Talk:Ahmad ibn Hanbal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. note:the project includes non-Muslim scholars. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
- 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: it was moved—jiy (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting this move because (like with Imam Shafi'i being moved to Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i) this should use the name of the person, not their title. See Talk:Abu 'Abd Allah ash-Shafi'i for some discussion of this. I realized that such a page name doesn't exist yet so I could just move it... but, I figure this process might be worthwhile. gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I saw Britannica used "Ahmad" which does seem to be more common and I trust their judgment so I have changed the request... if that fails I still think 'e' is better than what we have now. gren グレン 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support gren グレン 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support Satyadasa 08:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC). Yes, 'a' is a better transliteration
- Support moving to "Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Ahmad with an "a" is closer to the standard pronounciation. --Yodakii 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- After thinking about it for a while, I think "Ahmad bin Hanbal" would be better. But either way is alright until we have an official Arabic naming policy. --Yodakii 17:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know, in standard Arabic, "ابن" is pronounced "bin" between names. I've seen both transliterations used, and if everyone else prefers "ibn", its fine with me. --Yodakii 16:19, 15 September 2005 (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] Major Criticism
This is not a good article. It is much too long, too detailed and too admiring. I haven't got time to edit it just now. But I will be back!
- I agree that the article is somewhat lengthy. I think that the material is all relevant though; I think all that needs to be done is to rewrite it (whilst keeping the information already here) in a more concise form. I do think there are too many red links. Not too long ago, I blued many of them, but an awful lot still remain. Perhaps the section on Hanbali scholars could be made into a separate article if there is enough to write about them. I could be wrong, but I'm not fully convinced that substantial biographical articles on the individual Hanbali scholars could be produced (which is why I'd rather see a separate article lumping them all together). MP (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More details
I have a copy of the book whose reference I added to the article. It contains many details about the life of Hanbal and has numerous quotes (well-sourced). I'd like to have a go at a major revamping of this article. We can include a lot more details on Hanbal's opposition to Mutazilaism, interaction with Shafei and other important incidents in his life. Of course, being a book written by a Muslim scholar, we'd have to be careful to pick out the factual items from the POV ones. MP (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flogged by Al Mansur
How is this possible if Al-Mansur died about four years before ibn Hanbal was born? (I think it was al-Ma'mun who had him flogged) DigiBullet 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
How frustrating it is to find that the first reference is in Arabic - this is the English WP ! MP (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
