Talk:Muhammad Zakariya al-Kandahlawi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about 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. |
Muḥammad Zakarīyā al-Kāndahlawī is not a good article title. --Striver 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You cannot say that without giving a reason. I know and care little about M Z al-K but Wikipedia standards require an explanation. I wonder in what peculiar sense the word "ascribe" has been used ever since the article was created, the OED and online dictionaries give no meaning that seems appropriate.--SilasW 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What's your Science?
"best remembered for his contribution to hadith sciences" An essential feature of Science is the possibility of its being disproved. The science of say 1900 no longer holds in detail, the changes are what has led to even such now commonplace things as mobile phones. Science proposes XXX, then XXX is found not to fit, so XXX2 is proposed and using XXX2 all sorts of goodies may be made, then tweak and tweak again. How does that match anything to do with the "Its true because you are told it is" of religion? --SilasW (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed science to studies. Changed ascribed to subscribed. Took links off later "hadiths" and rendered them in normal letters not italics, "hadith" is used in English by those who need to refer to the concept.--SilasW (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Useless reference
In the article the reference's name is writ in arabic script. Does en.WP regard references in other languages as valid? Or should a peer-reviewed translation be required? But in any case, although what shows on the page is araby, the link that pops up is a web address in west European characters. What is the point of writing in an encyclopedia something which the majority of seekers for enlightenment could not read, unless it be for cultural vanity? Nevertheless those points are academic (in the worst sense) as a click gives "The page cannot be displayed".--SilasW (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cultural confusions
The article gives subject's d.o.b. as "Thursday, the 11th of Ramadan, 1315 Hijri". To give a time of birth in WP is most unusual. Is there some cultural significance?
The box gives the d.o.b. in a less culturally restricted form, arguably one which should also be given in the text, even parenthetically.
Saying "Thursday" displays confusion, for Muslim days do not start at midnight. "Khamiis" if you like. Also "at eleven o'clock" displays more confusions.
First: Was it 11 o'clock by day or by night?
Second: Which system of counting hours was used? The "eleven o'clock" follows a Muslim style date but was its zero at midnight? or at dusk.--SilasW (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please make this article more neutral. I tried as best as possible thank you - anonymous
