Talk:Atharism

Requested move 6 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved: no consensus, no activity in 10 days, and proposer seems more concerned that there is movement than conviction in this as a destination (non-admin closure) Kevin McE (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Traditionalist theology (Islam) → Literalism (Islamic theology) – Is the title of Traditionalist theology (Islam) accurate and NPOV? Even the very first citation referenced uses the label of Athari. I'm not saying the article revert back to Athari, but I am questioning whether this is an appropriate WP:COMMONNAME to use the former. If the article title is being used in the manner of a descriptor than perhaps "literalism" is more accurate. See also Biblical literalism. Titling it "traditionalist theology" also gives the impression that the Ashari and Maturidi theology, employed by the majority of Sunnis, is "non-traditional" or unorthodox. It's a bit too POV in it's labeling, and I've certainly seen people outside of Wikipedia reference the article in such a manner.

Since the theology extends to both Quran and Hadith a better title may be Literalism (Islamic theology). This wording is the most appropriate as all sources, whether it uses "Athari" or "Traditionalist" or "Hanbali" etcetera, use literalism to describe the methodology. It encompasses all the relevant ideologies, is supported by sources, and is not POV or susceptible to misinterpretation either. It's is the clearest way to title this topic. DA1 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using "literalism" implies that solely the Athari are literalists. The Ashʿari and Maturidi schools of Theology also advocate Quranic literalism so the term does not translate well from the Christian use. The distinction between the schools is the degree of emphasis on the use of Kalam with the Athari, who came before the Ash'ari and Maturidi, focusing on authentic hadith and the others allowing for more leeway in their interpretations (e.g. consensus of scholars).Patapsco913 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Using "literalism" implies that solely the Athari are literalists." Replace "literalism" with "traditionalist" and you have the same problem as it currently exists. Except I would opt for the former over the latter, because literalism doesn't have a value connotation (POV) but "traditionalist" does. It makes it seem like the Ashari and Maturadi are unorthodox and it maybe confusing to readers' interpretation. I would argue that titling it "Literalism" only highlights the emphasis on literalism as employed by these schools and not that literalism isn't also employed by the other schools. DA1 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The term "literalist" school of theology would be a manufactured term and is not used by academics (see discussion above). All schools of Islamic theology are "literalist" so your approach would be much more confusing. Note that "literalism in Islam" is completely different from Islamic theology. The Athari were the first existent school of theology and they emphasize the "traditions" (i.e. the hadith). Anyone who reads the entry can understand what it means. Why would you want to imply that the Ash'ari and Maturidi are not literalists which it clearly would do. If you titled it Literalism (theology) the article would have to say "the three schools of Islamic theology all adhere to the doctrine of Quranic literalism" so basically the article would not be about the Athari. We are talking about something different from the schools of jurisprudence here so I am not sure why you bring this up: "Since the theology extends to both Quran and Hadith."Patapsco913 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have a better way of titling the existing article topic? Personally my issue is with the use of Traditionalist. All or many theological groups consider themselves to be traditionalist (to some tradition or another). It is extremely broad and unspecific, and at the same time the term as a proper noun in reference to Athari, Hanbali and "traditionalists" etcetera isn't widespread enough that the article has to have it be titled as this. There's many sources that use Athari; you seem to be doing it yourself then why retain the ambiguous titling? You innately know that it's unspecific.
 * I brought that up to say that "Quranic literalism" (in reference to Biblical literalism) was not a title I was considering. I instead proposed "Literalism (Islamic theology)", I thought it was pretty straightforward why I said that. DA1 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer Athari but in the discussion above the consensus was to change the title to Traditionalist.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It may have had 'user' consensus but I don't think it fulfilled WP:NAMECRITERIA, specifically point #3.
 * I've also noticed the article title uses a disambiguation "(Islam)" despite there being no other primary topic that uses "Traditionalist theology". DA1 (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The title does unambiguously identify the subject. This is a standard term used for it in RSs in the context of Islam. The disambiguation is there because the expression means something different in other religious contexts (based on the non-technical meaning of "traditionalist"), but there is no other school of theology called by that name is Islamic studies. Eperoton (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Athari, this term is not nearly as common in standard academic references. Personally, I think it would be nice if it were, so there wouldn't be potential for confusion between technical and common meanings of "traditionalist", but that's not where scholarly usage is at the moment. Eperoton (talk)
 * I disagree, the term "Traditionalist" is not unambiguous as the term is also used in academic works to refer to Ash'aris for example. I favour the use of the title Athari as it is genuinely unambiguous. MontyKind (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the term "Traditionalist" is not unambiguous as the term is also used in academic works to refer to Ash'aris for example. I favour the use of the title Athari as it is genuinely unambiguous. MontyKind (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What academic sources refer to Ash'arism as traditionalist theology? I made a systematic review of standard references back when this was discussed and it wasn't was I saw. Eperoton (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title is a result of consensus that was achieved after an extensive source review and discussion. See Talk:Traditionalist_theology_(Islam). Eperoton (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a strong argument as consensus can change. That said, I think that Literalism (Islamic theology) is equally confusing. I prefer the term Athari for the heading. MontyKind (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't title the article using a term that's only used in a tiny fraction of English-languages RSs on the subject. Eperoton (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Distinction of classical traditionalism and appropriated traditionalism
There should be clear distinction made here between the original traditionalist creed, which regarded as the actual creed of the early Muslim community being non-kalam Orthodox Sunni theology which encourages tafwidh and which preceded the Ash’ari and Maturidi schools being developed, and the later movement by a minority of Hanbalis, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and a revival of this trend by the modern Wahhabi movement. Can someone who is more versed in this field please contribute to make this distinction. Sakimonk  talk  05:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well that's the controversy! I don't think you can make that assertion without clear bias (in favour Ash'ariyyah/Maturidiyyah). The Athari strand denies that the Ash'ari conception of tafwidh was the creed of the early Muslims in the first place--rather that the Athari conception of tafwidh was what the early Muslims accepted. Furthermore, many would argue that Ibn Taymiyyah only reiterated the creed of the early generations (not that he brought new principles), carried by many upon that creed up to his time, and perhaps developed or fleshed out some ideas in response to issues that weren't dealt with as much before. This is obviously controversial as followers of the Ash'ari/Maturidi creeds clearly disagree. The timeline which seems to be implied by your comment is (1) early Muslim creed -> (2) Ash'ari/Maturidi -> (3) ibn Taymiyyah + minority of Hanabilah alongside Ash'ari/Maturidi -> (4) Ash'ari/Maturidi -> (5) Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas as expressed by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and followers alongside Ash'ari/Maturidi -> (6) where we are today. I disagree with this sentiment, (2) is not just Ash'ari/Maturidi or a minority of Hanabilah. I can give you plenty of examples of carriers of the Athari tradition if you are interested (a few quick examples that were not Hanabilah (which had many such followers)... Shafi'i: al-'Imrani, as-Sam'ani, al-Baghawi, al-Lalaka'i, abu Bakr al-Isma'ili, Maliki: ibn abi Zamanin). For (3)/(4)/(5) the implication is ibn Taymiyyah came up with something then it was buried until Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. I do not think this is true. The Athari tradition definitely continued, particularly amongst the Hanabilah, and ibn Taymiyyah was referenced both positively and negatively. Some quick examples of ibn Taymiyyah being mentioned by those who are not his direct students would be by ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani and al-Bulqini, ibn Rajab, ibn al-Mabrid, Ibrahim al-Kurani, Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi, 'Abd al-Baqi al-Ba'li, ibn Qa'id an-Najdi (I know he definitely refers to ibn al-Qayyim in one of his works by name and seems to allude to ideas of ibn Taymiyyah, I'm unfamiliar as to whether he mentioned him by name in any work), ibn Hajr al-Haytami (as noted on the page), 'Ali al-Qari (positively, despite al-Haytami being his teacher), and of course there are those around roughly the same time as ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab like as-San'ani, Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi, and as-Safarini. I'm unfamiliar with Hanbali texts, but I am very certain he is mentioned very often, in a positive way too. Regardless, I do not see proof for the notion that orthodox creed was Ash'ari/Maturidi until ibn Taymiyyah who caused a bit of a stir, then went back to Ash'ari/Maturidi until ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab who caused a bit of a stir again and here we are today. If you are interested in any of the names I mentioned, and or their books which back up my claim, I can provide that (Arabic), or if you'd like more names, I can probably do that too. Waxed-cotton (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) (small edit after coming across some other info Waxed-cotton (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC))
 * To counter your point, simply look at the athari of Ibn Qudama, one of thr last students of sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani and then compare the theology of that to ibn taymiyyah.
 * You are speaking from the wahhabi perspective which claims that Ibn Taymiyyah and his influences, Qadi Abu Ya'la, al barbahari and to some extent the karammiyyah as the true followers of the creed of the early muslims.
 * Ibn al jawzi was an athari hanbali who rejected the above mentioned creedal views. So was Ibn Aqil, though Wahhabis/Salafis try to make Ibn Aqil into an Ash'ari.
 * It is worth noting that if Ahmad Ibn Hanbal creed was was truly represented that of the antropomorphists the whole maddhab would have been rejected just like the Mu'tazilites Jahmites. But in fact he was accepted and still is accepted.
 * I say include both types of traditonalism and make sure people now that there is more than one strand of 'Athari'. 213.89.48.154 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * from whar i know Al Barbahari literally practiced and followed Ahl al Hadith orthodox teacking
 * I can dispute most of points claims that Ashari and Maturidi are inheritor of of ahl al Hadith orthodoxy of early Muslim, in fact... I can prove that the Sheikh Muhammad in Wahhab or the so called "Wahhabi" [whatever they say it]/modern Salafist are morw compatible with those early muslim orthodox than asharist & Maturidist, aGod willing
 * ut this topic s should be covered in other time and placeb
 * 139.193.132.191 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Traditionalist theology (Islam) → Athari – The three major theologies in Islam are known as Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari. No need to keep the third with the long title, but rename it with its popularly known name just like the other two.&#32;Korybiko (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Full RM has been suggested at the RMT. (permalink). ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)  — Relisting. >>>  Extorc . talk  12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Overwhelming argument from the perspective of consistency to align this with the naming style of the other major theological schools - also, traditionalist is a bit of a misnomer: they are all 'traditionalist' theologies in the sense that they all have long traditions, and all traditional in the conservative sense to varying degrees. The current name implies a contrast. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.