Talk:Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani

I am confused by this--I just read an article (or "stub") here on Ibn Hajar Asqalani, but the discussion page says the article does not exist.

Anyhow in the article itself this line appears:

"as the Mukhtasar of Ibn al-Hajib on usul." and "usul" is a link. I think that the link is an error, as the definition of "usul" to which this links relates to Ottoman music or some such thing. I do not think that that is the right referent for "usul" in this case. (I think it relates to Islamic law, but I may be wrong.) 86.142.235.34 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I corrected the line. Thanks for pointing it out. ZaydHammoudeh 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dates don't mach. --Striver 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is the Fath al-Bari of Ibn Rajb mentioned more extensivley here than ibn Hajr own Fath al-Bari? Sakhawi, a prominant student of ibn Hajr and his biographer, mentions that the naming of Fath al-Bari in spite of the previous usage of this was an oversight, as Ibn Hajr cited Ibn Rajab's work in his own. Ibn Rajab's work seems to have been completed to greater extent than mentioned as there exist remnants of the Book of Clothing in the Thahiriyyah Library in Damasus. As a I do not have my references in front of me at present I write this on the discussion page only.Supertouch (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

someone posted some kind of article about this guy at my commons talk page. Maybe you want to use parts of it (it's open content after all). Regards, --Flominator (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829093616/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/asa3.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/asa3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Swiftestcat: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The whole section that you have recently added is based on your personal opinion and analysis, and is considered as an original research, which is not allowed here.

@GorgeCustersSabre:, @TheAafi:, @ParthikS8:, Your opinions are necessary. Thanks in advance.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here's his real sources:

• Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 1

• Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 2

• Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 3

• Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani's Mention of the Ash'ari Sect By Name in Fath ul-Baaree - Part 4

• Ibn Hajr, an-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi Refute the Kalam Theology of the Ash'arite Theologians And Their Claim Regarding the First Obligation

asharis.com is NOT a reliable source, because it's NOT neutral at all, and it's managed by the Wahhabi Salafis! Plus, there is a copyright violation here! (see this report)--TheEagle107 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some of the sources that were used in the article to evidence that he is an Ash'ari were unreliable, like Sunnah.org. Nevertheless there are other reliable sources like the first one quoted that states he is an Ash'ari. Some other reliable sources are as follows:

Ibn Hajar Egyptian Ashari 1372–1449

— Jacoby, Tim. "Islam and the Islamic State's Magazine, Dabiq." Politics & Religion 12.1 (2019).

Al-Ghumari, the 20th century scholar introduced in Section 6 above, did not refer to al-Suyuti, but advocated the same sort of trichotomy, citing the names of al-Nawawī, al-.Hāfi.z Ibn .Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852/1449), scholars of Hadith in the Shafi ‘i school, and al-Ubbī (d. 827/1425), a scholar of Hadith in the Maliki school.20) Th erefore, we should say that the concept of the salvation of the “People of the Interval” was established in the late Ashari school.

— Nakata, Hassan Ko. "The Border of Salvation: The Salvation of Non-Muslims in Islam." Journal of the interdisciplinary study of monotheistic religions: JISMOR 2 (2006).

Muslims regard him to be the originator of the Sunni Ash'ari ritual of Aqeedah with supporters such as Abul-Hassan Al-Bahili, Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, Imam Al-Haramain Abul-Ma'ali Al-Juwaini, Al-Razi, an-Nawawi, ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, as-Suyuti, and Al-Ghazali.

— Begum, Hashmat, Hafiz Muhammad Ibrar Ullah, and Samina Begum. "Analytical Study of Pedagogical Practices of Abul Hasan Ashari (270 AH... 330 AH)." Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review (RJSSER) 2.1 (2021): 79-82.

And many others. However to prevent WP:OVERCITE, only a few citations, preferably 1 or 2 should be listed. If Swiftestcat is contesting the reliability of sources like Sunnah.org, then I agree with him, that website is not a reliable source and that citation must be removed. As for Original Research: Our job here is just to reflect the sources. Your personal beliefs and views may conflict with the sources and thats fine. Find multiple reliable, preferably published/peer-reviewed sources disputing the statement that he is an Ash'ari and we will happily put "Disputed" as we do for some other historical figures, or perhaps not list his creed at all. However without reliable sources to work with, we cannot allow your personal view/research to be considered. As TheEagle107 has said, Wikipedia is based off of reliable sources.

As for the many sections you have added, they are based on your understanding of primary sources. Your analyses of these is not permitted on here, that is OR. Sources must state the conclusion being put into the article, and they must be secondary. If you wish to do your own analyses of the sources in line with your own religious/philosphical/doctrinal views, do it on some other website, like a Muslim forum for example, not on Wikipedia. ParthikS8 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I should state: Citing primary sources is fine IF the analyses or interpretation being made is found in a secondary source too, that is brought alongside the citation. So if Swiftestcat find such reliable sources, he certainly can re-add the primary sources alongside that.ParthikS8 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Would translating the section on his ‘aqīdah from the Arabic Wikipedia (namely: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_حجر_العسقلاني#عقيدته) and adding it into this article be a suitable resolution to this? The Arabic article is مختارة (the Arabic version of a featured article). _Signed, Swiftestcat ^talk 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Swiftestcat: I have no issue with this provided that the sources/citations are brought and also translated (i.e. the text in the citation and any relevant quotes if felt needed, not the entire source of course). The view of the above listed three sources should also be included, and those three cited if you believe that won't lead to too many citations. The creed in the infobox should either be "Ash'ari", if this is what the vast majority of sources in both language say ala Ibn al-Haytham, or "Disputed" ala Suyuti if there is not what a vast majority say, or "Hanbali" if that is what the vast majority of sources in both languages say. Wikipedia itself, even the Arabic page, is not a source for itself - the sources will be the sources of the Arabic article. So personally, I am happy to proceed like this. ParthikS8 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do note, per WP:NOENG:

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

Please also translste the relevant portions of the source. Also I would be interested in learning what other sources there are in the Arabic language. The majority of English language sources - to my knowledge - seem to say he is an Ash'ari. So unless we see the opposite with reliable Arabic language sources (majority say he is Hanbali), I suggest the infobox creed should be kept as Ash'ari, preferring the English sources. A note could be added though and the section on theology/creedal views would clarify the difference of opinion. ParthikS8 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ParthikS8:, Even as for the reliable Arabic sources, most of them, or if not all of them, confirm that he is Asha'ri!

FOR EXAMPLE:

• The Ash'aris - The Testimony and Proofs of the Scholars (Ahl al-Sunnah al-Asha'irah: Shahadat 'Ulama' al-Ummah wa Adillatuhum) by Shaykh Hamad al-Sinan and Shaykh Fawzi al-'Anjari. Forewords by Wahba al-Zuhayli, Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, Ali Gomaa, Ali al-Jifri, 'Abd al-Fattah al-Bazm (the Grand Mufti of Damascus), Muhammad Hasan Hitou, 'Ajil al-Nashmi, and others.
• Notions that Must Be Corrected (Mafahim Yajib an Tusahhah) by Muhammad ibn 'Alawi al-Maliki.

Only the modern Salafists argue that he is not, because he was a hadith scholar! Although, the vast majority of hadith scholars ("Ahl al-Hadith") are Shafi'is, & the Shafi'is are Ash'aris.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I fully concur with the explanation provided by TheEagle107. Original research has no place on Wikipedia. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply