits being made recently regarding the Theological school of Taftazani this is the place to speak about it, not attempting an edit war. If you disagree with the sources feel free to say so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.111.231 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing can be sourced from YouTube on such issues. No matter who's the speaker. Please bring some reliable source and don't add YouTube sourced claims again and again. Your references definitely do not pass WP:YTREF - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , requesting an independent review. Regards. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ::, I agree with your edits and will assist in keeping this article compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have found the following source that I believe will allow us to resolve this dispute: "In my opinion, al-Taftazani and al-Jurjani reconciled the Asharite and Maturidite schools. One of the reasons for the studying of their books in Ottoman Madrassahs must be that point. Essentially it is known that the differences between the Asharite and Maturidite schools are not primary principle, but secondary principles. Therefore the Ottomans evaluated the theology from the Sunni's point of view, and they didn't consider any differences between the schools."

- Gündüz, Sinasi, Sinasi Gunduz, and Cafer S. Yaran, eds. Change and Essence: dialectical relations between change and continuity in the Turkish intellectual tradition. Vol. 18. p. 105 CRVP, 2005.

The above source states al-Taftazani was an Ashari and al-Jurjani a Maturidi but they both worked to reconcile the two schools. We know he is familiar with Asharism - e.g. he writes commentaries on al-Razi (al-Ashari)'s work. Technically that would not be evidence that he is an Ashari (it would be OR to suggest it is), but the above source would suffice for a direct link. Also, in case you think the above does not clearly indicate he is an Ashari, we do have more blunt sources. The reason though that I emphasise the above is because it helps us understand that al-Taftazani was an Ashari who reconciled with the Maturidis, even doing a commentary on the work of a famous Maturidi (Abu Hafs Umar an-Nasafi). I suggest we do the following:


 * 1) We change al-Taftazani to Ashari, in the infobox and article.
 * 2) But we put that he was influenced by al-Maturidi.
 * 3) We change the other templates etc. accordingly.

Now I am not stating that al-Taftazani was not a Hanafi, but it is well known that a minority of the Hanafis are Ashari - such as al-Kawthari. Taftazani is therefore similar to al-Kawthari.

So in summary I suggest we make the changes described above, this will also prevent edit wars in the long term.ParthikS8 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, ParthikS8. I’m grateful for your collegial approach. But the sources do not say he was Ashari. That’s your inference. Is it enough? Sorry, but it is not for me. I would like to see a reliable source stating, not inferring, that he was Ashari. Yet I’m not dogmatic; I’ll see what other editors think. I’ll go with whatever consensus emerges, even if that consensus is that you’re right and I’m wrong. Thanks again. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I did not make it more clear above, but I did bring a more blunt source stating he was an Ashari, here is what it says:
 * "A famous fourteenth-century theologian and jurisprudent, al-Taftāzānī is one of the last representatives of the high tide of Ash‘arite philosophical theology."

- Kaukua, Jari. (2015). Al-Taftazānī. 10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_10-1.


 * I avoided using this as primary evidence however as I wanted to bring the point that al-Taftazani reconciled with the Maturidi school as is stated in Sinasi et al. above - this is the reason we have confusion and disputes over his theology in this article.
 * So I strongly maintain my recommendation of the three actions. Wish you the best, ParthikS8 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ParthikS8. This source is clear. I’m convinced. Best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as you haven't replied to the discussion above, I will assume for now that you agree with and have no qualms with me making the changes described above. If you do change your mind, I am more than happy to discuss on here. Seeing as there is no dissent, I have decided to implement the three types of edit described above. I wish you the best. ParthikS8 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , You assume rightly. I agree per . - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)