Talk:Oneness of God (Islam)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Oneness of God (Islam) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 21, 2008 |
 |
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
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] GA Review:Failed
This article is not complete. From the technical viewpoint it should be rearranged and expanded. I spoke with Aminz and he accepted to withdraw the article at this point.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In Sha Allah, I'll write my review in detail as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That would be much appreciated. Jazak Allah.Bless sins (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Interpretation
Concerning the improvements on Tawhid: I think there could be a little more explanation of the textualist stance, because the current section all too easily equates it mostly with tashbih - which is only one perspective. I do believe that bi-la kayf was a significant part of the textualist stance. There is much more coverage given to the other two camps, namely the Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites. The textualist stance was codified primarily by al-Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, which is why almost all early Shafi'ites and Hanbalites were traditionalist in their stance (the Hanafite school, in contrast, was much more accommodating to Mu'tazilism). The article doesn't really mention that al-Ash'ari himself changed over the years and eventually sought the approval of the textualist Hanbalites of his time with his book al-Ibana. The early Asharites too were substantially different in what they accepted (i.e. much closer to the textualists) as compared to later Asharites, which may be due to the increased influence of Kullabism. While there were indeed some who went to excesses in affirmation of attributes in the textualist school, it was pretty much a minority. So it might be a nice idea to draw upon a larger pool of reliable sources to get a more complete perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a good source for textualist stance. Please help us with it. Corbin says it implicitly but the al-Ash'ari's position is not the issue of the article. The article discuss about Ash'ari school. Howevere I try to add something about the different interpretations among each school. I don't know what does Kullabism mean?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there might be a few articles by G. Makdisi and others about this... but I'll have a look around. Re: Kullabism, see: Ibn Kullab. ITAQALLAH 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Itaqallah does make a good point; the way I had learned it, textualists/Atharis were distinct from the mushabbihah/anthropomorphists. As for 'Abdullah ibn Said ibn Kullab, i'm not sure where we could find stuff on him but his early influence was strong. Also, I noticed that there isn't a section for the Maturidis either. I initially thought they were like the Ash'aris with a different founder, but I believe they have some points of differing. We could possibly have a subsection for them too, don't they compose a sizeable portion of the Muslims in India/Pakistan? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that each of the theological schools has changed during history. We can write a historical description.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could write like, brief historical summaries followed by the main article Wiki links to the individual articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that each of the theological schools has changed during history. We can write a historical description.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Itaqallah does make a good point; the way I had learned it, textualists/Atharis were distinct from the mushabbihah/anthropomorphists. As for 'Abdullah ibn Said ibn Kullab, i'm not sure where we could find stuff on him but his early influence was strong. Also, I noticed that there isn't a section for the Maturidis either. I initially thought they were like the Ash'aris with a different founder, but I believe they have some points of differing. We could possibly have a subsection for them too, don't they compose a sizeable portion of the Muslims in India/Pakistan? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there might be a few articles by G. Makdisi and others about this... but I'll have a look around. Re: Kullabism, see: Ibn Kullab. ITAQALLAH 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, regarding tanzih, while the basic principle of trancendence is an accepted one, the connotation of tanzih in kalami debate itself is something much more complicated and specific, and it wouldn't be fair to say that all schools agree on the same interpretation here. ITAQALLAH 12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Atheism
This part doesn't sound good in the article. I think it's irrelevant or it should be rewritten. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
