Talk:Hanif

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musaylimah as Hanif (?)[edit]

Please provide a source for the idea that Musaylimah was known as a "Hanif". This page is in the category of Islamic pages (see subtitle for page: Islamic belief) and will give the Islamic meaning as the primary one. The information added by Bulgarios (talk) has been relegated to a second paragraph.

there is no source. The source given don't support that. I have added this page to my watchlist. I will try improving the article in the meantime.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Banu Hanifa tribe and Hanif are totally different things. LOL.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy POV Bias[edit]

Apart from the current lead sentence, this article is heavily biased from the Islamic POV. A more neutral approach would be to construct the article around the Banu Hanifa movement mentioning prominent Hanifs and references to narrations about them while expressing the Islamic point of view by comparing and contrasting. Bulgarios (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please do not remove the POV tag until consensus has been achieved.Bulgarios (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarios There is no argument here. Bring reliable sources to support your claim. I feel you are confusing the tribe of Bani Hanifa with the Hanif religion.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove the POV tag again. Bulgarios (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarios you need to put a valid reason for the POV. That's according to the policy.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Islamist/Muhammedan Bias is a valid reason to raise an objection.Bulgarios (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason and not what the policy says. You didn't provide an example of heavy bias.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Bulgarios (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring [1] all mention of Maslamah bib Habib (derogatorily referred to as Musaylimah) and the Banu Hanifa is a perfect example of POV Bias. Bulgarios (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one source that gives any relationship between Musaylimah and Hanifism.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did by highlighting the sources that you censored. Bulgarios (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non of the sources support your claim. Musylimah has nothing to do with Hanif except that his tribe has similar name(which is a common name in the Arab word like "Abu Hanifa"). I am done.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Hanifa, other Hanafists and Hanafism have nothing to do with Hanifs and Hanifism. Fare well. Bulgarios (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per: Eric Orlinq, Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions, Routledge, 2015. ISBN 1134625596. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging Jingiby, I used the term "Pagan Monotheist" as a summary of the paragraph at the top of page 386 of the source you provided.Bulgarios (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Bulgarios Could you bring me one source that says that Musylimah was Hanif? let me simplify confusing things for you.
  1. Hanifa is a common name among Arabs.
  2. Banu Hanifa tribe is descended from someone called Hanifa Ibn Lujim Ibn Sa'ab Ibn Bakr Ibn Wail Ibn Qasit Ibn Hanab Ibn Afsa Ibn Judilah Ibn Assad Ibn Rabia Ibn Nizar Ibn Ma'ad Ibn Adnan.
  3. Musylimah is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa
  4. Hanif is a term that is mentioned in the Quran and has nothing to do with the aforementioned tribe and was to describe the religion of Abraham/Ibrahim.
  5. Musylimah has nothing to do with Hanif religion he is just from the tribe of Banu Hanifa.
  6. The Banu Hanifa tribe has nothing to do with Hanif religion.
Jingiby what do you want to say here? What that reference suppose to say?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, this description is enough neutral for usual readers. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That information is already in the "Etymology and history of the term" section. The problem here is Musylimah and linking him to Hanif religion because "if I googled Hanif and Musylimah I find sources" but these sources don't say he is a Hanif but he is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa which literally has nothing to do with Hanif religion.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, do you have any objection to the source [2] concerning Musaylimah which Sharabs removed from the article? Bulgarios (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is not Academic one. Jingiby (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, how can someone say that?!!!! I am shocked that there is a source that says that. Wait it's a self-published source? Even if it's a self-published source I can't believe someone would say something obviously not true like that. Maybe the author used Wikipedia as a source. I don't know.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I can understand, this issue is complicated. More info here on pp. 68-69. Jingiby (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really complicated but it is complicated. In any case it has nothing to do with Musylimah.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Jingiby but we were to remove every non academic source from Wikipedia we would be in trouble. Let's keep looking. There is no smoke without fire. I like the new ref you found although i don't like the confusion in spelling since Hanafism is usually the spelling used for the Hanafi Madhab. Of course there is room for a little sloppiness here and there but it would be good to try and find out which is the majority spelling usage and which is the minority spelling usage. Bulgarios (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarios, Bulgarios. Why are you ignoring me? I told you it's not just non-acadamic it's a self-publishing company see their website https://www.balboapress.com/en . It's like Facebook post or Twitter or any self-publishing source. It absolutely weight nothing in wikipedia. There is no such relationship between Musylimah and Hanif. Musylimah is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa and that has nothing to do with Hanif religion. The source that Jingiby gave doesn't add another to your argument. It's about how Hanif turned into Christianity or Judaism and when. Which is something undisputed.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your recent edit here [3] demonstrates very well indeed that you are way to emotiinally involved with protecting the heavy Islamist/Muhammedan POV bias for me to feel it is worth my time to even try to respond efficiently. My fundamental position is that the Islamist POV bias is a problem. Yours is thag it isn't. We are never going to agree on that until you either abandon your religion or convert me to it. Take care. Bulgarios (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarios What?? That wasn't even a point of view I was trying to respose to that source. In any case I have removed it!! Lol, this is actually funny. You failed to bring any source to support your claim except a self-publishing source so there is no POV therefore there is no reason for the tag and by the way please stop these personal attacks. Comment on the topic not the editor. I am trying to be kind with you but you are insulting me and my religion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW me and my friend here are reading your comments and we are laughing so much at your comments especially this one are you even serious. XDDD--SharabSalam (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our conflict isn't about sources, it is about the article's current Islamist POV Bias that you support. Jingiby brought some very good sources which also support the need to eliminate the article's current Islamist POV. As for insulting your religion, to do so is protected by freedom of speech laws. I do not insult you. I already apologized for the fact that my dislike of Islamism offends you. If you feel insulted because I insult your religion then that is your own affair. If it helps, there are a lot of good things in Islam that I respect, but Political Islam's bloodthirsty attempts to bury the truth about Islam's origins are unforgivable.

The task before us is to come to a concensus on how to report accurately on what the word Hanif refers to while eliminating the current Islamist POV Bias. That's all there is to it. Bulgarios (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already covered that. The additions you added aren't in the source. The Christian Hanifism isn't Hanifism. The sources say that. See the sources that are used in this article. They are neutral sources and not "Muhammadan" sources. Don't just put sources and then say what you want. Also there is no source that link Musylimah to Hanifism.
  • Ambros, Arne A; Procháczka, Stephan (2004). A Concise Dictionary of Koranic Arabic. Reichert.

Hawting, G. R. (1999).

  • The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaltner, John (1999). Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to the Qu'ran for Bible Readers. Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5882-2.
  • Köchler, Hans, ed. (1982). Concept of Monotheism in Islam & Christianity. International Progress Organization. ISBN 3-7003-0339-4.
  • Peters, F. E. (1994). Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-1875-8.
  • Watt, William Montgomery (1974). Muhammad: prophet and statesman. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.
Also per this source the view that Hanif is called al-Hanifa al-Nussyriah or Christian Hanifism is held by someone called Taizini and per the same source it is not widely accepted veiw. Therefore we should mention who hold that view and attribute it per WP: WIKIVOICE and it shouldn't be in the lead so we don't give undue weight to minority view.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the insults you should stop using inflammatory language in discussion it is not productive and also stop the personal attacks like ...restore POV tag removed by bad faith editor and also stop saying "I am offended" I am not offended. These are personal attacks and could get you blocked if I reported them to WP:ANI. I am trying to make Wikipedia neutral nothing more nothing less. I am not supporting anything as you said "current Islamist POV Bias that you support." That's not true. The sources that are used in the source are not "Islamist" nor that the article is having a POV. Maybe it's missing some information but that doesn't mean we give undue weight to Taizini claim--SharabSalam (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am taking a wikibreak until 18/June/2019. I will be back.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove sources from the article again just to enforce your POV Bias. Bulgarios (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

necessity of including that abraham and ishmael might have not existed[edit]

Hello all,

Is there a good reason why we should include that there's a solid chance that Abraham and Ishmael never existed? It seems like an odd detail that's not very relevant to the article itself.

Cahmad25 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stylistic: change "hanifs" to "hunafa", the Arabic plural[edit]

I don't actually know Arabic, but I think it's weird that the article states the plural as "hunafa" and then continues to use the anglicised form "hanifs". I would change it, but I'm new to editing and I don't know if it's a good change. DogWithHerpes (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanif&oldid=1214753932"