Talk:Al-Azhar University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Al-Azhar University as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
2004-2007


For a September 2004 deletion debate over this talk page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Al-Azhar University

[edit] Saladin

None of the sources you supplied support your argument that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". Your first source simply asserts that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". The second source is a series of pay-per-view articles that also makes no mention of Saladin coercing anyone to do anything, let alone "forcing" Egyptians to convert to Sunni Islam. The third source only states that "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam". The fourth source's -- some guy's blog -- lone mention of Saladin is in the following benign phrase: "Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority". And the fifth states that "Saladin converted the university into an agency of orthodoxy as part of his war against Western crusaders". Again, nowhere does it state that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". That's original research, plain and simple. Causteau (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's you, if anyone, that doesn't know the meaning of both "restore" and "convert". "Restoring" Sunni Islam in Egypt is not the same thing as suggesting that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" like you originally stated nor is it the same thing as your revised statement that "Saladin converted Egyptians to Sunni Islam". He did no such thing. Nowhere does it say he converted anyone let alone Egyptians. It says he restored Sunni Islam in Egypt, meaning there was already a tradition of Sunni Islam in place in Egypt before the rise to prominence of the Shiite Fatimids. All Saladin did was put things back the way they were (i.e. restoration) per your own source. Causteau (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Al-Azhar ("The Brilliant") was founded in 970 AD as a Shi'ite mosque and center of learning by the ruling Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty. After Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's examine your quote, shall we? It goes Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". However, nowhere in the above quote does it state that Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school". Those are your words. The quote simply states that "the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam" -- no mention of Al-Azhar "becoming" a Sunni school or anything else for that matter. The university's scholars are the subject of the sentence here, not Al-Azhar. You also seem to be under the impression that the above quote supports your claim that Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt", when the quote simply states that the university scholar's "began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam" "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids" -- not "when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". This time, you are confusing the direct objects: in the first phrase, the Fatimids are the direct object since they are the ones being expelled by Saladin. In the second (i.e. your edit), your direct object is Sunni Islam since that is what is being restored by Saladin. So not only are you wrong here, but twice. What's more, with your latest edit, you've for God knows what reason replaced the fully referenced, direct quote I put in for some ambiguous piece of misinterpretation and syntax mismatching that still isn't supported by the sources you claim. Causteau (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This same anonymous editor has been inserting similar POV in other articles as well, usually in a manner that paints Sunni Muslims in a negative light. I have seen this many times before. Anonymous user comes in, attempts to push personal opinions stealthily, and becomes rude when they don't get their way. These actions have not gone unnoticed. Stop inserting your own personal opinions into this and other articles. It's not going to fly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Also for the record, this guy has been consistently inserting POV via a minimum of four IP addresses:
If this isn't an issue of violating the official Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, it's at least meat puppetry. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted it to be written just as the source said: Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt but Causteau, for some sad reason, kept pushing it too far. Again, neither of you too should be talking about POV. I mean, talk about irony. From what I see, MezzoMezzo, no one is pushing his own POV on this encyclopedia more than you. If your house is made of glass, don't be throwing stones at others. 77.42.188.194 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't, anonymous vandal. What you really wanted to do was insert the phrase "Saladin converted Egypt by force to Sunni Islam" just like you did on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page, and without even bothering to include a source. However, I made that impossible for you by 1) demanding that you include sources that actually support your assertion, and when you claimed to have done that, 2) have the good sense to look into those sources, and then expose them for the irrelevant and unrelated materials they are. Now you want to replace the direct quote I included -- which does, unlike your anti-Sunni POV, have a legitimate source -- with a phrase that still isn't supported by any of the five sources you've cited. I've already exposed your edits for the really lame POV they are, and now MezzoMezzo has made the extent of your vandalism even more clear to the world. Causteau (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
See this, this and this. Just as the source states, restored Sunni Islam in Egypt. Anyway it doesn't really matter. Wikipedia is not credible anyway and rewording a statement so that it suits your own agenda doesn't change the fact that Al-Azhar was founded by Shi'ites, Islam flourished under Shi'ites and despite Sunnis being the overwhelming majority in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of scientists and philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age that Muslims take pride in were Shi'ites. Your pathetic POV edits won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.188.194 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't have posted a more foolish and self-incriminating post if you'd tried. With that one paragraph, you've just proven everything MezzoMezzo and I have pointed out about your edits. They were intended to discredit Sunnis, just like we've been saying all along. Get this through your partisan head: when you post a blatant LIE like "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" as you've repeatedly done (your penultimate edit contained that exact phrase; don't even bother denying it), and then "support" that LIE with a battery of sources that don't once mention Saladin forcibly converting anyone let alone Egyptians, it is you that is the spin artist -- not me or Mezzo or any other editor. My edits were a direct quote from a source you yourself provided. That was my lone contribution to that portion of the article, and a simple browse through this article's page history readily bears that out. You, on the other hand, personally authored that slanderous LIE on Saladin forcibly converting Egyptians, which you then also tried to insert on the Al-Azhar Fatwa page. If you think that you're in the clear just because you've finally done what we've been asking you to do all along -- namely, to support your assertions with legitimate, relevant sources -- you are dreaming. Administrators are still going to arrive, and I'm personally going to see to it that they get a good look at your handiwork both here on this page and elsewhere. You have the gall to accuse others of having an "agenda" when you're going around from page to page posting lie after unsourced lie on Sunnis. The only thing that prevents Wikipedia from being "credible" as you so disingenuously put it, is serial vandals like yourself that see it as an opportunity to spread disinformation and propaganda rather than as chance to contribute to a scholarly, referenced body of knowledge. Before I forget, if your edits are so benign, if you are just trying to help make Wikipedia a better place as you seem to want the gullible to believe, then why not register as a user? Why edit page after page under various anonymous IPs when there are many pages that specifically bar such users from editing them? Could it be that you are afraid your vandalism will catch up to you? That people will grow wise to your true intentions and be able to unfailingly trace your edits back to you instead of one or several of your many anonymous IPs? Causteau (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Were this anonymous user sincerely trying to oppose the insertion of POV, this might hold up. However, his comments here about no one pushing POV more than me, and his edit summaries on other articles referring to Causteau mockingly as "you intelligent person" are not only signs of POV, but also violations of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and show a lack of sincerity that might possibly hint at attempts to even compromise Wikipedia. It certainly is looking like that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have personally never seen, in my life, anyone as ill-intentioned as you. I inserted a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica and you're trying your best to make Islam articles filled with your POV, as can be seen from all your edits, and worst of all, you have the audacity to talk about POV-pushing and compromising WIkipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're going around on multiple IP addresses removing known terrorists from the "Lebanese terrorists" category. I'm not just saying you're ill intentioned; i'm saying you're likely a bit dangerous for anyone to even be associated with you. I apologize for being so forward as I can see that Elonka has a valid point in improving article content, but this needs to be said. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone may have made a mistake on another article, doesn't necessarily mean that all their edits should be suspect. So again, please, can we focus discussions here on the Al-Azhar University article? --Elonka 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of the discussions

Hiya, I realize that this is a hotly-debated topic, but could I please ask everyone to try and adopt a more civil tone? I am not seeing any vandalism here, instead, this appears to be a content dispute. There may be disruption, but that's not the same as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#NOT.

For best results, let's concentrate on discussing the article content, instead of other editors. That way I think it will be much easier to identify the specific points of disagreement, and properly analyze the sources so that the article can be kept in accordance with Wikipedia policies such as neutrality and verifiability. I also recommend reading the guideline at WP:LEAD, since I think that this article's lead is getting a bit too detailed. A good lead section should be a summary of what's already in the article, instead of trying to make any new points. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)