Talk:Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars.
Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Dates, bias

A lot of the dates are based on the Hijri calendar. For a wider understanding, CE dates should also be added.

Furthermore it is well-known the Imam Ibn Taymeeyah and Ibn ul Qayyim are not the most popular of scholars particularly among those who call themselves sufis. Reference should be given to their thoughts and quotes especially under sections such as "What scholars think of him". In its current state the article is exclusively praiseworthy.

I reverted to the newest version that wasn't a copyvio. An anon had replaced the whole article with a straight cut-n-paste from [1]. That is not only copy violation, it is also pietistic, non-encyclopedic material. Zora 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


I can type the Arabic. But how do I insert it? Thanks - Beauty123

I agree about the bias. (Although I very much admire this personality.) I'd like to work on a more 'encyclopedic sounding' article with better style. - Beauty123

[edit] Quadell

Quadell reverted me. Why?

--Striver 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Because adding a fatwa about masturbation, when no other fatwas are mentioned, is an odd choice. What's the point of including it? If it must be included, it belongs on Wikiquote instead. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration standard

I've added the arabic, and edited the intro biography abit, getting rid of the oo-oo's and the ee-ee's common to modern salafi transliteration. After looking at many of the arabic titles, I think that a standard system should be used. May I suggest the Library of Congress system of transliteration? Wilis.azm 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to contact the other Arabic-speaking editors (Mustafaa, Pepsidrinka to an extent, others I don't know) and get them to sign on. Is the LOC the standard academic transliteration? I'll need to do some investigation as to how one specifies a transliteration standard for Wikipedia. Otherwise, it sounds like a good idea to me. Zora 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More complete section of books by Ibn al-Qayyim

I want to add a more complete list of books written by Ibn al-Qayyim. Any objections? ZaydHammoudeh 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Spelling of the name

I hate to be a nagger, but the name is misspelled. It should be Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. The word Qayyim means "Dean" or "Priciple" like that in a school system. The word Jawziyya is the name of a school, so Al-Jawziyya is "The Jawziyya school." He was the son of the Dean of that school which means he is Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya - "The son of the Dean of the Jawziyya school." Ibn Al-Qayyim has a different meaning than this. --Abu Mahdhoorah 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To Reiterate... his name is Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya not Ibn Al-Qayyim. Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawzee is another scholar. The name should be changed. --Abu Mahdhoorah 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Needs to be NPOVed --Striver 10:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the POV Views. It should be fine at the present. As for deleted birht references, these information are already sourced in the two books. They are true References not external links. As for the sufism link, as ZaydHammoudeh said, Not subtantial poor link author's name is not even given. Just his first name. That is not reliable. --Islamic 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Islami, i do not know what books you are refereing to, make proper references, and we can skip the external link references. You know, use <re_f></re_f>. And dont just blindy revert my edits. --Striver 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Both references have the dates. Also, I have justified evey edit I made so please don't blidly revert. Bring it to discussion. --Islamic 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
WHAT references? Could you PLEASE be explicit? Pretend i am stupid, i DO NOT GET IT. --Striver 09:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Biography and Al-A'lam by Zerekly. As for the other changes, I have explained each edit. So please stop your blindy reverts. --Islamic 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hardly view it as you have explained anything. I don't view "rv POV edit" as an explnation. But i thank you for the biography, i will us it as a reference instead of the AA article in the places that it is possible, since you prefer it so. --Striver 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say this article still has serious NPOV issues, needs massive editing to make it sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like an obsessive hero-worshiping paean to Ibn Qayyim. Parts of it also sound like they are copied out of some old-school Muslim scholars' reference. ~~jackbrown

[edit] Glaring factual error about his views

I recently noticed a glaring factual error while looking at his views on Sufism and the subject of his book "al-Wabil as-Sayib". Apparently someone got on here and claimed not only that ibn Qayyim was an "endorser" of Sufism, but that al-Wabil as-Sayib was about it. I almost thought this was a joke at first, as anyone who has read the book knows it has nothing to do with Sufism and anyone who is familiar with ibn Qayyim's works knows that he bashed Sufism. I edited the separate page for that book and this page needs to be edited to reflect the truth now as well. I'll post my reasoning from the other article here as well:
I really am shocked at the incredible disinformation that appears in this short little article. An endorsement of Sufism? Are you kidding me? Did the person who wrote this article even read the book? I am not sure if my Arabic font will work here on Wikipedia, but i'll try my best:
ومن علامات تعظيم الامر والنهي ان لا يحمل الامر على علة تضعف الانقياد والتسليم لامر الله عز وجل بل يسلم لامر الله تعالى وحكمته ممتثلا ما امر به سواء ظهرت له حكمته او لم تظهر فان ظهرت له حكمة الشرع في امره ونهيه حمله ذلك على مزيد الانقياد والتسليم ولا يحمله ذلك على الانسلاخ منه وتركه كما حمل ذلك كثيرا من زنادقة الفقراء والمنتسبين الى التصوف فان الله عز وجل شرع الصلوات الخمس اقامة لذكره واستعمالا للقلب والجوارح واللسان في العبودية واعطاء كل منها قسطة من العبودية التي هي المقصود بخلق العبد فوضعت الصلاة على اكمل مراتب العبودي
He is actually heavily criticizing Sufis when he writes:
وتركه كما حمل ذلك كثيرا من زنادقة الفقراء والمنتسبين الى التصوف
He is accusing followers of Sufism of being heretics and people who downplay "enjoining the good".
27 كتاب الوابل الصيب، الجزء 1، صفحة .
Volume one on page 27.
To verify I had a friend of mine who is a native Arabic speaker search this book and not only was it not about Sufism, it only contained one mention of it in the whole book; and not only did it contain only one mention of it in the whole book, but it mentioned it in a negative light. You can even see the disinformation in the supposed reference cited to support the claim, which is here:
[2]
This link is just a commercial link to a website where you can buy the book. It also summarizes what the book is about for the potential reader, which, surprise surprise, isn't Sufism.
Further more, ibn Qayyim was known in his day as a very harsh basher of Sufism so I really don't know what the editors who put this article together were thinking. This is absolutely unacceptable for a public encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and for the sake of the readers this has to be changed. If anyone takes issue with what i've written here then I invite you to buy the book and look through it, preferably in the original language (get a Middle Eastern friend to help you with that), and see that what i've said here is true. MezzoMezzo 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it is quite possible that whoever inserted the information had not consulted the book itself but had referred to particular websites discussing the book. ITAQALLAH 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very possible, perhaps I was getting a bit too worked up. It was just rather shocking to me. I've just noticed some other issues with this article as well, under the subsections for his views on the Shia and Sufis. For Sufism, under the false claim that he held a positive position toward it, there were three links:

  • The first one was just a link to a general site on Sufism and was completely irrelevant to the person this Wikipedia article is about.
  • The second article is a little more deceptive, as it is from Masud.co.uk. The article is another more general defense of Sufism, which in passing mentions ibn Qayyim and ibn Taymiyyah, claiming that several books they wrote which were known to be about other subjects and criticized Sufism in what mention they did make of it were actually books endorsing Sufism. This comes as no surprise, as Masud.co.uk is a site that is known for intentionally posting factually and historically inaccurate material, even fabricating several pieces they have on their site.
  • The third article is a commercial one advertising that it sells the book mentioned above; not only is it not an appropriate reference but I think that also counts as a commercial link as well.

Lastly, the link under the views on Shiism subsection which claims that he hated the Shia is a totally unrelated link about nikah mu'tah. The subsection is about ibn Qayyim's views on nikah mu'tah and not the Shia position on it so I don't see what that reference is supposed to support. While I am not opposed to having a subsection for his views on the Shia - I always think that the views of historical figures enhances their articles - a wild claim and vaguely disguised insult backed by an unrelated source just doesn't make the cut. I am still shocked after seeing how a well known site such as Wikipedia has users posting such inaccurate information. I hope we can manage to improve on this more in the future. MezzoMezzo 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

a lot of Islam-related articles, especially articles like these, are indeed factually inaccurate and there is quite a lot of work to be done in that regard. i agree that masud.co.uk isn't a reliable website. there should be a good amount of academic material available on Ibn al-Qayyim which i will try to get hold of. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to know i'm not the only one on the lookout for references and things like that. MezzoMezzo 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mut'a

"He was of the opinion that Nikah Mut'ah was prohibited at the first time by Umar" - This is a lie, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya do NOT hold this view and he did not say this in his bok Zad al Maad. Just another Answering-Ansar manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.178.165 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that does look a bit funny to me as well. It's been a while since i've checked out Zadul Maad but from what I remember, that doesn't sound correct. Unfortunately, the site Answering-Ansar is well known for distortions and, in a few cases, outright lies on many books and individuals. I'll check this out when I get the chance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
After having a fellow editor of mine kindly look in to it, it does indeed appear that Ibnul Qayyim did not hold that view and did not say it in his book Zadul Ma'ad. I hope he doesn't mind, but part of the discussion is here. On top of that, it seems odd that his position on mutah of all things would be posted here - i've read Zadul Ma'ad and there is a plethora of issues in there, many of which are given much more attention and detail than that. That is was included seemingly for no reason, and was wrong for that matter, almost seems like a stealth pushing of Shi'a POV, which i've seen in a number of odd places in articles on past Islamic scholars. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)