Talk:Sunnah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Removal of sig from article

There was a signature, "Salim Elhaj", at the end of this article. I removed it, since Wikipedia articles have no single author: anyway, I don't think Mr. Elhaj would necessary want to attach his name to a text that anybody can modify, and that could potentially say something he disagrees with later. Googling for the text of the article turned up no hits, so it appears that Mr. Elhaj added the text to the article himself. I'm still a bit worried that it was plagiarized, though --- maybe someone should take the time to rewrite it. --Shibboleth 21:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PBUH

I have some problem with this appearing in a Wikipedia article. For one, it is obscure to those who are not Muslim (it is an abbreviation for "Peace Be Upon Him" and is said by the devout after each reference to Muhammad or another major prophet; an equivalent is SAS, which is a transliteration of the same words in Arabic); secondly it has the appearance of an endorsement of Islam by an encyclopedia (as does capitalization with regard to the titles of Jesus, such as Our Lord, the Son of Man, the Only Begotten Son of God, etc. imply an endorsement of Christianity). I feel that I have quite a bit of respect for the Islamic faith for an outsider (likewise the Jewish faith) and don't want to start something just to start something, and I'm not about to edit this without leaving this here to be pondered for some time (and may well do nothing even then) but wanted to throw it out there. Rlquall 23:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Muslims are not obligated to follow the Sunnah, they are only encouraged and strongly recommended. As opposed to the Quran which they have to abide by, the Sunnah are the actions of the Prophet (pbuh). As the Prophet (pbuh) was a perfect man, Muslims liked to imitate his doings, they will not be punished for not imitataing him and therefore it is not obligatiry for a musilm to follow the sunnah, though recommended. The Quran, on the other hand, is the word of God, and muslims must not stray from the Quran's path, therefore to be a good muslim, Musims must follow the Quran, the sunnah, hadith and other being additions that are strongly recommended for Muslims to follow. Doge120

To British readers, "Muhammad (SAS)" looks strange, since the initials SAS have many meanings in English. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunnah Hardcopies, online texts etc.

Shouldn't there be information informing the reader where they can find copies of the Sunnah? The article on the Hadiths actually gives references on the Hadiths and how to find them. This isn't so with the article on the Sunnah. The external links, here, simply go to more information on where to read the Hadiths. Thanks MPA

-Most of the Sunnah is taken directly from Hadith. Any account of Muhammad from the Sahabi are included in Hadith, and if one would give references or lists of Sunnah, then they'd have a huge list and would probably cite certain Ahadith for each. I'm sure there's probably some text you could find that would group the Sunnah like that, but it's not like one of the six major collections of Ahadith, and it would take a LONG time to make it complete and thorough.

[edit] Categories of Sunnah

Could someone please add a section (or link to to a separate article) on different categories of Sunnah such as Sunnah Mu'akkadah and Sunnah Ghair Mu'akkad. And also include examples of Sunnah (e.g. salah, sadaqah etc.). Zunaid 09:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim_sunni is lying as usual... All these web-site belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, who are NOT mains stream Sunnis

Muslim_sunni, I am NOT the web-master of Sunna.info or Qibla.us - NOR - I have EVER attempted to insert ANY hidden links to ANY Wahabi web-sites. I have NEVER contributed to ANY Wahabi web-sites. Period. I am NOT a Wahabi but a mainstream Sunni whose family is Sunni for CENTURIES.

If you want to learn about the reality and tactics of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, please feel welcome to read this research report by The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) which concludes: At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors. (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf). To learn more about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP, please, visit these links:

Here is the list of most of the web-sites which are owned / managed by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP group or their sympathizers or followers:

McKhan

[edit] Absolutist rejection of hadith and sunnah: Neutrality?

I don't like the forcefulness and phrasing used in this section. First of all, I know this article is supposed to be neutral and I know that it's a small nothing compared to everything else. But with each of those ayat there are different translations that can be used which also make sense. Also, the usage of the passage is directly revalent to how the meaning is interpretted. For instance, it might say that the Prophet isn't meant to protect misguided from Hellfire when speaking of his duty as a messenger. The capitalization isn't necessary, either. I don't have much time, but I'll cite one translation:

(from article) 5:99 "The messenger (Mohammad) has NO function EXCEPT delivery of the message."

(Shakir translation) 5:99 "Nothing is (incumbent) on the Messenger but to deliver (the message), and Allah knows what you do openly and what you hide."

Although others might dispute translators, translations, etc., I can't really look up any other translations at this time.

And "Qur'an Alone Muslims uphold only one sunnah: the Qur'an."?!? That is SO not neutral.


(I'm removing that last part about upholding only one trodden path, atleast, and changing the caps. I think the section should be removed as a whole, only stating in the article that there IS a faction of Quran Alone Muslims, not their reasons for being so. I suppose something similar could, and maybe should, be said about altering the traditional viewpoint of Sunnah.)

--MercMetal 7:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Z -6:00

This type of thing seems to be getting out of hand. I think people forget that the reason we are here is to write a general-purpose encyclopedia, not to espouse or force our particular viewpoint on the reader. This is not confined to any one segment of the Muslim population though, if you read any article objectively, you can tell the built-in bias of the writer in the way the article or section is presented in order to give it a certain slant. A lot of this article breaks several policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) by trying to conduct an analysis of the verses or sayings revealed, and by not providing reliable references for the statements made (indeed, for the entire article). It seems to be endemic to Islam-related topics that people always provide an interpretation or selective quoting of revelation, instead of reporting on others' interpretation of revelation as is required by the aforementioned policies. Zunaid 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting the neutrality aside, this whole section is glaring original research as the inferences drawn from the quotations cited can only be done through secondary or tertiary sources - not by us as WP editors. I have therefore removed this section. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fiqht

I noticew that one of the subheadings has the word "fiqht" in it (NB the "t" at the end.) I don't know much about terminology, but I see there is a word "fiqh" to do with this and I wonder if the spelling "fiqht" is a mistake. I don't know, so I haven't changed it: perhaps someone can check this. Boleslaw 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)DB

[edit] Male Circumcision

What has the Sunnah/Hadith got to say about Male Circumcision? Is it compulsory or just stonrgly recommended practice in Islam? Any quotes and other necessary citations to support this topic? --Fantastic4boy 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Wikipedia Usage for Muhammed.

Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Islam for correct Wikipedia usage of Muhammed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSISLAM#Muhammad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)