Talk:List of Islamic studies scholars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-06. The result of the discussion was Merge.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-21. The result of the discussion was Transfer to Talk Page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Islamic scholars → List of Islamic scholars – This article doesn't talk too much about what an Islamic scholar is. It is just a list.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support as nominator. joturner 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lets add the info. Ill do it as soon as i get to it. --Striver 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment we could add the meaning of an Islamic scholar and talk about it on the top and leave a list on the bottom, or write an article about the meaning of an Islamic scholar and just add a link for the entire list of scholars. Is that a good idea? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I can live with both alternatives, as long as the article stands.--Striver 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I preferred that option all along. But to me it seemed as though that would require a move and that the Islamic scholars article be restarted. joturner 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the list would be moved to a separate article if we choose the second option, which is linking the article to this one. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Would just be a dicdef otherwise. Ashibaka tock 22:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I imagine the page quickly becoming oversized if more information is added about some (if not most or all) of the scholars, so it would seem best to keep it as a list with links to further information elsewhere. Compare List of dictators. Best wishes, David Kernow 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] AFD

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic scholars · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


This article was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes. --Striver 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] add this

--Striver 02:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From the original talk page:

Why was the desscription of Madelung removed? --Striver 20:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to tell the views of specific people. That usually goes in the article about the person. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
If you are searching for a Shia-friendly non-muslim scholar, then you wont need to go through all other scholars biography. --Striver 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No reply? --Striver 03:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Is Muhammad bin Qasim a scholar? --Striver 15:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Also why are certain names bold in the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Ill fix it. -Striver

[edit] other categories

This should be "List of islamic Sholars". Then we also need List of Muslim scholars for Scholars that where Muslims, but did not work in the field of Islamic theology, but for example math or chemistry. --Striver 09:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Why did you remove those two? Peace! --Striver 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The two under the political non-Muslims category? Because there are certain things that make someone a scholar. Having a degree in Middle eastern history is not one of them. A lot of these people do not belong here. A scholar is a very respected person, so we need to go through and make distinctions between the important ones and not so important ones. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, can where/how can we list them? "educated about Islam" ? --Striver 21:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
List who? We don't need to list those two gentlemen because they aren't scholars. As for some of the less important scholars I think we should organize it so that the ones who are important can be shown separately. What do you think?--a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Any ideas? --Striver 10:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are this Muslims?

--Striver 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] One more

Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman

--Striver 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Another two

--Striver 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to add them? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You are welcomed to help, i dont have time, fighting the stalkers... --Striver 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay I will look at them. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are both scholars. The one's you mentioned above that are all poets. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is another guy: Bernard Lewis --Striver 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Wahb ibn Munabbih --Striver 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

another guy to add: Andre du Ryer.--Striver 08:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis --Striver 07:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An article for this

I think there should be a small article on Islamic scholars. Right now it redirects here. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Miller - priest?

I've been trying to research more of Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)'s background. This article calls him a "Former Christian Priest and Missionary who embraced Islam." In searching online, many sites call him a former missionary or theologian, but I haven't found any source that calls him a former priest. Is this verifiable? Was he a Roman Catholic priest, Orthodox priest, or what denomination or church was he affiliated with? More details are also needed in his biographical article. For now, I'm removing the title "Priest" from this article, but please restore it if someone can confirm this. Thanks. Wesley 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Scholars

You have placed scholars with quite contradictory epistemologies and hermeneutics in this category. My suggestion is to define the criteria by which the sifting has been done and to reconsider the list. For example, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was "officially" declared as a "non-Muslim" by Pakistani courts and Parliament whereas Ghamidi is a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan (of which Fazlur Rahman was also a member once). There is hardly any Muslim scholar that is not controversial or has not been ex-communicated by some rival group. But, unless a scholar who professes to be a Muslim is "officially" and "legally" declared by a Muslim State to be a non-Muslim, it would be rather imprudent for an academic reference work to typify him/her with those who have been "officially/legally" declared as such. Prof. Qasim Zaman (of Brown University) in his Ulema in Contemporary Times: Custodians of Change has suggested "new intellectuals" as a term to categorise scholars who are not necessarily bound by the traditionalist epistemological confines of ijma', etc., which is a much more academic way of demarcation.

Nevertheless, this work is amazing. I think if there were a Nobel Prize for education, Wikipedia founders would have deserved to the first laureates. Please keep the flame burning! - anon

Yeah, and remember that Zora, next time you call me a Shi'a POVer!

[edit] Critics of Islam

ZaydHammoudeh: You left this message in my page: "I noticed your recent posts on the list of Islamic scholars page that listed some critics of Islam. I also saw that some felt it appropriate to revert the previous page before these comments were made. I think it might be wise if before posting these, we discuss it on the talk page because I think the one use questions whether these were in fact scholars. Moreover, I think some question their place. I think if you feel strongly about them, then the talk plage is the proper outlet to discuss it first before posting. It might be wise for the sake of decorum and to assuage some egos if we removed them first then discussed it till as close to a rational consensus could be reached."

How can anyone not know that Al-Razi, Omar Khayyám, Ahmad Kasravi, Ali Dashti, Taha Hussein, Sadeq Jalal al-Adhm and Ibn Warraq are scholars? These personages are known to anyone who knows anything about Islam. Do we really have to go through these silly arguments for every contribution? Do I have to prove that snow is white and fire is hot? What is the purpose of these irrational demands? Isn’t it to cause difficulty so the contributors who do not share your views become discouraged and quit contributing? Be honest and tell me what you really want? Are you telling me you have never heard of Al-Razi, Omar Khayyám or others listed above? If you haven’t, what qualification you have to be the editor of Wikipedia? A basic knowledge is necessary, don’t you think so? I hope you are not a teenager. Or are you? What do we get out of this? The result is that serious scholars who appreciate their time will not want to waste it arguing with illiterate people and only a bunch of trolls will be left to edit Wikipedia. Is this what you want? If a person does not know Al-Razi or Khayyam he is an ignorant person. I do not have to prove that these people were the greatest scholars of the Muslim world. Click on their name and read about them. I did not appreciate you removing my contribution. I doubt anyone who knows anything about Islam could say he does not know these people. It seems to me that you are only interested to hide the fact that these great scholars were also critics of Islam. I found it ironic that you should suggest that I refrain from reverting the page to "assuage people's ego" and you yourself revert my contribution. Shouldn't you set a better example for what you preach? OceanSplah 02:30 01 June, 2006 [UTC}

OceanSplash, from your post it seems that you are annoyed by things. I think trying not to post while angry and staying as calm as possible will produce the best quality result on Wikipedia. I will try to respond to your post as thoroughly as I can at this late hour. First, thankfully I am long beyond the teenager agers years. I have a Master's degree in Computer engineering so I am also thankfully not "illiterare." I am not here to argue or pick fights. Similarly, I don't think it is appropriate for wikipedia editors to belittle those who disagree with them. I may not agree with you, but I do not make veiled accusations of you being a teenager or that you lack basic knowledge of the subject matter. I honestly think if you reread what you have written to me you would agree that it is at least condescending. I am an adult so I can take it, but that does not make it appropriate.
Second, I may have misread your argument about the qualification of the names you listed as scholars. However, you argument is based off the assumption that if anyone does not know these people, inherently he has some defect within him. This is based on statements such as, "These personages are known to anyone who knows anything about Islam.", "How can anyone not know that [list of names] are scholars?" and "If you haven’t, what qualification you have to be the editor of Wikipedia? A basic knowledge is necessary, don’t you think so?" This is a very dangerous approach to argument as it belittles your opponent by failing to appreciate other point of views. If both sides in an argument take the approach that the other side has an inherent defect and fundamental lack of understanding, then nothing will be accomplished. This kind of attitude is not constructive to wikipedia whatsoever.
Third, this article has a section for non-Muslim scholars. This would clearly encompass those whom are critical to Islam. This is also something to be considered.
Fourth, I have in all honesty never heard of these names. However, that is not the reason I chose to bring this for discussion. It arose from the previous revert of your post on this article by User:Anonymous_editor. He disputes that they are scholars. My goal I hope is the same as yours to try to bring as much correct information as possible to wikipedia. That is the honest truth.
Fifth, my recommendation was not suggesting that you, "refrain from reverting the page". It was asked that you please not add a list that was disputed until a rational decision could be reached.
I hope I was clear (and concise, although I doubt I was concise). I think if we are going to discuss things, it should be civil and not be an attempt to bully or belittle people. You are an adult as you made clear Oceansplash, and I endeavor to treat you like one. I hope you can forgive me if you feel I have insulted you at all. I ask that you try to speak to me in the manner I try to speak to you. ZaydHammoudeh 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

why is Al-Razi a non-Muslim? Omar Khayyám? Ahmad Kasravi? They, according to the article, never renounced Islam. Ali Dashti is a Muslim according to the first line of the article. Taha Hussein could be arguebly non-Muslim for rejecting the infalibility of the Qur'an, and Ibn Warraq is definitly non-Muslim. But i dont get why we need a new section for them, we already have Henri Lammens among the non-Muslims, and he was quite extreme.--Striver 09:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


The title of this article is "List of Islamic Scholars". The controversy would appear to be
  • 1) How do you define someone as a scholar?
  • 2) Can you include a former Muslim in a list of Islamic scholars
  • 3) What evidence is there that these "Critics" of Islam presented by OceanSplash were genuinely critics of Islam?


  • 1)OceanSplash is correct in the aspect of #1, that is, every single person he named is a scholar, and it could be considered "common knowledge" that they are.
Merriam Webster([1]) defines a scholar three ways: 1 : one who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL 2 a : one who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned person 3 : a holder of a scholarship
I believe that most of us refer to definition 2a listed above, as 2b defined as a "learned person" includes too much subjectivity.
  • 2) The title of this article is not "Muslim Scholars". It is "Islamic scholars" which implies that the person is a scholar OF Islam, not necessarily someone who practices Islam. This article itself acknowledges that non-Muslims are Islamic scholars. Striver's protest on Ibn Warraq because he is "definitely non-Muslim" is irrelevant, as Ibn Warraq is clearly an Islamic scholar.
  • 3) The revert edit of ZaydHammoudeh was childish & in bad faith. This article's entire list does not contain "proof" or references for each one of the people included. In light of this, why did ZH completely revert OceanSplash's edit? Would it be fair to delete this article's ENTIRE list just because each Islamic scholar hasn't been arduously and individually "proven worthy" of being included (by arguing each one here on the talk page)?
Striver wrote: why is Al-Razi a non-Muslim? Omar Khayyám? Ahmad Kasravi?
My answer to Striver: OceanSplash did not say these people were non-muslim. He merely included these people as "Critics" of Islam in a list of "Islamic Scholars". Just because you people do not like the subject material doesn't give cause for you all to censor an entirely appropriate Wikipedia edit. --FairNBalanced 07:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aah. My objection is not regarding including them, rather regarding where to include them. With the Ibn Warraq comment i meant that he was non-Muslim just as Lemmens is and belongs to the same catagory as him. Both are staunch islam-haters, and Lamens is already included, so i see no reason to exclude the other hater. regarrding Al-Razi Omar Khayyám Ahmad Kasravi, i want to know if they are Muslim or not in order to know in what category to include them.

My basic objection is the desicion to bundle them all up ín the umbiguos term "Critics of Islam". The term is pov, ie, subjectiv. If you ask me, a twelver Shi'a, all the Sunni Caliphs where "critiscs of Islam", since they "ciritsized" Ali, the apex of Islam, in my pov. Judging who is a critic or not is quite tedious, lets just put them in Muslim denomination, non-Muslim or disputed Muslim. If you really whant to include a "Critics of Islam", then we need fist to define that, and then creat a new section when they are dublicated. I think it will be very hard to find a broad definition of "Critics of Islam" that includes other people than Lemmens and other bigots like him. I mean, Muslim Islamic scholars argue all the time, how do we say if they are critsizing Islam or somebodys interpretation of it? How about that? --Striver 09:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oceansplash, none of those critics that you added are scholars except for Ibn Warraq. The rest are simple critics who have no scholarly ideas but are just criticise different issues or Islamism. Ibn Warraq was already kept there, you just added him without checking. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-Razi and Omar Khayyám are as famous as Da Vinci and Heraclitus. If you never heard of them, all you had to do is search them in Google. We are all born ignorant. There is no excuse to stay that way for the rest of our lives. Ahmad Kasravi, Ali Dashti, Taha Hussein and Dr. Sadeq Jalal al-Adhm, are also famed scholars who had a great impact in the countries where they resided and virtually anyone who knows anything about Islam is familiar with their work. It is incumbent upon the editors of Wikipedia to educate themselves. They should not expect other editors who are more knowledgeable to that that for them and to prove the obvious. Wikipedia is not a school. You must be a learned person if you want to edit. If you don't know, don't edit.

The named scholars did not belong to one sect of Islam criticizing other sects. I did not list them as critics of sunnism or shiism but as critics of Islam.

If they criticized Islam, obviously they did not believe in Islam. We can’t call them Muslim scholars because they were not Muslim. They were apostates. The category “Non-Muslim scholars” is not appropriate. Montgomery Watt and John Esposito are non-Muslim scholars who write about Islam but they are not critical of it.

As for the question whether these scholars really were critical of Islam, yes all of them were. OceanSplah 19:02 03 June, 2006 [UTC}


I did some reading about the different people in the list proposed. First, Omar Khayyan's scholarship in Islam is far from certain. He as far as I can read never studied Islam extensively under a Muslim scholar nor under a non-Muslim scholar. I do not agree with the premise that if one speaks out on a subject, that is a distinction of scholarship. Also, he may be famous as you mentioned, but this does not qualify him as an Islamic scholar. Next, with al-Kasravi, he seems to not have any scholarship in Islam either. He was also very critical of Islam. As opposed to an Islamic scholar, I feel he is better classified as a political scientist or a linguist as is demonstrated by the nature of his books.

With regards to Taha Hussein, I would say he is a scholar. However, being Muslim and a scholar does not inherently make you an Islamic scholar. For instance, person X is Muslim and is a scholar in computational mathematics. This does not make him an Islamic scholar; on the contrary, he is a scholar of computational mathematics who is Muslim. Similarly, Taha Hussein is very knowledge in the Arabic language. There are many who are experts in the Arabic language and are Islamic scholars. However, scholarship in the Arabic language is not a sufficient condition for proof of scholarship in Islam.

Moreover, the Non-Muslim section for Islamic scholars is broad. It contains people like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well as others that you mentioned. It is a simple classification, and it is clearly encompassing enough for any of those whom you recommended to be included, if they are agreed upon.

Fourth, Oceansplash, this is the second time I now have to state this. I had hoped once would be enough to handle the situation, but I feel that what I advised was not listened to. I read your most recent post again, and it continues to be condesending, which is unfortunate. I try my best to be respectful to you as I feel this is the civil way of discourse. Your argument that if someone disagrees with you on an issue that means he is not knowledgable is extremely faulty. Two intelligent, knowledgable people can disagree on something without one questioning the other's intelligence or scholarship. For example, regarding the origins and methods of mathemetics, there are four different theories. Some for instance do not see mathematical induction as a valid proof while others do. These groups don't belittle the other through put downs. They recognize that two people can disagree based on available facts. I ask that if you respond again, you do so politely without putting down anyone. ZaydHammoudeh 18:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Kasravi being critical of Islam? The only thing i found in the article is him being critical of the Iraninan Shi'a government, Khomeini in Particual and his Waliyat al faqih. Mujahedin holds the same perspective, but they are far from-non Muslims or even remotly Islam-critical. --Striver 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Al-Razi: Razi is known to have been a free-thinking Islamic philosopher
  • Omar Khayyám: Khayyám eventually was obliged to make a hajj [pilgrimage] to Mecca in order to prove he was a faithful follower of the religion.
  • Ahmad Kasravi: Initially, Kasravi enrolled in clerical schooling and joined the Persian Constitutional Revolution
  • Ali Dashti: ...was a Muslim rationalist of the...
  • Taha Hussein: He went to a kuttab (traditional teacher), and then was sent to Al-Azhar University

I see no evidence of any of them rejecting islam or anything like that. Give a explicit quote, i have bothered enough finding quotes sugesting they where Muslims. Just being critical dos'nt make someone non-Muslim. --Striver 19:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge List_of_Muslim_scholars into this article

I found this article today, and I think we should also combine these two into one article by taking the best of the two. Any thoughts?

Different links, one is "any scholars of Islam", other is "muslim scholars of anything".--Striver 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Do you think it is worth considering then at least merging the Muslim scholars into that page? ZaydHammoudeh 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, i can live with that. But i rather them on both lists. --Striver 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renamed

I renamed List of Islamic scholars to List of Islamic studies scholars in ordetr to make the title less ambiguous for a nonexpert, since I see some confusion here (westerners tend to conflate adjectives "Islamic and Muslim"), including some wrong redirects (fixed). Mukadderat 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for ammasing consencus before doing such a big move. --Striver 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be clear with your intention. This is an international projects, and not everyone is expected to understand your irony. Reply: nothing terrible happened, and the renaming was not so big job. Mukadderat 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I kind of prefer it the old way as well. Does anyone else think we should revert to the old way? ZaydHammoudeh 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
the title reflects the definition: "scholars that deal with the umbrella term of islamic studies", hence it is more correct and more informative. The old name is confusing in two respects: possible conflation of "muslim" & "islamic" and possible assumption that it is only for scholars in Islam (i.e., excluding these who used to be called "islamists" (non-Muslim scholars of Islam; the word changed its meaning)). But I may understand the position that the title must not necessarily be "for dummies". Mukadderat 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the old name sounded better, but this one is more accurate, and in this case, ill go for accuracy.--Striver 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resource?

I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:

Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.

A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.

He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.

Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."

Many Muslim scientists that predate Western "originators" are not listed in the list of Muslim Scientists. I hope that this reference/resource is helpful to the main writer. :)

--Anonymous writer

Thanks. --Striver 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim female scholars

Ibn al-Jawzi began his learning career from a very young age, and had over 90 teachers, three of whom were women.[2]

--Striver 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

We find Rashad Khalifa as a scholar who professed to be a Muslim but is not recognized as a Muslim by mainstream Muslims. Firstly, I'm not sure that Rashad Khalifa was a scholar of Islam. Secondly, why is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not included in this group? Both Rashad Khalifa and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were rejected by mainstream Muslims because they claimed to be messengers from God. But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did claim to be a Muslim. Darkeyedmuslim 10:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unrelavent enteries

There are many enteries in this article, which doesn't belong here. For example, Ibn Sina is not an Islamic studies scholar. However, they can be put in Muslim scholar section. And similarly many other enteries are like this. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please read Islamic philosophy. He's attempted to find answers for questions like these:"What is the nature of God? How do we know that God exists?" and his works has great effect on Islamic and christian theology. You can refer to "The history of Islamic philosophy" by Henry Corbin.--Sa.vakilian 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Islamic_studies_scholars_47ae.html"