Talk:Nahj al-Balagha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith, a WikiProject related to the Hadith. It has been rated - on the quality scale. |
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
I want to rename this article to Peak of Eloquence (book), since this is the english Wikipedia. Anyone opposing the suggestion? --Striver 00:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You should keep it as it is, since it is referenced as such in all academic journals. DigiBullet 00:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, we will have a redirect of the Arabic name, and prominently use the arabic name in the artilce, but this is English Wikipedia. --Striver 04:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- look at this: [1]. It clearly shows that Peak of Eloquence (book) is the prefered english title.--Striver 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- So, can i rename it?--Striver 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] POV
- No scholar of Sunni or Shi'a profession has questioned the genuineness and authenticity of Nahjul Balagha for more than two centuries. [2].
see complete text: Talk:Nahj al Balagha/authentic
--Striver 04:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that this source is a partisan Shia website-blog? --AladdinSE 15:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Are you claiming they are lying? --Striver 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not claiming anything, I am stating most emphatically that they are partisan, emotional and lack neutrality, and make no effort to hide it. Moreover, the original use of the "source" made no mention that is was in fact a partisan Shi'a source, which was a disingenuous way to try to present it as a neutral one.--AladdinSE 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peak of Eloquence is AlQoraan
'Nahaj AlBalagha' translates in English as 'The Way of Eloquence' & not as 'Peak of Eloquence'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILAKNA (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] "Imam" Ali?? Isn't that POV?
Since when is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), referred to as Imam Ali in neutral contexts?? His proper name is Ali ibn Abu Talib. However, referring him as Ali is also fine. Referrign to Ali as "Imam Ali" is like referring to Jesus of Nazareth as "Jesus Christ". Bless sins 03:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Sunni's usually refer to 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) as 'Ali the Caliph or Hadhrat Ali (the turkish, farsi & urdu spelling is 'Hazrat', as \dh\ is pronounced like \z\), and i can see why a neutral article should refer to him by ane of these names. I strongly agree with you, and i would like to point out that referring to Ali as 'Imam Ali' is like referring to Jesus as a savior, a subjective point of view that can not be accepted in a neutral article. By Hamid Al-Maghraby, 16 September 2006
[edit] Sunni Views
“What you are writing is contrast to the rest of the article. Generic Sunni views is not relevant to this single book. I have already moved your edit or the correct article” (striver)
It is supposed to be in contrast to the rest of the article, it’s a Sunni opinion on the matter. If it doesn’t fit there (under Sunni Views), than there should be no mention of Sunni Views in this article at all. The so-called “Sunni views” on this book are coming from blatantly Shia websites designed to build credibility for this book. An opposing viewpoint, that the Nahj al-Balagha is not a credible book is merely addressed in passing with no actual support quotations whereas the article makes good use of quotations UNDER SUNNI VIEWS BY A SHIA AUTHOR AND A SHIA BOOK.
Because the book you are using to quote Sunni use of Nahj-ul-Balagha in the classroom is a Shia book, it doesn’t fit under Sunni opinion, and I am removing it from there and placing it under Shia views where it is actually appropriate.
Secondly, the quotations from the two prominent Sunni scholars are not what “Sunni fatwas on Shias”, they are Sunni opinions of Shia books in general. If you’re going to move it, move that to Shia hadith list, not to Sunni fatwas on Shias.
Third, of course any statements by Sunni scholars on most Shia books will be broad and “generic”, they’re not going to take the time to study a book which they’ve already labeled as concoted by Rafidi liers. ---xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bro, the section does belong to the Sunni view. Yes, it is found in a Shi'a book, but he is recaling a event from his past Sunni life, and he is not saying anyhithing controversial. He is stating that the book is translated by a Sunni and that Sunnis dont like to talk bad about Sahaba. It does belong to the Sunni view. As for "they’re not going to take the time to study a book which they’ve already labeled as concoted by Rafidi liers", you are just plain wrong. As you can see, the Sunni Muhammad Abduh translated it and thought higly of it, just as the part you moved into the Sunni view explained. What you are saying is manifestly not the view of all Sunnis, Some of them comment most specifiacaly on this very book, and they do not view it as "concoted Rafidi liers" --Striver 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about the opinions I added being manifest amongst all Sunnis, I merely pointed out prominent scholars such as Ibn Tayymiah and Ash-Shafi do not accept the book as legit, Ibn Tayymiah remarking specificlly on the book itself. I saw an article that was clearly unbalanced in favor of what I've read from answer-ansar and shianews, but no references to any actual Sunni commentary. So I tryed to balance things, I posted from Al-Dhahabi who doesn't dismiss the work entirely as well as from Ibn Tayymiah who does maintain that it was concocted by Rafidi liers.
The reason that Shia book does not belong in Sunni views section: 1) It's a Shia book (even if it is recalling Sunni events) 2) The book hasn't been used for fiqh or jurispudence by an Sunni scholars 3) The book is criticized as having "lied" about a number of things. 4) There are Sunni authors who were former Shias who too have written titles, if I were to quote them on their lives as Shias, it wouldn't constitute Shia opinion.
If it won't be moved, I will concede on that, but I am adding Sunni discontent with the title "Then I was Guided" --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That works fine with me, are we both content now? --Striver 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
OK --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 20:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non Muslim views
I put controversial tag there becouse some of Lebanese Cheristians like George Jordac [3] beleive in it.--Sa.vakilian 12:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
