User talk:Kbahey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
snoyes 02:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Regarding your recent claim about the circumcised state of mummies in the Circumcision article, I have read authors that dispute that claim. Do you know where it comes from? Shimmin 13:17, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- People who have examined the royal mummies of Egypt have consistently found that men were always circumcised. One exception is Ahmose (or Amosis). Check this link on the Theban Mummy Project where it says
-
- "Ikram and Dodson note that Amosis, in distinction from other ancient Egyptian men, had not been circumcised".
- Also, regarding Amenhotep II, the same site says
-
- "he had been circumcised".
- In contrast, in the page on a mummy of an unidentified boy they say:
-
- "had not yet been circumcised".
- All their work is referenced from scholarly publications that are peer reviewed by experts in the field.
- Some have even speculated that the Hebrews took circumcision from the Egyptians, although it seems that it is more of a Semitic practice widespread in the region since antiquity.
- It is important for all of us to distinguish between established scientifically proven facts, and denial of such facts for ideological bias.
- Does that answer the question? -- KB 20:54, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
you stated on your edit of the Mu'tazili page "Rewrote the page in its entirity. Was inaccurate, confused Philosophy with Mutazilism, added more info)"... what do you mean? Mu'tazili are those who espouse the philosophy of Mutazilism no? User:Grenavitar
- No. Mu'tazilism and Philosophers were separate schools of thought, with different adherents.
- Although there is much borrowing and overlap from one group to the other, the schools of thought at the time had different views. On the extreme rational side of the spectrum, you have some philosophers (e.g. some views of Ibn Sina, and al-Farabi) whose view on revelation and religion as theology for the consumption of the masses, and the higher truth is attainable for the elite few without the need for prophets. Then you have Mutazilis who do try to reconcile faith and reason in theology, and accept revelation as a true source for theology, but refuse some other theologies on the basis of dialectics and logic. They also make reason the prime source, that revelation confirms, and use allegory for certain things, not a literal interpretation. Then you have Ash'aris who are still rational, but give precedence to revelation over reason, and are less allegorical. Then you have the Salafi school which is more literal, less rational.
- Think of all this as a spectrum, with some overlap. Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Ibn Bajah (Avempace), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), ..etc. were all philosophers, and never Mu'tazilis. The original article confused Averroes as a Mu'tazili, which he never was.
The List of authors on Islam by period and_bias is listed as a NPOV issue. Since you created this page, could you try to fix it? Personally, I have trouble with understanding why you portray people like Bernard Lewis as biased, but others like John Esposito as neutral. Anyway,JeremyBicha 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC).
[edit] Khitan
Your claim that the Khitan converted to Islam has been challenged. They were clearly Buddhist. Please either come up with a legitimate source for your claim, or I will delete the reference when I do a rewrite/expansion of the article later this month. Ludahai 07:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems I was mistaken, I re-read the chronicles and put a corrected summary. KB 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
