Jump to content

Talk:Mawlid/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Taymiyyah's quote found

@MezzoMezzo: I would prefer if you pinged me. So i found a reference that actually quotes, in English, IT's view that you were talking about. This is the only reference i found that adds his own opinion in full. As a result i intend to rewrite IT's section, simply quoting his view and the significance of the text he wrote it in. I think the oppose section needs a quote anyway because the support section has two quotes already. I also intend to remove all the opinionated talk of "complexity" of iT's view because this is an issue of contention, whereas objectively quoting him is not contentious at all; hopefully that will be the end of the IT saga for this article. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mawlidman: Are you sure it wouldn't be more prudent to wait for User:Saheehinfo to comment? It's rare to find other users willing to take a serious look at Islam-related articles. It's an asset, and to be honest, I kind of groan every time I feel the need to get involved with this and other controversial articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: Thanks for pinging me. I think the IT saga should be settled now. We have an objective edit, that leaves no room for arguments over words like 'complexity', 'perplexing' or 'paradoxical', and it certainly leaves no room to peddle falsehoods that downplay IT's opposition to mawlid. Nonetheless, i'm curious to see what Saheehinfo has to say. --Mawlidman (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood

Saheehinfo: Once again you have proved you are editing based upon agenda—not facts:
1) for some strange reason you removed the sentence about taymiyya comparing Mawlid to Christmas, even though this sentence was never an issue in our consensus debate. Yet in your edit summary you seem to have included it in the debate. Could you please explain yourself?
2) you want to cry NPOV and consensus when you are proving to be much less neutral and consensus-seeking. You blatantly lie when you restore your edit that claims taymiyya didn't consider Mawlid haram. The very Katz source that is quoted in the article section explicitly says he considered it sinful innovation. He considers Mawlid itself to be haram, but he conditioned his opposition with regard to one's intention. You have no shame in removing this edit yet retaining the Katz source.
While I still strongly disagree with the broader edit I have offered a compromise edit that keeps your information about the "complexity" of taymiyya's ruling and excludes my insistence on differentiating between the learned and unlearned. This is as far as I'm willing to go to accommodate your subjective editing; however, I most certainly won't accept the propagation of blatantly false information—whether you cry consensus or not. Mawlidman (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mawlidman:. Per WP:BRD I reverted the section on Ibn Taymiyya's views to the consensus version. When we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I have explained this a number of times before, yet you keep changing the consensus version without getting agreement from other editors. This will inevitably lead to edit warring. Look, spending a few days getting this right will ensure that the article is accurate and avoid edit warring in the future. Additionally, there is no rush.
As I mentioned before, there is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from Jan 2015 as follows:
The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
It was added by user @Thehistorian1984: over a year ago and explicitly states that Ibn Taymiyya did not consider the Mawlid haram (forbidden). Now, if you think this is a lie you either:
  • Don't think that this is in the source
  • Think the source is unreliable
Either way, you need to explain why you think this source is unacceptable.
The source which you have provided uses the term "sinful". Does this equate to haram? Possibly, or possibly not - it could mean makruh (disliked) which actually ties in with the current version.
I have highlighted before that in addition to the source you have provided there are a number of sources dealing with the subject of Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid such as:
  • The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  • Mark Woodward, Java, Indonesia and Islam, Springer Science and Business
  • Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
We need to use all of these sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. Also, you haven't yet answered my points in the above discussion. Does that mean that you agree with me?
Finally, stop making abusive statements such as "You blatantly lie when you restore your edit", "your subjective editing" and "Once again you have proved you are editing based upon agenda" as these are personal attacks and I will report you if you continue. Saheeh Info 07:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Saheeh Info: A bit rich to be complaining of my lack of answering your questions considering your own history. Since you seem to be ignoring some important edits, and simply reverting them, i will deal with one issue at a time. First, Taymiyya's comparison of Christmas and Mawlid: i am going to add it, yet again, and if you remove it could you at least give a reason. You can't just remove content without reason. Mawlidman (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Saheeh Info: So do you accept my edits where taymiyya compares Mawlid with Christmas? Will you be removing this edit again? Mawlidman (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I visited this article after a similar issue at Bid'ah - that article has been used as a propaganda piece to malign various Muslim movements at various times over the past few years. This article appears to be in better shape; the current version (as of the time stamp on my comment, I'm assuming) appears to be mostly fine. Both views appear to be shown in the permissibility section. The history section could desperately use some expansion, but permissibility seems fine. Has agreement been reached as it currently stands? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi MezzoMezzo. Thanks for your interest. I still have problems with ibn Taymiyya's views in the permissibility section. I suspect some blatant falsehoood in the statement "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" because nowhere have i found this in references. In fact i have plenty of sources where he genereally rejects the practice. Here are some examples:
* he considered mawlid an illegitimate innovation.[1]
* in his Kitab Iqtida al-sirat al-mustaqim fi mukhalafat ashab al-jahim (Following the Straight Path Against the Proprietors of Hell) he famously argued against celebrating Mawlid.[2]
* The Wahhabbi movement derived its arguments for their opposition to the mawlid celebrations mainly from Ibn Taymiyya.[3]
I acknowledge he made exceptions for one's intention, but he did not cast legitimacy over Mawlid per se. The edit should really say that he generally rejected Mawlid as an illegitimate innovation; however, he acknowledged that those who celebrated the event for righteous intentions would be rewarded nonetheless for this intention. Mawlidman (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Saheehinfo, the other party in the discussion, is a serious and respectful editor from my experience with him, so I'm sure that he'll respond soon enough, though for the time being the three sources you posted, all mentioning the same point, do seem sufficient for altering the text in the article. That being said, I know that public speakers associated with Sufism sometimes claim Ibn Taymiyyah supported Mawlid with conditions as a way of sort of one-upping their opponents among the Salafis.
I'm not a fan of Ibn Taymiyyah to be honest, but I've read enough of the sources quoted to know that he didn't believe Mawlid to be permissible, no matter what the intentions of the worshipper. He did say - and this is from the original Arabic in his Majmu, not a quote - that a person might be rewarded for their intention, but the holiday still wasn't allowed in his view.
I'm not here as an IT apologist as his views generally aren't my cup of tea, but for what it's worth, I'd question any source that claims he allowed Mawlid based on intention when I can clearly just post a link to PDF files of multiple editions of his book clearly stating otherwise. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo: I think your suggestion is the best idea — by far. If you added his personal view from his own book into the article then that would settle the issue and we wouldn't have to nit-pick what others make of his opinion. I would prefer your idea if you are willing to add it. Mawlidman (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mawlidman: and @MezzoMezzo: I am unfortunately busy today but will hope to contribute to this discussion in the near future.Saheeh Info 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: I have just two questions: What do you think of my dividing the permissibility section into 'support' and 'opposition'? I think this is desperately needed per this wiki policy so the article doesn't "look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."
Are you planning on adding ibn Taymiyya's view as he states them in his work? Thanks.--Mawlidman (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: and @Mawlidman:, per WP:RS we need to base the article on reliable secondary sources. Interpreting the original Arabic is unnessecary given the number of reliable sources available on this subject. In addition to the sources provided by @Mawlidman: there are a number of other serious works such as:
The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabi)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
This is an article by Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and certainly fulfills WP:RS. It focuses entirely on the subject that we are discussing and was the original source used by @TheHistorian1984: when he added Ibn Taymiyya's views as follows:
The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makruh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (?aram), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
Now, I do not currently have a copy of this book so cannot verify whether the source matches the claim. If it is accurate however, then it is a clear proof that Ibn Taymiyya did not consider the Mawlid haram. I have also read another of Raquel M. Ukeles's works in Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL where she states that:
"Not only does Ibn Taymiyyah recognize the pious elements within devotional innovations, but he asserts that sincere practitioners of these innovations merit a reward. As I argue elsewhere, Ibn Taymiyyah's paradoxical position stems from a practical awareness of the way that Muslims of his day engaged in devotional practices."
She then states that "This seeming disconnect perplexes and even offends modern Salafi editors of Ibn Taymiyyah's works".
She then quotes Ibn Taymiyya as saying that:
"There is no doubt that the one who performs these [innovated festivals], either because of his own interpretation and independent reasoning or his being a blind imitator (muqallid) of another, receives a reward for his good purpose and for the aspects of his acts that confirm with the lawful and he is forgiven for those aspects that fall under the scope of the innovated if his independent reasoning or blind obedience is pardonable."
She argues, very clearly that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "paradoxical". Similarly, we have the quote from another reliable source
"The Mawlid is among the most commonly mentioned examples of praiseworthy innovation. This view is shared even by some of the most strident opponents of most other modalities of popular Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah, the Kurdish reformer who most Indonesian and other Islamists take as their spiritual ancestor and mentor, was subdued in his critique of the Mawlid. His position was that those who performed it with pious intent and out of love for the Prophet Muhammad (s) would be rewarded for their actions, and forgiven any sin from bid'ah that they might incur."
Ref: Mark Woodward, Java, Indonesia and Islam, Springer Science and Business
Whilst Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid were not the same as scholars such as Suyuti and Ibn Hajar, they were also not overly negative in the way that modern Salafis wants to portray. A balanced way to explain his views would be to use words such as "paradoxical" as Raquel M. Ukeles does. Saheeh Info 11:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Saheehinfo: None of the sources you provided, except the Woodward quote, show that Taymiyya considered Mawlid permissible; Woodward, in my opinion, can't be taken too seriously when he states that Taymiyya was "Kurdish" — an obvious error. I'm curious to hear the views of MezzoMezzo, considering he appears to be the most knowledgeable of Taymiyya's judgements. --Mawlidman (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you guys need me to ping you when I post? I don't mind, but I was just checking to see if it would be appreciated or unnecessary. I don't mind starting each message with it if need be.
Anyway, wow...I'm sort of not too keen on this topic in general, but I can say this. On the one hand, quoting directly from Arabic sources can present a number of issues, as Saheehinfo mentioned, especially when we have multiple secondary sources echoing the same comments.
On the other hand, I'm a bit uncomfortable because the secondary sources are inaccurate. That's not my opinion; that's a fact. IT's position was clear: he considered people who celebrate Mawlid out of love for the Prophet to receive one reward due to exercising errant ijtihad, re: the hadith about the errant mujtahid receiving two rewards, as well as his view that the muqallid of said mujtahid would be saved (as his views on taqlid were not what Salafists promote). That being said, he never indicated that he considered Mawlid anything other than prohibited. That's merely the assumption of the writers, either from not reading his entire passage on the issue or, in the case of the likes of Kabbani and others, knowingly lying.
That being said, there are plenty of Hanabilah who considered Mawlid permissible, and I do agree with the secondary sources that modern day Salafists misunderstand IT on numerous issues (taqlid, isbal, women covering, etc.). Plus, I don't think we can discount the secondary sources, even if we, personally as editors, can confirm that they're inaccurate. Editors don't have that freedom because then Wikipedia would become something of an unreliable joke dictated by the whims of editors. If this is what the sources say, then I'm not sure what more can be done. The system works in general and policies/guidelines exist for the betterment of the project. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo:, you stated that "On the other hand, I'm a bit uncomfortable because the secondary sources are inaccurate. That's not my opinion; that's a fact." This isn't how Wikipedia works. We need to source Wikipedia to reliable sources as per WP:RS. There are a whole series of works on the subject such as the one by Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles which is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. That's about as reliable as you can get. I see no reason to dismiss these sources. Rather, we should be using all of them to come up with something that accurately reflects Ibn Taymiyya's views.
@Mawlidman:, you stated that, "None of the sources you provided, except the Woodward quote, show that Taymiyya considered Mawlid permissible;". As I mentioned earlier, I didn't claim that Ibn Taymiyya simply held that the Mawlid was permissible just as I do not claim that Ibn Taymiyya's simply held that the Mawlid was forbidden. Rather, his views have been described as "paradoxical" and complex according to at least one reliable source (Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL). Another source (if it is accurate) states that he considered the Mawlid as "a reprehensible (makruh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (?aram)" (Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.). Woodward's quote states that Ibn Taymiyya "was subdued in his critique of the Mawlid". So, whilst it is obvious that Ibn Taymiyya didn't support the Mawlid in the way that some supporters claim, it is also the case that his views were also not overly negative in the way that opponents claim. Finally, I have once again reversed your changed back to the consensus version until we conclude our discussion here. Saheeh Info 08:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saheehinfo: I expected nothing less than belligerence on your part. Let me explain why my version makes more sense. By adding words like your beloved Ukeles' 'complexity' you are going beyond reporting IT's view and adding peoples' views of IT's view. That is silly and prejudiced. No other Muslim scholar's views in the article are appended with what other people think of their views. You are being selective and subjective.
You say "Woodward's quote states that Ibn Taymiyya "was subdued in his critique of the Mawlid"." I have already shown that Woodward can't be taken too seriously when he doesn't even know that IT isn't Kurdish. Far from being "subdued", IT uses several arguments against Mawlid in his quote i provide.
Finally, you keep referring to Rapoport and the edit that was made long ago by a one-off editor—who could very well have been a sock-puppet peddling false info to fit an agenda. That edit has been shown to be insincere at worst and negligent at best. Your reverting to it is unacceptable. Nowhere could i find IT referring to Mawlid as "makruh" or "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in the source. This source should be discarded and you have no right to use it.
I am going to restore my edit because it plainly states IT's own view without the commentary of other authors—just as every other Muslim's view is expressed in the article. You must explain why you think it is correct to make an exception for IT. Also, you must explain why sub-headings aren't good for the 'Permissibility' section when sub-headings de-clutter this messy section. I think i may need to ask for arbitration because your actions are quite confused. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: I know you are reluctant to get involved, but could you please give us your views on which edit you think is more acceptable. I don't see why we can't just state IT's view plainly without the commentary of others. This is the style taken in the article for every other Muslim scholar's views. I don't see why all this controversy is needed. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mawlidman:, you are once again edit warring. Per WP:BRD I reverted the section on Ibn Taymiyya's views to the consensus version. When we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I have explained this a number of times before, yet you keep changing the consensus version without getting agreement from other editors.
As I mentioned before, there is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from Jan 2015 as follows:
The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
It was added by user @Thehistorian1984: over a year ago and explicitly states that Ibn Taymiyya did not consider the Mawlid haram (forbidden). Now, if you think this is a lie you either:
  • Don't think that this is in the source
  • Think the source is unreliable
Either way, you need to explain why you think this source is unacceptable. I asked you this before and you didn't respond.
You stated that: By adding words like your beloved Ukeles' 'complexity' you are going beyond reporting IT's view and adding peoples' views of IT's view. That is silly and prejudiced.
This is not silly or prejudiced. It is making use of a secondary source. This is what we are meant to do as long as the source is reliable per WP:RS. Read WP:SECONDARY which states that
"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
and also states that
"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles is certainly a reliable source and so is BRILL.
You next state that: I have already shown that Woodward can't be taken too seriously when he doesn't even know that IT isn't Kurdish.
I don't know if Ibn Taymiyyah is Kurdish or not. Perhaps scholars differ about his origin. A brief discussion here on the talk page for Ibn Taymiyya seems to suggest that other editors are unsure also.
You then state that: "Nowhere could i find IT referring to Mawlid as "makruh" or "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in the source. This source should be discarded and you have no right to use it."
This goes back to my original question, are you saying that the statement is not in the book Ibn Taymiyyah and his Times by Oxford University Press? Have you actually checked it? I will hopefully gain access to the book soon and can check it myself to verify.Saheeh Info 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Finally, stop making statements such as "I expected nothing less than belligerence on your part" and "Ukeles beloved". This is bordering on personal attacks. Saheeh Info 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saheehinfo: You should step back and listen to how silly you sound and how weak your arguments are:
1) You fanatically support the edits of the so-called Thehistorian1984, yet you don't even know what the citation he used even contains. How can you support something with such vigour yet cannot even defend the legitimacy of its content?
2) You say the edit was made by Thehistorian1984, yet you have no qualms defending Woodward and countless other references used to "support" Thehistorian1984's edit even though none of these sources were in the initial Thehistorian1984 edit. Thehistorian1984 never used these sources; they were added on by others. Why do you keep referring to Thehistorian1984's edit as your defence when these extra sources weren't even added by him?
3) You keep removing the sub-sections even though the 'Permissibility' section has two distinct sub-sections: for and against.
My edit offers IT's own views from scholarly sources in a factual, verifiable, NPOV, yet you cling to a mysterious editors +1 year old edit that you can't even verify yourself! It's sheer ridiculousness and i don't intend to win you over with reason because i don't think your intention is to resolve this issue in a reasonable manner. I will refer to arbitration. --Mawlidman (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saheehinfo: oh don't worry, I'm very much aware that what I was saying couldn't be anything more than musing out loud. Like I also mentioned, the system of the site does function, and it's right 90 or 95% of the time, thus I don't believe in deviating from that. I'm more just voicing my dismay at historical misrepresentation. It's almost like how virtually all reliable sources claim that the Hanbali madhhab recommends praying with the hands on the chest when in reality none of their fuqaha ever claimed that. At the end of the day, the sources still reign supreme and in those 5% or whatever of instances, we just represent sources and view it as carrying out our duty.
To both User:Saheehinfo and @Mawlidman: discussions can get heated sometimes. It's happened to me more than I like to admit. I'm going to be honest, I haven't even looked at the article since my first comment, but I'll suggest this: how about for a day or two, everybody logs in, does their usual editing, and doesn't revisit this article or talk page for a few days. Just to work out any negativity or hard feelings, a break might be in order. Things will be fine, voices will be heard, and articles will be improved, and as I've found, taking a step back when things get heated often causes a serious shift in how discussions unfold. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: More than anything, i'm confused as to why you didn't support my edit. Everything in it is exactly what you were arguing for. It quotes IT's stance from a scholarly source that agrees with what you said is his actual position. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mawlidman:, Per WP:BRD I reverted the section on Ibn Taymiyya's views to the consensus version. When we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I have explained this a number of times before, yet you keep changing the consensus version without getting agreement from other editors. This will inevitably lead to edit warring.
Now regarding the dispute, I have mentioned before that there are a number of reliable sources that discuss Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid. These include:
  • The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  • Mark Woodward, Java, Indonesia and Islam, Springer Science and Business
  • Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
We need to use ALL of these (and other) sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints.
The first source was used by Thehistorian1984. You have made it very clear that you consider the current version to be a "lie". So, once again, I'm going to ask you the very same question that I asked you previously twice and which you haven't answered yet. If you think this is a lie you either:
  • Don't think that this is in the source
  • Think the source is unreliable
Either way, you need to explain why you think this source is unacceptable. I asked you this before and you didn't respond.
In your last comment you stated that: You fanatically support the edits of the so-called Thehistorian1984, yet you don't even know what the citation he used even contains..
I haven't supported the edit. I am merely reverting this article to the consensus version until we get agreement on the talk page first. I have mentioned this to you on a number of occasions also. However, we do need to discuss whether the current version in accurate / reliable or not.
For the record, the current consensus version states that: The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
What part of this do you disagree with? What change do you want to make? Discuss your proposal here first and other editors (such as @Robert McClenon:) can then contribute.
You stated that You say the edit was made by Thehistorian1984, yet you have no qualms defending Woodward and countless other references used to "support" Thehistorian1984's edit even though none of these sources were in the initial Thehistorian1984 edit. Thehistorian1984 never used these sources; they were added on by others. Why do you keep referring to Thehistorian1984's edit as your defence when these extra sources weren't even added by him?
I have no idea what you mean by this. Please explain.
You next claim that: My edit offers IT's own views from scholarly sources in a factual, verifiable, NPOV
What exactly are you suggesting? If you put your suggestion here we can discuss your proposal. If you continually make changes without getting agreement it will be reverted and lead to edit warring. Saheeh Info 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Saheehinfo: You ask a lot of questions for which i have already answered. Read my past statements if you want your questions answered. This is stalling the discussion. This is precisely the reason i am seeking the opinions of others. The fact of the matter is that you are basing your version upon a book you even admit to not knowing of its content in relation to the argument (how is your "acquisition" of this book coming along? How do you know what you are supporting is sahih info if you can't read the source?); you promote wording like 'complexity', even though their are plenty of other sources that don't describe IT's views as controversial (hence you are supporting a version that is a matter of dispute). My version on the other hand simply quotes IT's view without using any disputed second opinions. I let IT speak for himself. This is the least controversial version and i can't understand why somebody would want to prevent the very person from voicing his own opinion loud and clear. The only thing i can think of is bad-faith, and this suspicion is another reason why i'm seeking the opinions of others. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. There are already opinions by at least three editors, so I am declining to provide an opinion, and removing the request. I will caution the participants to be civil and concise. Some of the above is uncivil, and some of it consists of walls of text. (If there weren't more than two editors, I would have to ask for a restatement of the question.) I advise the editors to take this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, knowing that a volunteer there will tell them to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: if I pledge to bow out of the discussion, would that change things regarding the 3O? Although I did voice my opinion, I don't want to complicate matters. If my involvement makes this more difficult, then I have no issue with removing myself for the betterment of the article and discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If two editors were discussing the subject and you expressed an opinion, that is a third opinion. Third opinion works well when the two editors are willing to listen to advice. It works less well when the two editors have deeply held opinions that they are dug in about. When I can't tell from the discussion what the question is, it usually means that the two editors have deeply held opinions that they are going on and on about it. In view of that, it would not only be a technical violation of the rules if you, User:MezzoMezzo, were to strike your opinion so that I could offer a third opinion, but it would probably waste my time and that of the two editors, because they have invested opinions and won't pay much attention to a third. They need either a moderator, who will facilitate discussing those deeply invested opinions, or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm not sure why you "can't tell from the discussion what the question is". I thought i made it very clear in the 3rd opinion request what the question was: a choice between to different edits—which i clearly linked to. --Mawlidman (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: and @Mawlidman: - the question is NOT simply about "2 different edits". This is not my problem. The problem I have is that your changes seem only to reflect one particular strand of thought regarding Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid. As I mentioned previously we need to take into consideration all reliable sources and represent all of these views.
P.S. I have unfortunately been rather busy of late so apologies for the delay. Saheeh Info 14:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
For future reference, when posting a third opinion request, do not expect that the third opinion volunteer will wade through long walls of text to find the question. I am sure that the question is somewhere in there, but I didn't choose to go to lengths to parse the walls of text. It is more generally a good idea to keep your posts to a length where a reasonable person can understand what you are saying. However, anyway, a third opinion is not applicable. Also, I would suggest that criticizing a volunteer who isn't in a position to offer a third opinion even if I wanted to do so isn't collaborative and won't help get this dispute resolved. Try DRN or an RFC. If you try an RFC, be sure that the RFC is neutral, civil, and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyya's other reasons for opposition

You removed my new edit for two reasons: WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY. However, there is no SYNTHESIS because i have made no original research. I have simply stated what the sources (the one provided by me and the one provided by you) say. Also, there is no PRIMARY issue here because as KSFT said here "Per WP:PSTS, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources can all be used on Wikipedia." Hence, you have provided no legitimate reasons for your removal of my edit and it will be restored until you can come up with something that sticks.
Anyway, by you removing the other reasons for IT's opposition you are falsely implying that he opposed Mawlid purely if it imitated Christmas, which is blatantly false and deceptive. --Mawlidman (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY states that:
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
This is exactly what you have done. You have interpreted Ibn Taymiyya's quotes directly from his work Iqtida Siratul Mustaqim translated by Memon. This is not allowed, rather we are meant to use interpretations from secondary sources.
So what do the secondary sources actually state? Below are some quotes:
At the same time, Ibn Taymiyya recognizes that people observe the mawlid for different reasons and should be recompessed according to their intentions. Some, for example, observe the the mawlid out of a desire to imitate the Christian celebration of Jesus's birthday on Christmas. This intention is reprehensible.
Ref: Ibn Taymiyya and His Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 324–325. ISBN 9780199402069.
At the same time he recognized that some observe the Prophet's (s) birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions.
Ref: Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
Not only does Ibn Taymiyyah recognize the pious elements within devotional innovations, but he asserts that sincere practitioners of these innovations merit a reward. As I argue elsewhere, Ibn Taymiyyah's paradoxical position stems from a practical awareness of the way that Muslims of his day engaged in devotional practices. Ibn Taymiyya states that: "There is no doubt that the one who performs these [innovated festivals], either because of his own interpretation and independent reasoning or his being a blind imitator (muqallid) of another, receives a reward for his good purpose and for the aspects of his acts that confirm with the lawful and he is forgiven for those aspects that fall under the scope of the innovated if his independent reasoning or blind obedience is pardonable.
Ref: Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss. BRILL. 2014-05-09. ISBN 9789004265196.
The Mawlid is among the most commonly mentioned examples of praiseworthy innovation. This view is shared even by some of the most strident opponents of most other modalities of popular Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah, the Kurdish reformer who most Indonesian and other Islamists take as their spiritual ancestor and mentor, was subdued in his critique of the Mawlid. His position was that those who performed it with pious intent and out of love for the Prophet Muhammad (s) would be rewarded for their actions, and forgiven any sin from bid'ah that they might incur.
Ref: Woodward, Mark (2010-10-28). Java, Indonesia and Islam. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 170. ISBN 9789400700567.
Ibn Taymiya remarks that people may celebrate the mawlid either in order to emulate the Christians' celebration of Jesus's birthday, or "out of love (mahabba) and reverence (ta'zim) for the Prophet." Although the first motive is manifestly invalid, Ibn Taymiya acknowledges the latter intention as legitimate
Ref: Marion Holmes Katz (2007). The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam. Routledge. p. 117. ISBN 9781135983949
I have based the article on the above quotes which is perfectly fine per WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. Saheeh Info 10:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal

71.191.11.9 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are now opening a second discussion here on the same topic as which you opened earlier on the Muhammad talk page. This is confusing – I suggest that you move this discussion to the Muhammad talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to write these dates 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal properly. What are these dates? If you specify 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal which days they correspond to?71.191.11.9 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
As discussed earlier on the Muhammad talk page, the problem lies with the unsourced Western calendar dates which you are trying to insert. I suggest that you continue this discussion on the Muhammad talk page where you actually initiated this topic. AstroLynx (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
These dates can be seen any calendar. Why are they making theses celebrations on 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal & 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal? Because these days correspond to:

You can go and look at any calender71.191.3.250 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Then give a link to one of the 'calendars' or name a published source which corroborates your claim. You appear to believe that all online calendar websites will give the same results – try some, you will be surprized at the results. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources, so far you have presented nothing. AstroLynx (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Backward interpolation technique

You may use any calendar and Gregorian-hijri converter to prove the validity of these dates. You can check by using any converter system that 65 Gregorian Years is exactly identical to 67 Hijri years in length.

For example, let's check the length of 65 Gregorian Years beginning with 30 December 1955 and ending with 30 December 2020. These dates correspond to Friday 16 Jumada al-awwal 1375 AH and Wednesday 16 Jumada al-awwal 1442 AH which is exactly 67 Hijri years. You can make this check for any arbitrary segment of 65 Gregorian Years, and the result will not change. But sometimes it corresponds to 67 Hijri years + 1 or 2 more days.

71.191.3.250 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is accepted that the Prophet died on June 8, 632

This is the death day of the Prophet, which is 11 Rabbi-ul-Awwal 11 AH 71.191.3.250 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid (possible birthdays of the Prophet)

Employing the Backward interpolation technique we have the following possibilities for the Prophet's birthday:

  • Birthday: 24-26 April 571 CE Then he died at the age of 61++++ which is the closest correct date since it matches to the last week of April
  • Birthday: 5-6 May 570 CE Then he died at the age of 62+++ this cannot be true since it was on the first week of May

The remaining following 3 possibilities for his birthday cannot be supported at all

  • If his Birthday is presumed to be on 16-17 May 569 CE Then he died at the age of 63++
  • If his Birthday is presumed to be on 27-28 May 568 CE Then he died at the age of 64+
  • If his Birthday is presumed to be on 8 June 567 CE Then he died at the age of 65 which is not possible.

There may be a 2 days of shift on the above dates. These dates are calculated Friday, 8 June 632 CE corresponding to Friday, 11 Rabbi-ul-Awwal 11 AH 71.191.3.250 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)71.191.3.250 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Islamic calendar link which you cite appears to have a bug. Inputting 1 Muharram 1 AH results in Thursday 18 July, 622 CE. However, 18 July, 622 CE, in the Julian calendar fell on a Sunday. 8 June 632 CE (Julian) fell on a Monday, not on a Friday as you claim – so your calendar converter is three days off. Try again with an other calendar converter. AstroLynx (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is an error of max 3 days, we can at least say that the Prophet's birthday is at the last week of April 571 i.e. Rabi-ul'Awwal 11-17 is located at April 23rd-30th of 571 CE

71.191.3.250 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you still cannot make this misleading claim. Your computations, based on original research (which is not allowed on WP), assume that the calendar in the time of Muhammad is the same calendar which Muslims now use. According to the Quran (sura 9:36-37) the calendar which early Muslims used until 10 AH was intercalated, i.e. it was corrected for the seasonal drift by adding an extra month every two or three years. Details of how the calendar was actually regulated are lacking which makes it impossible to accurately convert dates related to the early life of Muhammad into Western calendar dates. All online Islamic calendar converters ignore this fact and thus give completely wrong results for the years before 10 AH.
I already informed you about these problems on 7 August on the Muhammad Talk page but either you do not read the comments of other editors or you have conveniently chosen to ignore this. I suggest that you first seek knowledge about the early Islamic and pre-Islamic calendar before you continue this pointless exercise. AstroLynx (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mawlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Posible Vandalism

I have recently patrolled a substantial change to this article (-2,000 b) and was wondering if it was vandalic, but I am not familiar with neither the article or subject. Please let me know if it is. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrrs0 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mawlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Mawlid an-Nabi is Haram

The Prophet Muhammad said: Mawlid an-Nabi: Anyone who adds something to this thing of us that does not belong to it, it will be rejected. This hadith makes it clear that it is Haram to add something that does not belong to Islam. So this has to be adjusted, this is what the Shiites celebrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YassinYoustoub010 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Charlene Tan (2014). Reforms in Islamic Education: International Perspectives. A&C Black. p. 227. ISBN 9781441177551.
  2. ^ Krawietz, Birgit; Tamer, Georges, eds. (2013). Islamic Theology, Philosophy and Law: Debating Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (reprint ed.). Walter de Gruyter. p. 211. ISBN 9783110285406.
  3. ^ Bosworth, C.E.; Donzel, E. van; Heinrichs, W.P.; Pellat, Ch., eds. (1991). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume VI (Mahk-Mid). BRILL. p. 896. ISBN 9789004081123.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mawlid/Archive_3&oldid=1180669913"