Talk:Ghafir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] hadith ref.?

i think the hadith/narration on the page needs a reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.7.9 (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree, the hadith needs a reference, and it also belongs on the Tafsir al-Qurtubi page (with just a link from here) not on the Sura Ghafir page. If someone doesn't do this soon, i will. Glyns 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bro, look at an-Nisa, 24. We have tafsir on the verses, not on the article about the tafsir.--Striver 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your reference to an-Nisa, 24, i don't see the relevance to our present discussion. The hadith on the Sura Ghafir page is unreferenced, nor is it related to any particular verse or verses of Sura Ghafir. Unless both these defects are remedied it belongs on the Tafsir al-Qurtubi page. Glyns 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In a encyclopedia, we use scholarly work to explain issues. We use a tafsir to explain a scholars view on a verse - what you are proposing is to repeat the whole tafsir in the article about the tafsir. That is not what wikipedia does, that is what wikisource does. --Striver 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what useful light could possibly be shed on any verse of Sura Ghafir by a metaphysical (if not, indeed, fanciful) hadith such as the one in question, attributed to a man (Ka'ab al-Ahbar) who never met Muhammad and was condemned by Ali and Ibn Abbas as a liar. Glyns 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me? None, the guy was a lier. But the content is encyclopedic. we don't only include things that we think is true, we include everything. --Striver 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no merit in including things that are almost certainly untrue (such as this hadith) unless it is clearly labelled as probably untrue. Glyns 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced? It states clearly: "Tafsir al-Qurtubi includes regarding this chapter:". That is both reference and relevance. --Striver 00:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The sort of inauthentic, fantastical, superstitious nonsense represented by this hadith serves only to drag Islamic belief into disrepute (which is probably what it was intended to do by its originator). Do you agree that a note needs to be added to this hadith indicating that it is highly questionable? If not, please propose an alternative. Glyns 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

alright, remove it.--Striver 20:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---Deleted content start---

[edit] Tafsir

Tafsir al-Qurtubi includes regarding this chapter:

A narration attributed to Ka'ab al-Ahbar reports:

“ When God created his throne, the throne said : ' God didn't create any creature greater than me. ' The throne then shook itself to show it's glory. God roped the throne with a snake which had 70 thousand wings; each wing had 70 thousand feathers; each feather had 70 thousand faces; each face had 70 thousand mouths, and each mouth had 70 thousand tounges. Out of these mouths words glorifying Allah with a quantity equal to the number of drops of rain that have fallen, and the leaves on the trees, and the number of pieces of gravel and soil and the number of the days of the world, and the number of angels. The snake coiled around the throne, for the throne was much smaller than the snake. The throne was covered by only half the snake. ”

---Deleted content end--- Glyns 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)