Talk:Ibrahim ibn Adham

Merge
The articles: Abu Ben Adhem and Abou Ben Adhem are all about the same person so I imagine they should be merged, just leaving the redirects? Nick Watts 11:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Imranal 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * there happens to be another article aswell : Ibrahim ibn Adam. It is the same person.

"Was a Saint"
I don't think this is correct usage. Does sainthood in Sufism expire at death? Horrorshowj (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What's with all the repeated discussion of his lineage? It's not really that important that it should be brought up again and again... 71.235.75.219 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note re 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention
There were three problems with this passage -- presently the article's final paragraph:

(1) The internal quotation marks were double rather than single.

(2) There were two quotation marks (both double) rather than one at the end of the quotation; the extra (double) quotation mark had no corresponding opening quotation mark.

(3) Most importantly, the quotation garbles the poem it quotes and paraphrases in a crucial way, using the phrase "whom love of God has blessed" twice rather than just once. The poem being partly quoted, partly paraphrased by the Convention describes Ben Adam/Ben Adhem/Bin Adham as NOT one of "those who love the Lord" -- that is the phrase that is supposed to be used in the first instance. But then, upon learning that Ben Adam (however spelled) is one who loves his fellow men, the angel returns with Ben Adam's name at the top of the list of those "whom love of God had blessed."

The quoted passage appears to have been copied and pasted from the on-line source:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1901/proceedings/1901_proceedings_vol1/day2.html

The unnecessary closing quotation mark, with no corresponding opening quotation mark, appears there. Also, the passage as it appears in the on-line source likewise uses the phrase "whom love of God has blessed" twice rather than just once. Thus, the error appears in the on-line source. However, I question whether what appears on-line is an accurate rendering of the official record written in 1901, much less of what was actually said, simply because it completely bungles and blows the entire point of the passage!

I have already corrected the first two problems, but I did not take the liberty of correcting the third. Ideally, further inquiry would reveal that the on-line source is itself in error. However, perhaps it is not, and the error was commited 109 years ago. In that case, I would recommend using the corrected phrasing, in brackets to indicate the modification.

Without the correction, the passage is utterly pointless. It would be better just to cite the poem and make no mention of Alabama.

66.32.14.139 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)