Jump to content

Talk:Mawlid/Archive 2

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

Merging

As per this AFD which resulted in merge and this review which endorsed it, I will be performing the merge shortly. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of POV and other unsourced controversial.

Please discuss in the section below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have removed a lot of unsourced and controversial POV edits with my recent change. Please use this section to discuss the deletion if you are not happy. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I added the sourced material back. Explain first why it should be removed BEFORE deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.215 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I am removing it because it is UNSOURCED, POV and UNSOURCED CONTROVERSIAL. I presumed that my reasons were clear from my first comment lol . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Split your edits. You've craftily removed a lot more than the merge. I have reversed as your comment didn't match the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.91 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should I split edits? The reasons for my deletion are clear. Do you agree with them or not? If you don't agree with my reasons then provide your arguments against the deletion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@ User:FreeatlastChitchat. Can you elaborately explain what you mean by this?

I am removing it because it is UNSOURCED, POV and UNSOURCED CONTROVERSIAL

But your edits on the article are totally opposite! You removed entire sourced portions of the article as evident from this, this and this to suite your own POV. Moreover, you did this without proper discussion and consensus and now you are teaching others to use talkpage??? Your edit history also shows a series of POV pushing. You altered the unbiased article in to a page that suits the interests of a few sects.

You also seem to be engaged in an edit war with multiple users. If you have any concerns discuss them on talk page rather than removing sourced and we'll written content. Otherwise strict action will be taken. Thanks. Septate (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that FreeatlastChitchat just forgot to mention that he's also removing unreliably sourced material. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I forgot to mention that. For example websites like lastprophet.info and books written by horror story writers have no place in an encyclopedic article to be frank. You can ping me again if you need the complete list of all the unreliabel sources which I have removed. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You are making mass contentious edits on a controversial page without discussing on the talk page. There is no need to remove the text that you did to last lastprophet.info. Just add the "citation needed" tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Umm no, the info sourced to lastprophet is completely wrong which has been proved to be wrong by other reliable sources and therefore I have all the right to remove it. Kinda sad to see you fighting for this when it is clearly not encyclopedic. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How is it proved to be wrong? What reliable sources are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:FreeatlastChitchat Which reliable sources? Do you mean to those Deobandi, Wahhabi/Salafi and other anti-Mawlid religious sites? For your information last prophet.info is not the only site with this opinion there are numerous others. But last prophet.info is better because its article on Mawlid is cultural rather than religious.

Moreover, this wikipedia page is neither pro-Mawlid nor Anti-Mawlid. It gives a balanced opinion as evident from lead section. But your mass deletions are making it biased and anti-Mawlid in my opinion. Mingling2 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point Mingling2. There is no valid point for deleting this well written and well referenced content.Septate (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Full protection

To everyone (pinging FreeatlastChitchat & Septate as you asked on my talk page). I've hatted a reasonably large amount of bickering, incivility and discussion which wasn't going anywhere so that you all have an opportunity to start again; the section FreeatlastChitchat started looks like a good place. A warning for everyone though if there is more incivility/personal attacks or edit warring there will be blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc can you just explain to the IP anons and Septate that they should discuss what I am proposing. They seem to divulge from discussing it the minute they start. I have proposed 10 changes. Users should just make a list of ten points and say agree/disagree with their comments and give opinion about each point. General comments like "OH GOD! you don't like Mawlid, how dare you" should be avoided. Comment on the content, not on the editor. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that type of comment is exactly what I mean. Doing that is what's going to result in blocks (or warnings). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc &FreeatlastChitchat sorry for any mistake from my side. I will try my best to address the concerns of FreeatlastChitchat. I also invite User:Mingling2 and anonymous IP user for discussion. Septate (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Septate, meh. I have the skin of a rhino, I did not mind. No harm, no foul. I'll edit my proposal to make the reply style clear. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Due to the fact that an IP hopper is asking that even blatantly unsourced and unreliably sourced information should first be discussed before it is deleted I am opening this discussion. (Although in my personal opinion the WP:BURDEN should be upon the ones who want to include any information not the ones who want to exclude it. My personal opinion is also that I am kinda pissed off mightily that even a frigging merger which was through consensus at an AFD is subject to this kind of goddamn discussion). i will list my concerns and ping some heads much cooler, saner and more knowledgeable than mine to see if what I proposed is allowed.
Deletions

  1. The statement "The origin of Mawlid observance dates back to the period of the early four Rashidun Caliphs of Islam" which has been sourced to http://www.lastprophet.info/mawlid-in-africa. The source is highly, highly unreliable, it is not even an opinion piece, just a blog or something, to be frank it is worse than a blog. furthermore the information is wrong. It is wrong not because I say so but because this guy and this guy agree that the fatmid were the first to celebrate it. To be frank this is common knowledge in Islamic community. For a likeness go upto a Christian and say "Yeah dude! the christians were celebrating Xmas on 25th December from the time of Christ".
  2. The statement "Most denominations of Islam approve of the commemoration of Muhammad's birthday;". The reason for deleting this is quite simple. Someone has been idiotic enough to write "Zaid Shakir" in the reference and then provides a link which instead of going to any of shakir's books takes you to the unreliable book "World Religions At Your Fingertips" which has been penned by an author who is, and I shit you not, "the author of a number of popular horror novels, including the six volumes of the Blackwater series.". YAAAYYY. With such academic expertise, WE MUST ACCEPT his opinion on ISLAM, shouldn't we. /facepalm. Secondly for such a general statement we must have multiple references from all five/six major denominations of Islam which say that Mawlid is ok. However this is not possible as almost half of muslims consider it akin to saint worship, which has been incidentally mentioned in the article too.
  3. The statement "Mawlid is recognized as a national holiday in most of the Muslim-majority countries of the world except Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are officially Wahhabi/Salafi.". This is sourced to "Russia and Islam: State, Society and Radicalism", which is quite good as a source I am sure, but it DOES NOT mention this statement at all. The mention of the word "MAWLID" in the entire book amounts to the grand total of "ONE". Yes my friends it used only frigging once in the entire book and that too does not say what the wikipedia article thinks that it says. Source misrepresentation level >9k.
  4. "Other terms used for this event include...a long list of translations". I would like this to disappear as it is so much WP:UNDUE, I am thinking of asking for its screengrab to be posted at UNDUE essay. Just when did we start giving translations in list form? And just where is the frigging source? Oh wait there is none. /hairpull
  5. first line in the HISTORY section. "In early days of Islam,........ ". Seeing the complete imbecility of the person who has cited other misleading information in the article this comes as no surprise. The source used says the exact opposite, that the celebrations started at a late date. So we should remove this as a "lie". I think that should be rationale enough. Simple lie.
  6. The first line in permissibility "Traditionally, most Sunni and nearly all of the Shia scholars have approved of the celebration of Mawlid," has been sourced to our beloved horror story writer via misrepresentation as Zaid shakir. The second source given here is www.masud.co.uk where an opinion piece (Opinion piece writers will shoot me for calling this mumbo jumbo an "opinion piece") written by a nobody seems to be the great motherlode wherefrom this nugget of wisdom originated. This is highly unreliable and should be removed.
  7. "Most Islamic scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid." Should be deleted as the source given is http://www.livingislam.org/n/mwld-qrd_e.html , but wait there is more, even at that website the words "Most Islamic scholars " do not appear, nor do the words "Tahir" or "Zaid". so even if we set aside the complete stupidity that someone considers three men to be Most Islamic scholars, we can delete this as being simple source misrepresentation.
  8. "Mawlid texts" should be deleted as WP:UNDUE. The entire section is sourced to Jan Knappert without giving the name of his work. the said author is a linguist of SWAHILI for God's sake, how does one consider him to be a scholarly source for islam? Yes it is plausible that he may have mentioned these so called "texts" in one of his books but does such a passing mention warrant this kind of mention here on the article? I hope not. @HyperGaruda I just checked the encyclopedia(online book on google books) and did not find any mention of the information given in the list i.e. the emphasis on "topics" of mawlid texts. Perhaps you can confirm this.

Merger
As per this debate I merged the article here. I have no friggin idea why my merger was reverted with my deletions. (To be frank even the deletions are starightforward, but reverting a merger? Why don't they just own the article and put a nameplate on its top?).
Gallery
every single picture shows a bunch of guys in a mob, EVERY FRIGGING PICTURE. so why not bunch them together in a gallery? there MUST be a great reason for this because I am getting a friggin revert everytime I try this. Pinging cooler/saner heads. HyperGaruda Drmies Doug Weller DeCausa
How to Reply In light of recent offtopic discussion I would like editors to please reply using a list format. I have a total of ten proposals about the article, it is recommended (by me) that you form a ten point list. Discuss each proposal in one point, give your opinion and feel free to explain it. After you have given you opinion I may edit my list showing that we have reached a consensus. Please see the reply given below courtesy of HyperGaruda. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this again without the incivility and personal attacks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You have mixed truth with falsehood in the reasons above. The mawlid is a national holiday in all but a few muslim countries. See for example Identity Discourses and Communities in International Events, Festivals and Spectacles (Leisure Studies in a Global Era) by pelgrave Macmillan. There are numerous other sources. All you need to do is find the sources rather than delete text. Add the citation needed tag. The problem is that you personally do not like the mawlid and have a PoV where you consider it akin to Saint worship. Likewise scholars such as Tahir ul qadri obviously support the mawlid. He wrote a 1000 page book on it. What's weird is that you are keen to remove supporters of the mawlid due to lack of references but do not apply the same rigidness on opponents of the mawlid such as sudais, zakir naik etc... Why is that? Probably because you are trying to push your PoV. Most denominations do celebrate the mawlid such as Sunni, Sufi, Shia etc... Read the book The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam By Marion Holmes Katz (Routledge) for example. Sunni is the biggest sect followed by Shia. Smaller sects such as wahabi and Ahmediyy don't celebrate mawlid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.126.191 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


First of all one thing I want to say is that please mind your language. This is not a forum or a group chat. Your language shows disrespect to other users. This statement clealry tells your intentions:

"Due to the fact that an IP hopper is asking that even blatantly unsourced and unreliably sourced information should first be discussed "

This shows your disrespect to those who celebrate Mawlid:

every single picture shows a bunch of guys in a mob, EVERY FRIGGING PICTURE.

Now when it comes to article, like every Wikipedia entry it is not 'Ideal'. It has both well referenced and unsoursed content.

As User:Mingling2 rightly pointed that last prophet.info is not the only source that claims that Origin of Mawlid observance dates back to the period of early four Caliphs of Islam. But since these are mostly religious so it is preferred over them. But it also doesn't mean that non-religious sources don't exist. I will find them as soon as possible.

I also agree with the anonymous user's point. There is no need to remove a large chuck of informative text just because it is poorly or unsoursed content according to you. I & other editors will try our best to make it look Ideal wiki page to you. But I will never agree for the removal of such a large chunk of info and images only to make it suit the interests of anti-Mawlid groups. Septate (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Septate When you get over the hissy fit of my bad manners (every single picture, except the ones with flags pointed out by Hyper, DOES show a friggin mob, what is wrong with that?) and have grown a skin thick enough not be hurt by my comments which were not even directed to you, go read WP:BURDEN. I am commenting on content here not on the editor. So what if I call these guys a mob? Look to your left and then to your right, Look similar?
Le mob one
,
Le mob two
. To be frank You need to source something before putting it in, especially something as controversial and foolish as the information I want to delete. I see that you give no new sources, just the irritating crap that "poorly sourced and unsourced" should be allowed to allowed on wikipedia. Can you give one single policy which says that unsourced "lies" should be allowed? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I provided a source that most muslim countries celebrate the mawlid which you conveniently ignored as you believe that this is Saint worship (where is your proof for this PoV btw). I also provided evidence that Sunni Muslims celebrate the mawlid and they are the vast majority of Muslims. You also failed to explain why anti mawlid scholars such as sudais, zakir naik etc...(in line with your PoV) should remain in the article even though there is no reliable source for them wheras pro mawlid scholars should be removed even though one of them wrote a 1000 page book on the mawlid. Try and discuss the sources instead of abusing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.126.191 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a list so anons like you can give your opinion about it, so please tell me which part you disagree on. Secondly, if you have a source do mention where in the source this information is given. saying "Dude! Saint worshipping 101 is a source go use it", is highly irritating because out of the 8 deletions you fail to mention which deletion is present in this source and you fail to mention exactly where in the source this is present. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@FreeatlastChitchat Looking at the comparison you made between a peaceful Mawlid festival and a horrible protest or something, a sensible person can easily recognise that u are here for a particular agenda and not to improve this wiki page. Comments by Septate and HyperGaruda are welcomed.Mingling2 (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, its up to u to provide source that Mawlid is not celebrated or is not an official holiday in some Muslim countries not others. If u read the statement correctly it states that it is official in most Muslim majority countries not all! So there are definitely some Muslim majority nations other than Saudi Arabia and Qatar where it is not official (Kazakhstan etc.). So nothing wrong with the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me FreeatlastChitchat??? The image above only shows a bunch of people enjoying Mawlid linked sekatan fair. You want all those images of huge number of people celebrating Mawlid to be placed in gallery section at the bottom of the page. Why? The only possible answer is, Because you don't want to show people that Mawlid is celebrated by huge number of people across the world.

You said:

To be frank You need to source something before putting it in, especially something as controversial and foolish as the information I want to delete But looking at your edits, it seems to me as if all that controversial and foolish information removed by you was in favour of Mawlid celebration. Nothing was removed by you that was against the Mawlid celebration. Your version of Mawlid may look unbiased to you but to a neutral eye it is biased in favour of those who are against Mawlid celebration. Septate (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Septate Go cry me a river. Can you please stop behaving like a child for a minute here? I want to remove information that is idiotic, and your rationale against that removal is "Oh my God! Dear Lord! He is removing things which are in favor of Mawlid". Seriously? THAT IS YOUR RATIONALE? Dude! Stop behaving like a petulant child. I gave my reasons for deletions even though WP:BURDEN is a policy which says that YOU should be the one giving reasons for inclusion. Even with my reasons you are behaving like a complete child. "Oh my God! he called my beloved Mawlid celebrators a mob.". Who gives a shit dude? They look like a mob to me(And to every sane person), hence I gave my reason for bunching them together. You are against my deletions/moving give your reasons according to wikipedia policy. Next time I would like to see some reasons or I go ahead with deletions and you can use whatever form of dispute resolution u want. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is you behaving like a child. You clearly have an anti mawlid agenda. For example, you keep banging on about the following statement:

Most Islamic scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid.

and ignore the anti mawlid statement a couple of lines below:

While other scholars and preachers particularly those belonging to Wahhabi denomination, consider Mawlid to be Bid‘ah and forbid its celebration. These include Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Zakir Naik and Ebrahim Desai.

This is sourced from the bullshit website https://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/printer-friendly-summary-2009-03-13.html. This website is pure crap and is full of anti mawlid garbage. If this is your type of reliable source then good for you but its not good enough for Wikipedia. But wait there is more, the website doesn't even mention Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Zakir Naik and Ebrahim Desai. Conveniently you didnt mention this as it didn't fit your anti-Mawlid PoV. Is this the type of rubbish you want in the article?

By the way Tahir Qadri clearly supports the Mawlid as is obvious from the book he has written:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mawlid-Al-Nabi-Permissibility-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri/dp/1908229241

In fact most suunis, Shias and sufis accept the mawlid. Read this as an example http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mawlid-al-nabi-celebrations-across-middle-east-1182362142

You also stated that: However this is not possible as almost half of muslims consider it akin to saint worship

Where is your evidence for this? Or is this just more PoV crap that you invented? If the Sunnis, Shias and Sufis are not half the muslims then who are? Wahabis and Ahmediyy's??

You want to get rid of the fact that the Mawlid is a national holiday in most Muslim countries. However, I already gave the name of the book that gives the countries that celebrate the Mawlid. If you are too lazy to find it here is the link:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0ATBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR2&dq=Identity+Discourses+and+Communities+in+International+Events,+Festivals+and+Spectacles+(Leisure+Studies+in+a+Global+Era)&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Mawlid&f=false

It states that All major north African countries celebrate the mawlid (page 203). On the same page it states that Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria mark it as an official holiday. It also states that Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and UAE all celebrate the mawlid. However Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen don't.

This book is even more explicit and states that:

Today the Mawlid is a public holiday in most Muslim countries with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kHb-640Gfa4C&pg=PA169&dq=mawlid+public+holiday&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi95ePgnNnJAhXIaxQKHXR5DK4Q6AEIMDAA#v=onepage&q=mawlid%20public%20holiday&f=false

You are clearly mixing truth with falsehood to support your bias. If a reference is pro Mawlid you are doing all you can to remove it. If a reference is anti Mawlid, even if it sourced to crap like https://www.alislam.org/ then you want it to stay and keep silent. You also make up rubbish such as half of muslims considering the mawlid as saint worship even though this has no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.78.219 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@109.147.78.219 Did you see me saying anything about the authenticity of alislam website? Do not put words in my mouth. Feel free to delete whatever you want lol, I don't mind. As I said earlier the entire article is "A FRIGGING ATROCITY" and needs to be rewritten. You still have given NO solid reason to contest my deletions. If you are concerned about WP:BALANCE feel free to delete whatever you want. I did not insert anything that is sourced to a crappy website. When I insert citations, I will defend them, so when I have not inserted a citation don't expect a defence from me. Seeing that Hyper agrees with me and the only reasons given to keep this text is highly laughable I am going to go ahead and restore my version of the text. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is quite strange that you only look to remove pro Mawlid references and make no attempt to remove the bullshit anti Mawlid references that exist. I am simply highlighting this fact. Also you claimed that the statement Most denominations of Islam approve of the Mawlid should be removed as according to you half of the muslims consider it saint worship. This is a lie and you have not been able to back this up with any evidence. I have provided evidence above that almost all Muslim countries celebrate the Mawlid. You also stated that Most Islamic scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid. should be deleted. It should not be deleted. I have already given a link to show that ul-Qadri wrote a book on the Mawlid. Shakir also supports the Mawlid (e.g. http://wwwnfiecomblogspotcom.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/blessed-mawlid-zaid-shakir-zaytuna.html). The reason why most Islamic scholars support the Mawlid is because Sunnis, shias and sufis all support the Mawlid. Minority sects like Wahabi and ahmediyy don't. You also stated that Mawlid is recognized as a national holiday in most of the Muslim-majority countries of the world except Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are officially Wahhabi/Salafi. should be deleted. It should not be deleted as I already gave references to show that this is true. If you try restoring your version of the text I will undo it immediately as at least 3 editors disagree with your bias editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.78.219 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also i have just noted that the article used to read Ali Gomaa, Chief Mufti of the world's oldest and largest Islamic university, Al Azhar in Egypt[citation needed], Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement[citation needed], Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, Grand Mufti of Cyprus Nazim Al-Haqqani[citation needed], Habib Ali al-Jifri of Yemen[citation needed], Syed Shujaat Ali Qadri, Muhammad Ilyas Qadri the founder of Dawat-e-Islami, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Grand Mufti of Bosnia Mustafa Cerić, Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Gibril Haddad, Said Afandi al-Chirkawi, Hisham Kabbani, Grand Mufti of India Akhtar Raza Khan, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar of Markazu Saqafathi Sunniya and Zaid Shakir all subscribe to Sunni Islam, and have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid.[31] They suggest that fasting on Mondays is also a way of commemorating Muhammad's birthday. For the first in English Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has published a book Mawlid al-Nabi Celebration and Permissibility defending the legality of Mawlid over more than 700 pages.[32] and YOU changed it. All of these names should be put back. It is easy enough to find sources (e.g. http://www.israinternational.com/world-nexus/398-fatwa-religious-verdict-on-mawlid-un-nabi-saws-from-dar-al-ifta-egypt.html) for Ali Gomaa, http://www.alhabibali.com/audioVideo_details/ln/en/avid/780 for Habib Ali jifri, https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00GMAQZ6A?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0 for Hamza Yusuf etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.78.219 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@109.147.78.219(I am not sure you will get this ping as your Ip seems to change anyway) thanks for the book source. I have used that to show that many countries celebrate the mawlid. I did not find any names written in the Isra source so I did not sue that. alhabib ali was kinda laughable as a source so I did not use that too. the blog is also not a source. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted you again as you just went ahead with your bias changes and made your edits without agreement from others. I see that you still kept all the anti mawlid bullshit references and removed text that is pro mawlid. You need to get agreement first before making your edits. You just deleted the text Traditionally, most Sunni and nearly all of the Shia scholars have approved of the celebration of Mawlid even though this is true. You deleted a whole list of pro mawlid scholars and kept the ones that were anti mawlid even though they were not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.78.219 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@109.147.78.219 your reason for revert is simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have agreement from hyperGaruda, just below. If you think that something is given without a source just delete the FRIGGING text don't blindly revert me. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Response by HyperGaruda

Thanks for this —sometimes amusing— rant ;) I agree with most of it, but not always for the same reasons:

  1. Agree
  2. Agree, not because of the author's background, but because the statement is just not written in the source. It even mentions how not all Muslims agree with celebrating Mawlid.
  3. Agree
  4. Agree, but only per unsourced WP:NOTDICTIONARY and because some of them are not entirely correct (Malay does not use macrons and other diacritics, and it's called Maulid Nabi in Indonesian), leaving the other ones doubtful too.
  5. Agree
  6. Agree
  7. Agree
  8. Agree, but only because it's a different topic (a poem in honour of Muhammad). Disagree, it is part of the Mawlid liturgy (or so it says in the current text) and IS sourced reliably, but you'll have to read a bit more carefully: some people tend to use Harvard-style refs (shortened refs in-line and a separate bibliography at the end). As you can see in the section References, Jan Knappert's article is part of the Encyclopedia of Islam.
  • Merger: I think some people just misunderstood your intentions, considering the avalanche of deletions. Should be merged anyway into this article per linked discussion.
  • Gallery: Almost agree. There's also a picture of Mawlid flags ;) The article is lacking images that are characteristic of Mawlid, like people awaiting Iftar are characteristic of Ramadan, easter eggs of Easter and Christmas trees of Christmas. Mobs are commonplace in pretty much any Muslim festivity - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@FreeatlastChitchat: About the Encyclopedia of Islam reference: you'll need the 3rd edition. As far as I can tell, only the first and snippets of the second ed are available on Google Books. The striked-through link above will lead you to the 3rd ed article, although you may need access via an institution (or pay a hefty price). I still have access via my university, although it will be over soon because I graduated a few months ago. Luckily there's still WP:Brill if it is really necessary. Anyway, here's a quote from said article: Central to these celebrations [i.e. Mawlid] is the recitation of a mawlid, i.e. of a panegyrical poem of a legendary character. [stuff about the order of contents in a mawlid] In the Arab world, mawlid recitation became a common feature of the celebrations in the course of the 9th/15th century and had become universal at the end of the 12th/18th. This is followed by a short history of the poems, and finally mentions of some notable ones. I can't quote much of the text, because that might cross the fair-use line and lead me into the lands of copyvio. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I see now that you were specifically asking about the list thingy. I suppose it was based on the "stuff about the order of contents in a mawlid". Guess I have to quote that too then: These poems normally follow a standard sequence of introductory praises to God, an invocation, a description of the creation of al-nūr al-muḥammadī [q.v.], then proceed through various stages and digressions (e.g. on the Prophet’s ancestry) to the actual physical birth, which is preceded by an account of a miraculous announcement to his mother Amina [q.v.] that she is bearing the Prophet. The wiki-list does seem to misrepresent the source somewhat... - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda ty for looking it up, my books are at home and I won't be able to look up anything until the weekend, so ty very much. I am thinking of doing a complete rewrite once this mess is taken care of and I'll ping you once I get a rough draft done. I do wish dougweller and Drmies would lend their opinion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda I am deleting the agreed upon material now. As for Mawlid texts, I have reformatted the list to normal text and created a subheading instead of a heading. I have edited the lede to show that it is celebrated in many Islamic countries. (ref was provided by anon IP). Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

POINT 3

You want to delete the following statement: "Mawlid is recognized as a national holiday in most of the Muslim-majority countries of the world except Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are officially Wahhabi/Salafi.".

This statement should not be deleted. The book Identity Discourses and Communities in International Events, Festivals and Spectacles (Leisure Studies in a Global Era) says that:

All major north African countries celebrate the mawlid (page 203). On the same page it states that Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria mark it as an official holiday. It also states that Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and UAE all celebrate the mawlid. However Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen don't.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P0ATBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR2&dq=Identity+Discourses+and+Communities+in+International+Events,+Festivals+and+Spectacles+(Leisure+Studies+in+a+Global+Era)&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Mawlid&f=false

Also, the book Java, Indonesia and Islam states that:

Today the Mawlid is a public holiday in most Muslim countries with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kHb-640Gfa4C&pg=PA169&dq=mawlid+public+holiday&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi95ePgnNnJAhXIaxQKHXR5DK4Q6AEIMDAA#v=onepage&q=mawlid%20public%20holiday&f=false

So this information is correct and should not be deleted. In fact we can expand and list the countries that have the Mawlid as a public holiday. (109.147.78.219 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

POINT 6

You want to delete the following statement: "Traditionally, most Sunni and nearly all of the Shia scholars have approved of the celebration of Mawlid,"

This statment should not be deleted. The book The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad (s): Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam By Marion Holmes Katz states that:

In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the celebration of the Prophet's (s) birthday and the recitation of mawlid texts were ubiquitous practices endorsed by the majority of mainstream Sunni scholars... by the modern period the celebration of the Mawlid was overwhelmingly accepted and practiced at all levels of religious education and authority. Prominent elite scholars continued to contribute to the development of the tradition. (page 169)

So clearly most sunni scholars do support celebrating the birthday of the Prophet (s). (109.147.78.219 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

POINT 2

You want to delete the following statement: "Most denominations of Islam approve of the commemoration of Muhammad's birthday;"

You also state that: "for such a general statement we must have multiple references from all five/six major denominations of Islam which say that Mawlid is ok. However this is not possible as almost half of muslims consider it akin to saint worship"

There is no proof whatsoever that half of Muslims consider the celebration of the Prophet's (s) birthday to be akin to saint worship. What are your sources for this claim?

I have provided above clear proof that the Sunni sect supports the Mawlid. Sufi's celebrate the mawlid also. In the book Identity Discourses and Communities in International Events, Festivals and Spectacles by Udo Merkelit it states that:

The notion of the mawlid by the early modern period had extended, at least in Sufi practice, to celebrating the births of local saints and founders of Sufi orders, as well as the mawlids of other members of Prophet Muhammad's (s) family.

Shi'ites also celebrate the Mawlid. Read the following article: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mawlid-al-nabi-celebrations-across-middle-east-1182362142

The sects that do not celebrate the Mawlid are the Ahmediyy and Wahabi. The former is not a majority sect in any Muslim country. The later is a majority in only Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Therefore the statement should not be deleted as most denominations do approve of the Mawlid and it is not akin to saint worship. (109.147.78.219 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

@109.147.78.219 The sources you gave were incorporated in the text during my most recent edit(which was reverted by anon IP). I used the phrase that most Muslim countries celebrate mawlid. Although I did not add the exception of saudi Arabia, thinking that it was kinda undue. I can add that if you wish. As for your Second source; perhaps you will be kind enough to read the whole book instead of cherry picking phrases? There is a complete chapter on the people who reject mawlid, it is titled "mawlid under attack". Furthermore your statement is not even accurate, as there are no sources which talk about traditional Shia views on mawlid. Add to that the damning evidence that during the late nineteenth century the Deobandi and Ahmadiyyah sects were growing very rapidly, and they both reject mawlid as an abomination. So basically what I would like to say is that we should not cherry pick phrases to suit our own POV. Rather create a balance. The balance is to state that many scholars agree with it and many disagree with it.. As for your last statement, I have already said that a good source will be needed to push forward such abroad claim. Multiple good sources to be frank. Seeing that the Deobandi, Ahmadi, Wahabi, Salafi and others reject this and typically consider it to be saint worshiping FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You stated that, "There is a complete chapter on the people who reject mawlid, it is titled "mawlid under attack"." I know there is. That's where I got the quote from which I will restate as it is extremely clear. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the celebration of the Prophet's (s) birthday and the recitation of mawlid texts were ubiquitous practices endorsed by the majority of mainstream Sunni scholars... by the modern period the celebration of the Mawlid was overwhelmingly accepted and practiced at all levels of religious education and authority. Prominent elite scholars continued to contribute to the development of the tradition. (page 169) Obviously the Mawlid is "under attack" by Wahabi and Ahmediyy followers. This does not diminish the fact that Sunni's overwhelmingly support the Mawlid. So do Sufis and Shias (see above). Sunnis, shias and Sufis are easily the majority of muslims. Ahmediyy's are the majority in zero countries. Wahabis are the majority in Saudi and Qatar only. It is not balanced to equate minority sects such as Ahmediyy and Wahabi with majority sects such as Sunni and Shia. Also, you still haven't provided any evidence for your PoV that Mawlid is considered saint worship by half the muslims.

POINT 7

You want to delete the following statement:

"Most Islamic scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid."

and you state that: "so even if we set aside the complete stupidity that someone considers three men to be Most Islamic scholars, we can delete this as being simple source misrepresentation."

I have already provided a source to prove that most sunni scholars approve of the Mawlid. The book The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad (s): Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam By Marion Holmes Katz states that:

In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the celebration of the Prophet's (s) birthday and the recitation of mawlid texts were ubiquitous practices endorsed by the majority of mainstream Sunni scholars... by the modern period the celebration of the Mawlid was overwhelmingly accepted and practiced at all levels of religious education and authority. Prominent elite scholars continued to contribute to the development of the tradition. (page 169)

Also, looking at the history of the article you can see that a few weeks ago the paragraph was actually:

Traditionally, most Sunni and nearly all of the Shia scholars have approved of the celebration of Mawlid,[22][23][24] while some other Wahhabi influenced scholars[25][26][27] and the Ahmadiyya[28] oppose the celebration.

Ali Gomaa, Chief Mufti of the world's oldest and largest Islamic university, Al Azhar in Egypt[citation needed], Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement[citation needed], Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, Grand Mufti of Cyprus Nazim Al-Haqqani[citation needed], Habib Ali al-Jifri of Yemen[citation needed], Syed Shujaat Ali Qadri, Muhammad Ilyas Qadri the founder of Dawat-e-Islami, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Grand Mufti of Bosnia Mustafa Cerić, Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Gibril Haddad, Said Afandi al-Chirkawi, Hisham Kabbani, Grand Mufti of India Akhtar Raza Khan, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar of Markazu Saqafathi Sunniya and Zaid Shakir all subscribe to Sunni Islam, and have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid.[31] They suggest that fasting on Mondays is also a way of commemorating Muhammad's birthday. For the first in English Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has published a book Mawlid al-Nabi Celebration and Permissibility defending the legality of Mawlid over more than 700 pages.[32]

Most of the above names were removed by Freechitchat in a previous edit. They should not have been removed. It is easy enough to find sources for the scholars above and they should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.78.219 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

AS you can clearly see that there is a CITATION NEEDED tag with all the names, which means there is no source. No source means it may not even be true. Furthermore "Most Islamic" scholars will need multiple reliable sources. A Single source for every single claim will not work. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ali Gomaa supports the mawlid in his book "Responding from the Tradition: One Hundred Contemporary Fatwas by the Grand Mufti of Egypt".

Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki supports the mawlid in this book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UnWTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=Muhammad+Alawi+al-Maliki+maulid&source=bl&ots=sgNu4gCsrX&sig=9b_aOSWIu1777n0FKXWSaLXdXv8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU1PmM3d3JAhWKtBoKHVNYCc8Q6AEISjAL#v=onepage&q=Muhammad%20Alawi%20al-Maliki%20maulid&f=false

Habib Ali Jifri supports the mawlid here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w33aBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=Habib+Ali+al-Jifri+mawlid&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUuue83d3JAhWKXRoKHZHZDncQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Habib%20Ali%20al-Jifri%20mawlid&f=false

and on his own website: http://www.alhabibali.com/audioVideo_details/ln/en/avid/780

Tahir Qadri has written a book supporting the Mawlid here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nIzknQEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Dr+Muhammad+Tahir-ul-Qadri%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXkfuk3t3JAhWBhBoKHcu6ChAQ6AEIOzAC

etc... We should therefore reinstate the names above.

Who says that we need multiple sources for the phrase "Most scholars"? I've given a reliable source above already regarding the "majority of mainstream sunni scholars" supporting the mawlid. Have you any evidence of the contrary? Also you still haven't provided any evidence that the Mawlid is considered "akin to saint worship by almost half the Muslims".

Any name which is sourced will be included, both for and against mawlid. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Point 1

I agree with Point 1

Regarding the statement 'The origin of Mawlid observance dates back to the period of the early four Rashidun Caliphs of Islam'. I just checked the source (http://www.lastprophet.info/mawlid-in-africa). The article is solely based on 'Ahmet KAVAS, "Afrika'da Mevlid Uygulamalari", Diyanet Ilmi Dergi'. It is in Turkish langugage and I am Turkish so I know Turkish :). The website badly translated Ahmet Kavas' article. What Kavaslı basically meant at page 560 that 'Islam spread over Africa at the time of Rashidun Caliphs of Islam. As people in Africa have been influenced by foreign customs and traditions, their cultures and traditions too influenced others. One of their influences was Mawlid'

The Turkish original;

Hulefay-i Raşidin döneminde Kuzey Afrika'da başlayan fetih hareketleri Ispanya'ya kadar uzandı. Kıtanın başta kuzeyi ve doğusu olmak üzere, batısı ve Hint Ok- yanusu salıillerindeki toplulukların da bu dini kabul etmelerinin ardından asırlar boyunca geliştirdikleri kendilerine has İslam medeniyetleri sayesinde dünyanın diğer bölgelerindeki müslümanlardan etkilendikleri gibi onları da kendi örf ve adetleriyle etkilediler. Hazret Muhammed'in doğum yıldönümünü kutlama merasimi olan mevlid bu adetlerin başında gelmektedir.


So above Kavaslı did not say that Mawlid observance started at the time of Rashidun Caliphs and at the next page (p 561), Kavas said that 'Mawlid observance started at the time of Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171) who immigrated from North Africa to Egypt'.

The Turkish original;

Tarihte mevlid merasimini ilk defa kutlayan, lfrikıyye diye bilinen ve bugünkü Tunus topraklarında ortaya çıkıp daha sonra doğuya doğru ilerleyerek Mısır'a gelip yerleşen Fatimiler (909-117l) dir.


Kavas gave another Turkish article as a reference for his claim. Anyway, Kavas' point was that Mawlid is one of the contributions/influences of African Muslims, who started to become Muslim at the time of first four Caliphs, to other Muslims. Well, the word 'contribution' here might be objected, but this is what Kavas argued, so this is not my argument.

So, the statement 'The origin of Mawlid observance dates back to the period of the early four Rashidun Caliphs of Islam' does not come from a reliable source (in the sense that the source did not translate its original source accurately, because their original source did not claim it at all). In conclusion, I agree with FreeatlastChitchat that it is common knowledge that Mawlid started at the time of Fatimids, not at time of first four Caliphs, so this statement should be removed.


Religionandeducation (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I second that, that the origin of the Mawlid to Africa during the time of the four great caliphate is dubious. The original article don't even claim that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druss2015 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

can you clarify timeline please in the lede

specifically

The origin of Mawlid observance dates back to the period of the early four Rashidun Caliphs of Islam.[1][4] The celebration of this birthday was further initiated by the Fatimids and it was celebrated in lands under their control.[5] The Ottomans declared it an official holiday in 1588.[6]

only tells me that the other two date references are prior to that. It assumes the reader knows. I did not want to put a when template as I am sure my question stems from ignorance, but I think more could be done to make it accessible to those like me who are and would like to be less so. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Fatepur (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Grammatical error. I suggest you change "most of Sunni scholar" to "most Sunni scholars"Fatepur (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Fatepur (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC) On reflection, better to say "many Sunni scholars", which is more elegant and more in conformity with Wikipedia editorial guidelinesFatepur (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it should say "Most Sunni scholars" as this is what the source states. Read point 6 above where I provide a reference for this. Also, discuss your proposed changes before submitting a request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done, per what Saheehinfo said. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 December 2015

The article has an error, in it's third paragraph from top when it states "some denominations including Wahhabism/Salafism, Deobandism and the Ahmadiyya" since it includes Ahmediyya as part of Islam which is wrong as Ahmediyya community is non-muslims as they do not believe in the finality of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as their Messiah which is in conflict with the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Khatam_an-Nabiyyin

Hence the statement with error mentioned above should look like this instead "some denominations including Wahhabism/Salafism, Deobandism". Thinkermind (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The Ahmadiyya consider themselves Muslims. The intricacies of how religious denominations see each other is certainly not unique to Islam. If a reader wants to find out more about how a certain denomination fits in among the others (or doesn't), they can read the Ahmadiyya article, where it is well cited that it is considered an Islamic religious movement and that it is also considered a non-Islamic movement. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 Not done per what BurritoBazooka said. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 Dec 2015

There's an error in the formatting of the list of terms for this subject in the article. To fix, please change this: 

*'''Yawm an-Nabī''' – The Day of the Prophet (''Arabic'')
*'''Mövlüd""" - The birth of the (great) Prophet
(''[[Azerbaijani Language|Azeri]]''

To this: 

*'''Yawm an-Nabī''' – The Day of the Prophet (''Arabic'')
*'''Mövlüd''' – The birth of the (great) Prophet (''[[Azerbaijani Language|Azeri]]'')

And then, as stated earlier in that section, move "Mövlüd" to the correct Latin alphabetical ordering (that is, before "Mulud").

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 December 2015

Please re-read the following link given as reference [4] on your page, as well as comment posted by a member on the bottom of same page where he said "nowhere it says the celebration of mawlid was dated back to Khulfa-e-Rashidin". http://www.lastprophet.info/mawlid-in-africa 84.255.172.211 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand this. What are you requesting? Has this been discussed and agreed with others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mawlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2016

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 per consensus below against the move. No evidence was presented, nor found to support the rationale of the move, and as Ivanvector mentioned, it appears to be forcing a Christian convention on an Islamic title.(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Mawlid → Nativity of Muhammad – Harmonization with Nativity of Jesus and Nativity of St John the Baptist. – Article editor (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Article editor and BarrelProof: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2016 (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.

Discussion: Merge or Keep Separate - Prophet’s Day & Mawlid

I propose the following statement "In early days of Islam, observation of Muhammad's birth as a holy day was usually arranged privately and later there was an increased number of visitors to the Mawlid house that was open for the whole day specifically for this celebration" needs a lot of work on, it doesn't provide any information on who, when and where. The statement is highly opinionated.

"The early days of Islam,..." is factually incorrect and there is no evidence for it, nor their is any mention in early islamic sources. The statement mentioned in Encyclopedia of Islam, which the article refers to, itself is very opinionated and is hardly got to do facts.Druss2015 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Thanks for your notification. Though, acknowledge about the article Mawlid, I have created Prophet's Day as a separate article because:

In the very easy form, first to say, Mawlid is a celebration that depends on the Lunar Calendar (Muslim calendar or Hijri calendar / AH) meanwhile, Prophet's Day is the celebration that observes in the aspect of Solar Calendar (Gregorian / AD). Here, the almost 11 Days of difference between a lunar and solar calendar should be considerable.
Secondly, the ceremony Mawlid has been celebrating as a National program since Hijri 4th and as international program since Hijri seventh century, in contrary, the Prophet's day since 2013. Therefore, it is a quite different program.
Moreover, the Islamic Calendar did not exist at the time when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) appeared in the worldly life. According to historical analysis, Prophet (pbuh) appeared in 570 AD (Julian Calendar Era) it means, the (Gregorian / AD) began since 769 years before his advent. In contrary, the Hijri Calendar even has never introduced by the entire lifetime of Prophet (pbuh). However, it has been being countdown since 17 year back from its beginning, commemorating the year of migration (from Makkah to Madina) although, initiated/inaugurated/introduced 7 years later than the Prophet (buph) passed away. It means, the Islamic Calendar is not a calendar initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) own-self. Therefore, the demand of celebrating a ceremony according to the earlier calendar, the solar calendar is more preferable than the lunar. In fact, it is different.
There have much more difference between even the season/monsoon. Because of being celebrated according to the lunar calendar, after each 2/4 years, the program become observed in a quite different season. Aside, Prophet's day, as it is being observed according to solar calendar, will remain in same season/monsoon each year. Never change it. Therefore, a difference between these two programs really exists.

All these are my own opinion since I have been writing on the issue and lately following the discussions behind the article Mawalid. In fact, from my perception, in the above all circumstance, both should remain as two individual articles holding individual identity in parallel to, Father's day or Mother's day or even the Women's day (International Women's Day). However, first two articles or second two articles can be merged in one but will be improper. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. They need not to be merged because they are separate entities. Septate (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor sourcing and layout

An IP address keeps adding material "sourced" from unreliable publishing houses such as the "Jewish publication society". "ABC Clio" and the non academic author Stephen Schwartz. None of this is even remotely reliable as per WP:RS. Also, the proposed structure of the article is poor. You need to discuss why these "sources" should be used and explain why the formatting is better.Saheeh Info 14:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are my previous responses to Saheehinfo on his talk page:
Adding well cited info and a clearer layout doesn't need to be taken to the talk page. Your wholesale removal of content only shows that you seek to remove content that doesn't agree with your prejudices. Taking my case to the talk page is unnecessary, and i highly doubt you are sincere in seeking a solution through discsussion. If you want to remove well cited content then the impetus is upon you to justify its rejection. So i ask you to go to the talk page and state your excuses first. 49.195.9.77 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So once again i undid your edit that you backed-up with a baseless excuse: "Sources such as Stephen Schwartz and the Jewish publication society are unreliable per WP:IRS". Can you please provide evidence, specifically, that Stephen Schwartz and the Jewish publication are unreliable? It is quite easy to throw around wiki policy; it is another thing to actually have substance behind your claims. Schwartz is a notable author on Islamic topics and the Jewish publication society is also notable and publishes many reliable works. Anyway, your insincere intentions are quite clear: you removed my whole edit, that involved many different references, even though you raised issue with only 2 references (Stephen Schwartz and the Jewish publication). Your agenda appears to be an attempt to whitewash Mawlid as a celebration that was instituted since the earliest of times with a very limited number of groups who oppose it; however, this is far from the truth, and i will be actively editing this article over the coming days to give it greater balance and accuracy. If you keep to your baseless removal of content i will report you to be blocked. Cheers. NB.: ABC-CLIO is unreliable?! This is the ignorance i am dealing with. 49.195.44.189 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@49.180.144.20:, @49.180.160.240:, @49.195.44.189:, @49.180.139.146:, @49.180.169.87:, @49.181.197.203:, @49.181.198.81:, @49.180.175.140:, @49.181.165.173:, @49.195.24.115:, @49.180.137.218: and any other IP addresses that you have used over the last few days on this article.
You stated that: "Can you please provide evidence, specifically, that Stephen Schwartz and the Jewish publication are unreliable?".
That's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:PROVEIT it is upon you to prove that the sources you are using are reliable, not for me to prove that a source is unreliable (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material). So you used the book The Other Islam: Sufism and the Road to Global Harmony published by Ten Speed Press and authored by Stephen Suleyman Schwartz. Does Schwartz have any academic credentials? If so, what are they? Has his work been peer-reviewed? Is Ten Speed Press a reliable publishing House?
Similarly, you added a reference to An Introduction to Islam for Jews published by the Jewish Publication Society. Again, is this a reliable publishing house and has the work been peer-reviewed. The onus is upon you to prove that the source is reliable.
You also changed the text:
The scholar Ibn Taymiyya states that Mawlid is 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" to
"The scholar Ibn Taymiyya states that Mawlid is a sinful innovation but noted "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"."
claiming that that's what the source actually states. What source are you talking about? In the book "Ibn Taymiyya and his times" by Oxford University Press I see no such statement.
You changed the structure of the article to add 2 new headings entitled "Permissible" and "Forbidden". This goes against a long standing consensus of the article and needs to be discussed and agreed with the wider Wikipedia community before being changed as per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Making statements such as "taking my case to the talk page is unnecessary" and "i highly doubt you are sincere in seeking a solution through discsussion" isn't going to help you here.
I will therefore be reversing your contentious edits until we come to a conclusion on the talk page.
You then stated that Your agenda appears to be an attempt to whitewash Mawlid as a celebration that was instituted since the earliest of times with a very limited number of groups who oppose it; however, this is far from the truth, and i will be actively editing this article over the coming days to give it greater balance and accuracy.
For you to make such a claim goes against WP:GOODFAITH and is borderline abusive. My only agenda is to ensure that this article is well written and represented by reliable sources.
And finally, you stated that If you keep to your baseless removal of content i will report you to be blocked.
You are hopping IP addresses, have made it clear that you do not want to discuss and have made baseless accusations against me. If you want to go down this route then be my guest. Saheeh Info 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for detailing all of my IP addresses. If you think that somehow that will impact my credibility then i'm sorry to disappoint you: my IP changes because i'm using mobile internet and i have no control over when and to what IP it changes. Nonetheless, the effort you put in has been applaudingly noted.
I'm not going to bother defending Schwartz because i don't need to: I have a 2nd source that says the same thing. However, that didn't seem to prevent your wholesale removal of the sentence. Strange! The same applies to your concern regarding the Jewish source: i don't need it because i added another source that confirms it.
I gave very clear reasoning for my ibn Taymiyya changes, and you'd do well to read the quote in the source.
Regarding the sub-headings, i can live with their removal. 49.181.199.196 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@49.181.162.112:, @49.181.200.155:, @49.181.199.196:. Regarding IP addresses, its called Reply-To. Maybe read up about it before you come up with your unfunny comments.
It's good that you finally realized that Stephen Suleyman Schwartz isn't a reliable source. If you had accepted this from the outset rather than WP:EDITWAR you would have saved yourself a lot of time.
Now regarding the Ibn Taymiyya section, there is long standing version of his 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.
You changed this to:
The scholar Ibn Taymiyya states that Mawlid is a sinful innovation but noted "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.
I believe that the original statement expresses Ibn Taymiyya's views better given his somewhat contradictory stance. On the one hand he considers it reprehensible but at the same time acknowledges that participants receive a reward for their good intentions. I have therefore reverted to the long standing consensus version of the text. What are your thoughts? Saheeh Info 10:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise i admitted Schwartz was unreliable. Thankyou for unapprovingly speaking on my behalf. I made it quite clear why i wasn't going to engage in an edit war with you when i simply didn't have to and yet could still get what i wanted.
The only person who seems to think that ibn Taymiyyah's view is complex is yourself. But i am not surprised. Let me break it down for you: he disapproves of Mawlid in the first instance period. He makes it quite clear it is a SINFUL innovation. There is nothing complex about that. What he adds is that those who partake of it innocently not knowing that this is bida but doing it out of true love for the Prophet then they will be rewarded their intentions. His position on the permissability of Mawlid is however crystal clear. 49.195.42.61 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of page protection

Widr, could you undo your page protection for this Mawlid article? I promise I won't edit war over the disputed edit, but I want to continue adding other info to the article. Most immediately I'd like to add a source/s for the lack of an accurately determined date of the Prophet's birth Mawlidman (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah

I've told you before, that the section on Ibn Taymiyyah was added on Jan 2015 by User:Thehistorian1984. It has remained in the article since, which implies that their was a consensus on the text. The phrase "complexity" wasn't added by me. Do you understand this? Read WP:CONS. The phrase "complexity" sums up well Ibn Taymiyyah's position. On the one hand he considers the Mawlid to be reprehensible but at the same time he considers it's participants to be rewarded for their good intention. Saheeh Info 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering that ibn Taymiyyah's view was expanded by myself with a new source and greater elucidation of his views than the January edit, i don't see that we must stick to an out-dated version. Just because an editor added it +1 year ago doesn't mean that you have consensus. The editor may agree with me rather than you, so then where is the consensus that you talk of? In light of greater detail i added, i have every right to change the edit if the sources back it. Anyway, "complex" is not the way to describe his position: as the quote says, his position of opposition was "qualified". There is a big difference between "complex" and "qualified". His position on the permissability of Mawlid per se is very uncomplex — it is a SINFUL innovation. Do yo understand this? 49.181.222.95 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no conflict with the new source that you provided. It doesn't prove that Ibn Taymiyyah's position was not complex or self contradictory. Other sources too show that this is the case.
Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles 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."

Ref: Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
She actually uses the word "paradoxical".
or consider the following:
"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
This makes it clear that if the participant of the Mawlid had a good intention he would be forgiven any sin that might ordinarily be incurred. So there are a number of different works from academic authors which highlight the fact that Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid were not "black and white" but complex or even self contradictory. As such, the consensus version of the text should be reinstated. And yes, it is understood to be a consensus by virtue of the fact that is has been accepted by numerous editors well over a year. Try and actually read the policy links I send you such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS which states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Saheeh Info 14:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Both of the sources you quote don't paint the full picture — which i have already expressed. Let me help you understand the full picture, which you appear determined to reject. Katz in several areas of her book details Ibn Taymiyyah's views fully — not just a select section of it that suits an agenda:
*"Even Ibn Taymlya, who emphasized the primacy of adherence to the Prophet's example, acknowledged the meritorious nature of expressions of love for the Prophet (see earlier, p. 1 17). Whereas Ibn Taymlya was willing to accept the expression of love as valid grounds for the celebration of the mawlid by Muslims lacking the knowledge or zeal for more orthodox forms of piety, contemporary salafls have rejected all standards but that of adherence to the prophetic sunna." p.196
*"Pre-modern scholars tended to recognize a distinction between the needs and abilities of elite and ordinary believers. Although all Muslims theoretically had the same basic religious obligations, disparities in religious knowledge and commitment appear to have been acknowledged by scholars on both sides of the controversy. While Ibn Taymlya certainly advocates that Islamic practice be firmly grounded in the Prophet's sunna, for instance, he recognizes that it may not be possible to raise all Muslims to this ideal level of practice. Celebrating the Prophet's birthday, like embellishing a Qur'an with gold (another religiously suspect act of devotion), may be the most sincerely pious act that a given individual is likely to perform. In this case, Ibn Taymlya acknowledges that a noncanonical act of devotion may be genuinely meritorious; he counsels that it may be unwise to prohibit such customs unless a more legitimate alternative can successfully be promoted. "Things may be approved when performed by some people, that would be disapproved if performed by a rightly guided believer (al-mu'min al-musaddad)"" p.214
*"Modern authors, in contrast, tend to assume that all Muslims are subject to the same religious standards. The idea that devotional practice may be a sincere, if imperfect, form of religious expression for the uneducated or the unsophisticated seems to disappear from the debate. Contemporary opponents of the mawlid may elide Ibn Taymlya's comments on this subject not merely because they wish to emphasize his more categorical arguments against the mawlid, but because they assume that a full sunna-based Islamic practice is accessible to all Muslims. If participants in the contemporary mawlid debate no longer believe that ordinary Muslims may legitimately engage in lesser (or less well-founded) forms of ritual practice, this may reflect modern developments in literacy and religious education. It is now possible to imagine that scholarly standards of belief and conduct can be disseminated to the entire population." p.214
As i already stated, he clearly considered mawlid sinful bida, but if an ignorant muslim partook of it with righteous intentions then that person would be rewarded for his intention. However, he did not excuse the knowledgeable Muslims from celebrating Mawlid. This is the most complete, accurate, faithful reproduction of his view. 49.195.35.13 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll once again quote Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles view as you seem to have ignored it. She states:
"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."
Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles makes it quite clear that Ibn Taymiyyah's view on the Mawlid is "paradoxical". She also makes no mention of practitioners being "ignorant" or "knowledgeable".
She then states that "This seeming disconnect perplexes and even offends modern Salafi editors of Ibn Taymiyyah's works".
i.e. Ibn Taymiyyahs views vexes modern day followers of the Salafi sect. And yes, she is aware of the "full picture" given her academic credentials and given the depth of her article. Next, she quotes Ibn Taymiyya as follows:
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.
No mention is made of "ignorant" or "knowledgeable". Rather Ibn Taymiyya's quote above indicates that people who perform "independent reasoning" (ijtihad) would still receive a reward. Ijtihad is performed by scholars.
Likewise, we read the following:
"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
Mark Woodward makes no mention of being "ignorant" or "knowledgeable" either. He merely states that Ibn Taymiyyah's view is that if the intention is right then the participant will be rewarded and forgiven.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency amongst those opposed to the Mawlid to look at things in a "black and white" fashion. Based on the views of the academic scholars above we can see quite clearly that this is not case. Whilst, Ibn Taymiyya's views were not the same as scholars such as Suyuti and Ibn Hajar, they were also far from negative in the way that modern Salafis wants to portray. A balanced way to explain his views would be to use words such as "complex" and "paradoxical" as Raquel M. Ukeles does.
Finally, please refrain from edit warring until we come to a consensus on the talk page. You are now being reverted by another user @Tanbircdq: as well as myself. I have told you about this before on a number of occasions. Also, did you read WP:EDITCONSENSUS? Saheeh Info 14:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Saheehinfo: So I created this account, instead of editing from random IPs.
Firstly, you should edit in good faith. You have shown some malign intent by not only undoing my taymiyya edit but also removing my tuwaijiri edit. I would request that you restore my tuwaijiri edit, but i don't expect much from you.
Secondly, it is patently obvious for any objective reader that Katz's info concerning taymiyya is the most detailed of any that have been provided. She covers the issue many times in a work dedicated solely to mawlid—which is not the case for the sources you quote. When a person wants to understand an issue, they take their info from the most complete source. Your sources don't mention taymiyya's differentiation between the learned and ignorant, yet Katz does. This shows that Katz has a greater, more nuanced understanding of taymiyya's position. You claim people like me make the issue black and white, well many times issues are indeed black and white. I can just as readily accuse you of playing with sources that suit your agenda while hiding the full picture that is blaringly provided. Mawlidman (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mawlidman:, your edits were reverted because you were Edit Warring not because of my so called "malign intent". Look, if you want to contribute to Wikipedia then you are going to have to work with other editors whether you like it or not. That's the deal.
Now, in terms of your response you claimed that: Your sources don't mention taymiyya's differentiation between the learned and ignorant, yet Katz does.
Firstly, Katz doesn't simply differentiate Ibn Taymiyya's view between "the learned and ignorant". She highlights the fact that Ibn Taymiyya's view is different to the modern Salafi sect and that, according to Ibn Taymiyya, an individual who is EITHER lacking in knowledge OR lacking in zeal have valid grounds to celebrate the Mawlid.
She states:
Whereas Ibn Taymiya was willing to accept the expression of love as valid grounds for the celebration of the mawlid by Muslims lacking the knowledge or zeal for more orthodox forms of piety, contemporary salafis have rejected all standards but that of adherence to the prophetic sunna.
i.e. according to Ibn Taymiyya you CAN be knowledgeable but lacking in zeal and this is still a valid basis for celebrating the Mawlid. Ibn Taymiyyah's views are different to the black and white views expressed by Salafis.
You also claimed that: "it is patently obvious for any objective reader that Katz's info concerning taymiyya is the most detailed of any that have been provided".
Well, its not patently obvious. Katz work devotes a few pages (nothing more) to Ibn Taymiyya's view on the Mawlid. It is simply one opinion on the subject. Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles's essay on "Jurists on popular devotional practices in Medieval Islam" published by BRILL also devotes a few pages on the subject. Yet, she states that:
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.
Do you consider her to be wrong in her analysis?
You then state that: This shows that Katz has a greater, more nuanced understanding of taymiyya's position.
Well that's just an absurd conclusion. It might just be the case that 2 academic scholars differ in their understanding (though, as I mentioned above Katz does not simply differentiate between "knowledgeable and ignorant" as you claim).
The more I read about this, the more I become convinced that Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid were indeed complex and paradoxical. Saheeh Info 09:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Saheehinfo: You appear to be beholden to selectively quoting individual sentences to suit your agenda. I gave you several quotes from Katz that taken together without doubt show that Taymiyya was differentiating between the uneducated and educated in his lenient condition; you quote one sentence that mentions lacking zeal to also expand his condition to the educated. Lacking zeal and being uneducated doesn't automatically imply 2 different types of people. This may refer to one type of person. To determine the reality one has to take the entire context of the quotes i gave. They repeatedly mention the uneducated—not those lacking zeal—and those Salafis who disagree with Taymiyya's position are always mentioned in the quotes as opposing his view that the educated and uneducated are to be treated differently. Not once are they mentioned as opposing anything to do with zeal (or lack thereof). You should stop playing with the sources i provide to fit your agenda. Deducing conclusions from sources is derived from taking the complete picture—not selectively quoting one sentence that agrees with your prejudices. NB.: ignoring the context i provided, to be religiously educated and lacking zeal is highly unlikely, whereas being uneducated and lacking zeal is quite expected. This is a logical deduction to those with common sense.
When i mentioned the superiority of the Katza source over the ones you provided, i obviously drew attention to the fact that Katz's whole work is dedicated to Mawlid—unlike your sources. This seems to have been ignored by you in typically obtuse fashion.
"The more I read about this, the more I become convinced that Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid were indeed complex and paradoxical." What a surprise! Of course you would. Read into it whatever suits you. Mawlidman (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mawlidman: You stated that: When i mentioned the superiority of the Katza source over the ones you provided, i obviously drew attention to the fact that Katz's whole work is dedicated to Mawlid—unlike your sources.
The dispute we are having is not about the Mawlid. The dispute we are having is about Ibn Taymiyya's view on the Mawlid. As I mentioned previously, Katz has dedicated a few pages in her book on the subject. Raquel M. Ukeles too has devoted a few pages to the subject. In fact, one of her works is specifically about Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid. It is entitled 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. This was the source that was used in the first place and it is actually over 20 pages. In another of her works 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".
Then, she quotes Ibn Taymiyya as follows:
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.
So Ukeles has a work entirely dedicated to the subject that we are disputing. Therefore if anything, it is a stronger source than Katz. She argues, very clearly that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "paradoxical" as I mentioned above. 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
I find it strange that you are ignoring other reliable sources and holding firmly to one interpretation of one source.
You stated that: "You appear to be beholden to selectively quoting individual sentences to suit your agenda.".
No, I am only interested in adhering to Wikipedia rules - and that means following policies such as WP:NPOV which states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," i.e. we have to adhere to ALL sources and these should ALL be represented.
You stated that: Lacking zeal and being uneducated doesn't automatically imply 2 different types of people. This may refer to one type of person.
It might refer to a person who lacks zeal (but not knowledge), or to a person who lacks knowledge (but not zeal) or to a person who lacks both zeal and knowledge. Your view is simply one interpretation of this source.
You stated that: NB.: ignoring the context i provided, to be religiously educated and lacking zeal is highly unlikely, whereas being uneducated and lacking zeal is quite expected.
Where is the proof for this?
and then you state: "This is a logical deduction to those with common sense."
This is YOUR conclusion and you are entitled to this, however Wikipedia requires No Original Research which states that "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."
i.e. We represent ALL reliable sources and we avoid our own conclusions but need to stick to the sources.
I really feel that you need to read up on Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR before continuing this discussion. Claiming that one interpretation of one source should be used to summarize Ibn Taymiyya's views and all other sources should be dismissed contravenes the above.Saheeh Info 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mawlid/Archive_2&oldid=1112588793"