Talk:Hasan al-Basri

POV content
While Wiki-surfing I noticed that this article claimed ouright that al-Hasan al-Basri was a Sufi. This is very inappropriate, as it is strongly disputed and highly dubious. An encyclopedic article should just provide the information and all differing opinions, not take sides. We must make sure to uphold the official Neutral point of view policy at all times. MezzoMezzo 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, needs to be balanced. Thats not balanced. Taymiyyah is not the one and only Scholar, like claimed by "Salafis". Other Opinions should be recognized. Source is there

" Ibn Taymiyya in his essay "Sufis and Fakeers" (Majmu` al-Fatawa 11:5-7 epistle entitled al-Sufiyya wa al-Fuqara') purported to correct and reform what he perceived as wrongful Sufi practices and went so far as to claim that the Companions and Successors were never so affected as the Sufis of his time claimed to be. The evidence shows otherwise:

- Al-Hasan al-Basri and Hisham ibn al-Hasan narrated that `Umar sometimes lost consciousness after reciting a verse from the Qur'an, whereupon he would be taken ill and visited for days. Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf (13:269); Abu Nu`aym, Hilyat al-Awliya' ("Adornment of the Saints" 1:88 #133); Ibn al-Jawzi, Manaqib `Umar ("Immense Merits of `Umar" p.168); Ibn Qudama, al-Riqqa waal-Buka' ("Softness of Heart and Weeping" p.166); al-Dhahabi in the Siyar, etc." http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=791&CATE=3 BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.3.228 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the edit put in, that reference is fine. As long as the article doesn't actually take sides, and simply makes the information available to readers, it's fine. MezzoMezzo 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't "just a Sufi", he was the founder of the Basran school of Sufism. Read the evidence from Cambridge University Press. The only people who reject this are the followers of the Wahhabi religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.37.183 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Qadarite Views and Orthodoxy
I think it is relevant to include some discussion of al-Hasan al-Basri's apparent sympathies with the Qadariyya, as suggested by his famous Risala. The article states that al-Basri was a supporter of "orthodoxy", but this seems anachronistic, given that Sunni "orthodoxy" did not really crystallise until at least a century after his death. Equally, to debate about whether al-Basri was a 'Sufi' seems to me to be introducing later concepts into the discussion. Let's not pretend that Sunni "orthodoxy" has always existed from the beginning of Islam: it was produced over the course of two centuries, and al-Basri undoubtedly lived in the crucible of Islam. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the word "orthodoxy". Orthodox is a word typically referring to something established or traditional.  What was considered to be orthodox practice by early scholars like al-Basri, ath-Thawri, Maalik and others was the same in the time of the tab at tabi'in, the tabi'in and the sahabah.  The majority view of scholars is that Sunni orthodoxy did exist since the time of the companions of Muhammad.  While Muslims of the second generation like al-Basri and those of the third generation were definitely the "crucible" of Islam, to say that there was no defined orthodoxy (despite the existence of groups considered "deviant" such as the khawarij and murjiah) is incorrect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which makes it somewhat ironic that election by Shura - initially a Kharaji doctrine - is declared original Islam by some of our contributors... So I have corrected that. (Unless the pro-David, pro-Solomon literature in Islam is to be rejected as forgeries, even sura 27! I don't think our Muslim readers would like that!)--Zimriel (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean INfamous Risala, shurely. ;^) Anyway I've put in a lot more on that. He absolutely was a Qadarite. Mind you, his supporters weren't averse to "gilding the lily". They ascribed to him epistles he couldn't have written, unless he could see books written in the future, which as a Qadarite he wouldn't have wanted to do even if he could!--Zimriel (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain to this forum why it is "incorrect" to declare Hasan a believer in human free-will and an opponent to predestination? It's not just Mourad saying this; it's also the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd Ed) and pretty much the whole of secular scholarship on his life which agree on it. Muslims too: his student Qatada and his student Sa'id Ibn Abi Aruba were also on board with his beliefs here. I'll remove the term "Qadarite", as I concede it's a loaded one. But if you're going to dispute his beliefs then you'd best defend your disputations.--Zimriel (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At no point have I ever heard of Basri being from the Qadariyyah sect. That group did arise from Basra, his city, but this is the first time I have ever heard anybody claim he was a part of this group.  That is what the objection is to, not to specifics regarding his belief in free will and this that and the other, and whether that is "orthodox" or not.  The other issue I take is that, based on these sources, the article presents these claims as objective fact despite 100+ years of historical scholarship considering his beliefs to be from mainstream Sunni Islam.  At best, it should be presented as the views of those specific authors who state so, as this is by no means consensus; I can guarantee you this, as every other source I have read about him up until now says otherwise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem like an active poster on the topic of Islam, so it surprises me that you have heard "at no point" that Hasan was in the Qadariyya. I know you don't like me talking about Mourad; but his book is (1) recent, (2) published by a responsible academic house, (3) not refuted by any reviewer and, most importantly (4) extensively footnoted. Maybe I should add (5) he's a Muslim. That's a formidable list of reasons to take him seriously.
 * You need at least to leaf through the Encyclopedia of Islam; there are even more footnotes there. During that "100+ years", at least the past 98 of them since the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (which screwed up here), you will find that nearly everyone in the West until Mourad has accepted the epistle about free will to be authentic to Hasan, therefore that free-will (i.e. "Qadari") thought was authentic to Hasan. Mourad has debunked that but at the cost of further shoring up his reputation as an expounder of the free-will doctrine.
 * And I didn't, and haven't, and won't link him to a "sect" of Qadariyya. That would be anachronistic, like calling him a Sufi. He doesn't have to belong to a sect in order to follow a belief. --Zimriel (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) The information about Hazrat Hassan Basri parentage and heirs needs more research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.137.24 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Khanman and Airjordan
I smell socks. Check out the revisions 1 AM, 2 June and 31 December 2009. Someone doesn't like that Hasan had an anti-predestinarian reputation. --Zimriel (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject
I have put in a proposal for a new WikiProject at WikiProject Council   - WikiProject Mysticism. I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in joining? Vorbee (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)