Talk:List of Sunni books

More Hadith Collections

 * The list is lacking, it seems to only list the 7 well known collections and the collections sited often on sites like answering-ansar.com which wouldn't be a realiable source for a Sunni list anyways...

The following Hadith collections and other works which are of importance (and are actually quoted by Sunni scholars):


 * Al Mughni
 * Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh
 * Al-Istizkar
 * At-Tamhîd
 * Al-Hashiyat

The first is a collection of ahadeeth based opinions, as for the rest I don't know. Which is why assistance in the placement of these works would be encouraged. As for Al Mughni, to my understanding it would fall under Secondary Sources as to my knowledge, it does not make use of Isnads.

update: It seems to direct Al Mughni to the 99 names and not to a page about Ibn Qudamah or a blank page...


 * Yes, I agree that this page needs a lot of work. Al-Mughni is a Fiqh book, but it has no entry in WikiPedia. --Islamic 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

here are some more works that may need to be added:

-  ITAQALLAH   19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * sunan ad-darqutnee, sunan al-bayhaqi
 * the saheeh's of ibn khuzaymah, ibn hibbaan
 * musnad al-bazzaar, musnad of ibn al-mubaarak
 * musannaf ibn abi shaybah
 * mu'jam collection of tabaraanee (kabeer, awsat, sagheer)
 * jami' as-sagheer et al
 * mishkaat al-masaabih


 * OK, added Mishkat al-Masabih, inshaAllah will add the Masabih al-Sunnah page soon. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

hadeeth commentaries
perhaps we could also include a section on the commentaries of works on hadeeth which could contain fath al-baari, sharh saheeh muslim and so on?  ITAQALLAH  19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ONLY SUNNI WORKS
This page is only for the sunni books. Some people are dileberately vandalising and putting forward their wrong agenda. For example the follower of heretical Goher Shahi is including his books in the list of sunni books. This is not acceptable as the title of the page clearly says SUNNI BOOKS. What they can do is create a seperate page which may contain books of all the heretical and murtad sects such as Goher Shahi, Pervaizi, Ghamdi, Islahi, Qadiyani, etc. 13.04 BST 20th April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.122.27 (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work
Good work guys, i have long missed people that can expand on the Islamic literature part of wikipedia. Can you belive that it took a Sh'a to create Sahih Bukhari? --Striver 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunatly the little Sunni kids are too busy dating and playing video games to help :( --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

lol! yeah, unfourtunatly... ain't many Shi'a kids here either... bro, why did you remove the Sunni commentary?--Striver 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a Sunni book, it's a Sunni's commentary on what is a Shia book, collected by a Shia scholar of the man who formed his Shia party. It wouldn't fit under the title of Sunni books. His commentary is as a Sunni of course, but the book he's commenting on, which forms a major part of the text. If it was a stand-alone commentary to the text, than perhaps it would make some sense to include it. But his intention was to introduce it to the Egyptian people, so it was the entire text with his comments. It's essentially a Shia book with a Sunni putting his name under 'editor'.

It would be the equivelent to an effect of a Shia bringing a copy of Minhaaj as-Sunnah for the first time in some Iranian village and adding some commentary. The book itself is still a Sunni text, the content is still Sunni ideology, but now it just has a Shia cover, that doesn't make it a Shia book. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Something tells me you have never seen or touched the book or its content. Am i right? --Striver 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Never seen or touched this version with the commentary that you had posted there, but I have read parts of Nahjul Balagha's English translation and the Arabic. Something tells me you haven't seen or touched that version either? Am I wrong? --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are also correct. Now that we have establieshed that, lets see the facts: A Sunni scholar translated it, probably with Sunni bias. No offence, we have all bias. And he also added a commentery to it. But you object to it being called a Sunni book on grounds that the original being a Shi'a book. Well, its clear that its not a Shi'a book either. So as a compromise, add it, but add a disclaimer that explains that he original book is a Shi'a book. How about that? --Striver 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is also Sunni translations and commentary on other Shia works, such as Usool e Kafi, but once again, Sunnis don't accept these books. Nevertheless, I'll restore it with a disclaimer for the sake of compromise in light of the fact that Wikipedia is built a lot on consensus and not single opinions. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * a pleasure to cooperate with you! How about my latest edit? peace! --Striver 00:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And with you, I don't mind the latest edit but I've removed my disclaimer because in light of this edit it becomes rather redundant. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam-book-stub
Add to book stubs. --Striver 07:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Islami
Islamic, you removed Tarikh Yaqoubi, claiming it was a Shi'a book. Al-islam.org does not agree with you, and classifies it as a Sunni source. Further, Encyclopedia britanica claims it has "Shi'a leenings", something it would hardly write if it was a Shi'a source. I have presented two notable sources that states it is a Sunni source, if you remove it withouth presenting arguement, it might be considered bad faith. --Striver 09:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some discussions on the books listed
Discussions on the books listed can be found here: http://aa.trinimuslims.com/showthread.php?t=3031

Change to category
I've been doing some work on this article here and there and it recently dawned upon me that perhaps this should be changed from an article to a category. It has little context about it and honestly it's just a list. A big, long list. Seems like it would make more sense as a category to begin with. MezzoMezzo 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

New subsection for Tazqiya?
There are books by Ibn al Qayyum such as Al Daaoo Wa Al Dawaaoo (or The Diseases and The Cure) that might require a separate sub-section. I am not sure under which subsection un Tazqita such books would be appropriate. Perhaps create a "Soul Purification" section? KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)