Talk:Hasan al-Basri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] POV content
While Wiki-surfing I noticed that this article claimed ouright that al-Hasan al-Basri was a Sufi. This is very inappropriate, as it is strongly disputed and highly dubious. An encyclopedic article should just provide the information and all differing opinions, not take sides. We must make sure to uphold the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy at all times. MezzoMezzo 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, needs to be balanced. Thats not balanced. Taymiyyah is not the one and only Scholar, like claimed by "Salafis". Other Opinions should be recognized. Source is there
" Ibn Taymiyya in his essay "Sufis and Fakeers" (Majmu` al-Fatawa 11:5-7 epistle entitled al-Sufiyya wa al-Fuqara') purported to correct and reform what he perceived as wrongful Sufi practices and went so far as to claim that the Companions and Successors were never so affected as the Sufis of his time claimed to be. The evidence shows otherwise:
- Al-Hasan al-Basri and Hisham ibn al-Hasan narrated that `Umar sometimes lost consciousness after reciting a verse from the Qur'an, whereupon he would be taken ill and visited for days. Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf (13:269); Abu Nu`aym, Hilyat al-Awliya' ("Adornment of the Saints" 1:88 #133); Ibn al-Jawzi, Manaqib `Umar ("Immense Merits of `Umar" p.168); Ibn Qudama, al-Riqqa waal-Buka' ("Softness of Heart and Weeping" p.166); al-Dhahabi in the Siyar, etc." http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=791&CATE=3 ~~BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.3.228 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the edit put in, that reference is fine. As long as the article doesn't actually take sides, and simply makes the information available to readers, it's fine. MezzoMezzo 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qadarite Views and Orthodoxy
I think it is relevant to include some discussion of al-Hasan al-Basri's apparent sympathies with the Qadariyya, as suggested by his famous Risala. The article states that al-Basri was a supporter of "orthodoxy", but this seems anachronistic, given that Sunni "orthodoxy" did not really crystallise until at least a century after his death. Equally, to debate about whether al-Basri was a 'Sufi' seems to me to be introducing later concepts into the discussion. Let's not pretend that Sunni "orthodoxy" has always existed from the beginning of Islam: it was produced over the course of two centuries, and al-Basri undoubtedly lived in the crucible of Islam. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the word "orthodoxy". Orthodox is a word typically referring to something established or traditional. What was considered to be orthodox practice by early scholars like al-Basri, ath-Thawri, Maalik and others was the same in the time of the tab at tabi'in, the tabi'in and the sahabah. The majority view of scholars is that Sunni orthodoxy did exist since the time of the companions of Muhammad. While Muslims of the second generation like al-Basri and those of the third generation were definitely the "crucible" of Islam, to say that there was no defined orthodoxy (despite the existence of groups considered "deviant" such as the khawarij and murjiah) is incorrect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)