Talk:Al-Azhar University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Not a university

What the heck is this??? This is not a university but an islamic religious school. This article is about religion and politics, not science, humanities, philosophy, jurisprudence, economics, etc. Get rid of this nonsense ! 141.53.194.251 15:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

umm, no, its actually a university. It does have the Muslim equivalent of a christian divinity school though.

More importantly, the article doesn't seem to mention how many students go to Azhar.jackbrown

Mark of Shame

< Trolling removed by yandman 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) >

I beg your pardon, but what does Saudi Arabia have to do with Al-Azhar? You are nothing but a troll.--Abdousi 04:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whatever anyone's opinion one way or another of what they teach, they're still one of the oldest surviving higher education institutions in the world. Which, come to think of it, might bear mentioning in the article somewhere, no? -FZ 20:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why am I a Muslim

LDH 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) This article is nothing more than an advertisement for a religious school. BTW I came across this article while googling for info on Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi's latest endorsement of mass murder. Tantawi is the religious dictator of this so-called university.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The university of Al-Azhar is also responisible for the publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is an antesemitic false accusation against the jewish community - a conspiracy theory - saying that the jewish are planing to take over and run the world.

I removed this statement, which was added by an anonymous editor, because it breaks NPOV, is unsourced and is quite harmful (see Template:Fact). If mention of this book is to be made in this article, it must maintain a Neutral Point of View and be accompanied by a citation from a valid source. Cimm[talk] 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


70.82.189.128 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)This university was built by the ismailis, in that period the fatimid empire flourished in Egypt and most of the midle east. It was a tolerant society toward any other ethnic group or religion. The europeans got their education from that university. The fatimid empire invented the first lens (glasses) and they discovered how the blood system works in the human body.70.82.189.128 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This university was built by the ismailis, in that period the fatimid empire flourished in Egypt and most of the midle east. It was a tolerant society toward any other ethnic group or religion. The europeans got their education from that university. The fatimid empire invented the first lens (glasses) and they discovered how the blood system works in the human body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.189.128 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

donot talkabout something you donot know

ALzhar isnot only a normal university but one of the most gratest universities all over the world it is very famous in the islamic world and i have many colleges rather than islamic and arabic studies as medicine , science another many many colleges , scientific researches center which discovered recently a drug for one of major liver diseases . the pic that is added is for ALAZHAR mosque which was established before 1000 years not the university . i want to ask people who dnot know anything about ALAzhar university to shut their mouth and not to talk about something they donot know . thank you

Section for criticism

I noticed that while there is a section for "Response to negative press" there is no section detailing what exactly that negative press is. Every article on a person or institution that has some amount of controversy or criticism about it should contain available information on said issues. It doesn't make sense to have the response without telling readers of Wikipedia what the negative press is in the first place. My suggestion is to create a section for controversy or criticism or both and have the response to that as a subsection. I don't have the time immediately and am not acquainted enough with the criticism of this university to write it right now, so it would be nice if someone could get it started. MezzoMezzo 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Official link?

Is http://www.azhar.edu.eg/ its official web page? The 'edu.eg' domain should carry some authority? Abu ari 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone of the discussions

Hiya, I realize that this is a hotly-debated topic, but could I please ask everyone to try and adopt a more civil tone? I am not seeing any vandalism here, instead, this appears to be a content dispute. There may be disruption, but that's not the same as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#NOT.

For best results, let's concentrate on discussing the article content, instead of other editors. That way I think it will be much easier to identify the specific points of disagreement, and properly analyze the sources so that the article can be kept in accordance with Wikipedia policies such as neutrality and verifiability. I also recommend reading the guideline at WP:LEAD, since I think that this article's lead is getting a bit too detailed. A good lead section should be a summary of what's already in the article, instead of trying to make any new points. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Careless and/or ungrammatical prose

I just copy edited the article for grammar and coherence. The most obvious example of incoherence or carelessness was the three mutually conflicting figures given for the size of the library's collection. Aside from the figures, certain other remarks about the library's collection were unintelligible or inconsistent with other remarks in that regard. I deleted the superfluous (and also incoherent line) "it [attracts] researchers, students, and other institutions of learning . . .". It would occur to almost any reader, and it would be beyond question, that the leading theological university in the Islamic world, which is also over 1,000 years old, would attract scholars from all over the Islamic world. (Due to imperfect English, the writer actually wrote "is a center of attraction", which although grammatically correct, is awkward and not idiomatic.) The word "sheikh" was spelled two ways in the course of the article. It is incoherent to say "spreading da'wa" because da'wa itself means (more or less) "spreading Islam". Hurmata (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation message

An Egyptian has objected to the disambiguation message referring to a university in Gaza. I see a good reason to place the disambiguation message. Please explain in more detail your dissatisfaction with the message. If you do not understand the purpose of such a message generally, let it be pointed out that disambiguation messages help the reader navigate to the article they desire. A reader might arrive at the wrong article if part of it name is common to multiple topics. If you already understand the general purpose, but somehow have the idea that nobody would ever confuse two Al-Azhar Universities, then I cannot understand how somebody could hold such an idea. A person from outside the region might be ignorant of the existence of two Al-Azhar Universities. A search engine search for one is bound to turn up hits for both.

On another subject: the level of English proficiency demonstrated by the user Puttyschool seems closer to en-3 than to en-4. Please consider modifying your User Page accordingly. (en-3 is still a very high level.) Hurmata (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is vandalism, my level is near to 5, at the same time I can read Arabic, and this what makes you unable to figure out why I removed it.--Puttyschool (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
On your user page you seem to be claiming your English is better than your Arabic. That doesn't make sense. Hurmata (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to your Offenses--Puttyschool (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain what you are doing with the article

Hurmata, I think you are not familiar with the subject, please explain in details what you did with the article, I see you changes has no meaning, Care to comment on this?--Puttyschool (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one comment on such a vague question? Foolish question, too, because to see "what was done with the article", all you need do is compare versions side by side, which you can do by clicking the History tab. Are you unfamiliar with the basics of how to edit Wikipedia? Your use of English words is incorrect -- under the circumstances, it is nonsense to say my changes "has no meaning". Anyway, what possible complaint could you have with most of my edits? The opening paragraph, especially, makes more obvious what Al-Azhar is most acclaimed for. It is sort of a theological court for the Islamic world. Is that bad that I made this more clear? Hurmata (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Take care of your Caucasian words, you must know this is not a normal article any you must document your changes in talk page, and YES your changes "has no meaning" as long as you did not explain “WHY?” in talk page.--Puttyschool (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurmata what is this "Foolish" Comment associated with your edit "Delete comments showing ignorance of "university", e.g., by definition a university has more than one faculty. Senseless to give 'university' in Arabic as well as English"
Is this your justification for removing this IMPORTANT section "initially founded in 975 as a Jami'ah (Arabic: جامعة; "university" in Arabic) which issued academic degrees,[1] and had individual faculties[2]"

  • "Jami'ah" in arabic is the female name of mosque Arabic: جامعـ ـة And this is how the name "Jami'ah" arised in Arabic.
  • The other meaningless part "by definition a university has more than one faculty", you missed that Al-Azhar University defined this in 975AD. And this is why it is "Classified" as the first "Modern" university in the world

Honestly, are you familiar with the subject?
Care to comment on this?« PuTTYSchOOL 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts are consistently a little incoherent, and your English is strained. It is strange that someone who overstates their abilities goes around trying to force people into discussions.
YOU are the one who equated jami'ah with university. Now, you change your explanation, here on this talk page, you say that the core meaning of jami'ah is 'mosque', but that nevertheless it has come to mean 'university' too. Someone else would have said so from the beginning. We have to wonder why you don't stick to editing Arabic Wikipedia (assuming you do edit Arabic Wikipedia). Your set of words, "Al-Azhar University defined this" is unintelligible, makes no sense. The problem seems to be less with your command of English than with your seeming irrationality. And why do you ignore the claim of the university in Fez to predate Al-Azhar? Hurmata (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
On what earth you are talking about, You can check all Arabic dictionaries, in Arabic jami'ah means university, and the name raised as a female name of "mosque", "mosque" Arabic: جامع means a place peoples go for prayers, and jami'ah Arabic: جامعــة was used to identify a place peoples go for “Islamic” studies, then the name was used generally to identify "higher education" places. It is NOT "the core meaning of jami'ah is 'mosque'". I think this is your words "It is associated with Al-Azhar mosque in Old Cairo", the name raized from this "Association". This is facts, not my POV. If it is difficult for you to find an Arabic-English dictionary you can visit any Arabic university web site, you will find the Arabic name and the English name as well check this university , I'm a university and this I'm another one and finally the web site Al Azhar University.
Your POV about "editing Arabic Wikipedia", It is your personal point of view, nothing more, and I can decide, especially millions of editors are better than me in Arabic. But it is not a personal POV, that some editors are keen of writing wrong history based on their good command of English « PuTTYSchOOL 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting rather heated. I think both of you are genuinely interested in maintaining the quality of this article, but remember that everyone has a different background, so sometimes words are misinterpreted. « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arabic word for university (jámi'a, جامعة) does not derive from the word mosque (jámi', جامع). Rather, both derive from the triconsonantal root j-m-' (جمع), meaning "to gather". The basic meaning of both words is "thing that gathers/brings together" - meaning the people for prayers, in the case of a mosque, and the various academic disciplines in the case of a university. - However you sign this stuff.

Questions

Hello, after reading the article (and the English links--I can't read Arabic, unfortunately) several things seem unclear to me.

(1) What academic degrees does al-Azhar offer? For example, do they grant the Ph.D. degree? If so, in what subjects?

(2) One of the other sites indicates that "Muslims" are admitted. Does this mean that non-Muslims may not attend? This seems an important detail.

Thank you, and I hope that someone may add this information in the future. By the way, my wife was interested in studying there. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.237 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Dawud, I didn't participate in the creation of the article but i'm an egyptian from the arabic wikipedia, and what I know concerning these two questions is that Al Azhar grants Undergraduate, Masters and Doctorate degrees but I don't know for sure if they can be qualified as PhD or not because I never asked :), and yes it's commonly taught for Muslims because a part of the education includes some studies of Islamic Religion, and usually Muslims are the ones interested in this particular field... Koraiem (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Vatican

It is sometimes said that Al-Azhar is comparable to a sort of Islamic Vatican. It would be interesting if the article could cite valid sources on thos occasional comparison. ADM (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

latest edits

The latest edits put, in the lead of the article, editorial commentary about what apparently a new user does not "normally associate with a prestigious university" sourced to a clip hosted by MEMRI. Forgetting for a second that Wikipedia has requirements for sourcing, such as using secondary sources and not making conclusions from primary sources not made by that source, the inclusion of this as the second paragraph in the article goes directly against WP:UNDUE. The editorializing is also inappropriate. If secondary sources about the curriculum are provided a section can be created and summarized in the lead. What wont happen is an editor looking for random interviews to make his own OR editorial be the lead of the article. nableezy - 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This has repeatedly been reverted. Please address the issues with WP:WEIGHT and compliance with WP:LEAD before doing so again. nableezy - 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My latest revert had removed the comment the user Nableezy mentions, so I don't see the reason for removing my adjusted edit again. The "editorializing", as the user calls it, was removed. In view of that, all the references to primary and secondary sources have become irrilevant. I cannot see how a scholar teaching at the University explaining on Egyptian TV the curriculum there can be considered WP:UNDUE, described as "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views". It requires a great leap of imagination and faith to see this as a minority view. The user Nableezy says: "If secondary sources about the curriculum are provided a section can be created and summarized in the lead." So I'll give other sources. 1 2 And, to show once again that this is not a "minority view", I hope that Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, and "perhaps the foremost Sunni Arab authority", will suffice. A Wikipedia article says that he has been criticized for remarks he made in April 2002, describing Jews in his weekly sermon as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.", in perfect keeping with his university's curricula. 3 And from the New York Times 4 5 6 I can provide many more sources. An interesting section in the lead could actually be called 'Al-Azhar University, Jihad and Anti-semitism'.

--ElenaLeonardo (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You put, as the second paragraph of this article, material about 2 classes that one imam talked about on a television program. Now, you give us two "sources", both of which are anti-Islam blogs. Please read WP:RS for what Wikipedia considers acceptable sources. And also please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. nableezy - 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This was again added without any attempt of addressing the issues. I have again removed this. Secondary sources covering the curricula of al-Azhar would be great, what isnt is taking one part of one interview from one sheikh and adding that one course to the lead of the article. nableezy - 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Al-Rahma TV is a notable Egyptian television station. MEMRI is a reliable secondary source. The objections to the inclusion of this information in the article seem to me to amount to no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason "I don't like it" is because you are attempting to include opinions from a third party for whom you cannot establish notability. Anyone can be pushed forward as a pundit on TV (the airtime has to be filled somehow) but if their notability and impact cannot be established through verifiable sources then including their opinions in a Wikipedia article fails the policy of Undue weight. As suggested on your talk page, if you can justify the creation of Miqdam Al-Khadhari, you may have reasonable grounds to cite their opinion elsewhere. Fæ (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You're putting a burden of "notability" on this that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else on Wikipedia! But okay, for the sake of argument, how about the progressive academic Sayyid Al-Qemany, writing for the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssef, that the curriculum encourages "extremism and terror"? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/09/egyptian-intellectual-al-azhar-university-curricula-encourages-extremism-and-terrorism.html) AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm fairly consistent, that some other stuff on Wikipedia is a bit rubbish is not in doubt. I would find inclusion of critical opinions from a notable progressive academic as reasonable balance, so long as the extent of inclusion stays of appropriate weight (i.e. brief) and is not the start of a long and incoherent list of critical opinions rather than the preferable option of a section that explains the issues involved. To avoid quick reverts, you might want to propose the text here first and allow some time for discussion before inclusion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tantawy

 This page is not about him but he is the topic of most of the article. Fix it please. I didn't click this page to read about him.

And he wasn't that influential there are others in the past that were equally so. Dude123889 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Roz Al-Youssef

What page did this supposed essay appear? Additionally, the first sentence is take word for word from MEMRI, the second a blog. Unless an editor has actually seen a source they should not be citing it, and doing so is simply dishonest. nableezy - 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it. It's a popular newspaper. You should check it out. 124.176.176.8 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Really? Write the first four sentences from the article. nableezy - 05:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

History section

Most of the first paragraph is a direct quote from imamreza.net, which has been given as a reference, but should probably not be reproduced verbatim. Especially considering one sentence is missing a word ("It was (probably on Saturday) ..."). Just happened to notice the problem as I was working on a different language article on the subject. --Ranveig (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That makes it a copy vio.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Concern regarding existence of a source

I noticed the following text in the article:

"On 16 January 2013 the International Herald Tribune reported that he had issued a statemant in support of the popular satirical programme on Egyptian TV which makes fun of the extremist Salaafi faction."

While it's possible that el-Tayeb may have said that - sectarian tension exists in Egypt - what caught my eye is the cited source:

"cite news|newspaper=International Herald Tribune|date=16 January 2013"

This got my attention as it technically fails WP:CITEHOW; while page numbers for a newspaper are optional, article titles are not. Citing a newspaper and a date isn't really a citation. I have tried my best to scour the Intl Herald Tribune's website as well as various online news searches and I haven't found such information anywhere.
Now again, I am not doubting that el-Tayeb may have said that, but this simply isn't a proper citation and I don't know if it was taken from somewhere else. I have seen this citation with the same source - "The International Herald Tribune 16 January 2013" - plastered all over Muslim-themed blogs and Facebook pages. Additionally, this has been picked up by numerous Wikipedia mirrors on the web and is now being passed around. I don't think it's responsible to leave it here until we can get a definite confirmation from @User:Ablyall on the article title at least; page number would be preferable and a hyperlink would be even better, though after my half an hour of searching for this one article I am doubtful that such a hyperlink exists. I'm going to remove it for the time being and leave this note here that if it is taken from the newspaper and not from blogs or something, then it needs to be re-inserted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

university vs madrasa

The section being reverted over currently is entirely OR. Sources have to actually dispute al-Azhar's status. A Wikipedia editor cannot collect sources that are not directly related to al-Azhar to make a general point about the status of universities or madrasas that sources do not make regarding al-Azhar. nableezy - 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the misquotation, Alatas does, in fact, not make quite such a strong claim.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: A Wikipedia editor absolutely can collect sources that are not directly related to al-Azhar, namely when these sources indirectly dispute that old al-Azhar was ever a university. This has also been the case with the sourced material you removed which stated that universities were restricted to Europe until modern times and that madrasahs are not universities. Here another indirect, but absolutely valid refutation that al-Azhar was a university: George Makdisi: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 255-264 (264):

Thus the university, as a form of social organization, was peculiar to medieval Europe. Later, it was exported to all parts of the world, including the Muslim East; and it has remained with us down to the present day. But back in the middle ages, outside of Europe, there was nothing anything quite like it anywhere.

Since universities did not exist in Islam in the MA, al-Azhar cannot have been a university. Indirect, but clear refutation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No, that is original research. A "valid refutation" would be a source actually saying that al-Azhar was not a university. There are a number of sources for the founding of the university, as a university, in the late 10th century. Ill collect them and return that valid fact to the article. You cannot take unrelated sources to push an argument about al-Azhar that those sources do not make. nableezy - 12:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not original research, it is simple deductive logic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is clearly incorrect. Quoting from WP:OR (bold in original): This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. nableezy - 13:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what the Makdisi quote does: Makdisi asserting that there were no universities whatsoever in medieval Islam is directly related to the topic and directly contradicts the claim that the medieval Islamic Al-Azhar was a university. And Makdisi is far from being the only authority. Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: A History of the University in Europe. Vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX–XX describes the university as a European creation par excellence. What Al-Azhar in reality was until the 1960s was a mosque school or madrasa, it was only then transformed into a university along Western lines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Quoting one author, Makdisi, does not settle the issue. One man does not decide this issue. Please quote a source which is representative of more views than just Mr. Makdisi's, preferably one from an academic/reference work or another source which vouches for the acceptedness of Makdisi's views by the whole of academia. The entire world reads Wikipedia and they deserve to hear the academic community's take on a subject, not one man, Mr. Makdisi. This borders on being a petty edit war, finding one source to back up one's own personal views then plugging that source everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.38.202.246 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of a "university". Yes, al-Azhar was not a "university" in the Medieval European sense, but that is because the Medieval European definition was very narrow and dependent on specific features that are unique to a Christian clergy (e.g. privilege of jus ubique docendi, exemption from canon law on benefices). So its hardly elucidating point of comparison. The logic here is a bit slippery. Yes, apples are fruit (i.e. Medieval studium generale are "universities"). Yes, oranges aren't apples (al-Azhar is not a studium generale). But it doesn't follow that therefore oranges aren't "fruit". Walrasiad (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is self-contradictory on the topic of if Al-Azhar is an old university or not. The article itself, though, explains that it wasn't until the 19th century that it was called a University:

  • "In 1961, Al-Azhar was established as a university under the government of Egypt's second President Gamal Abdel Nasser ... Before that date, the Encyclopaedia of Islam classifies the Al-Azhar variously as madrasa, center of higher learning and, since the 19th century, religious university, but not as a university in the full sense, referring to the modern transition process as "from madrasa to university".[2][11]"

Given the sources that support this interpretation, and of course the fact that the University of Bologna is widely considered to be the first University in the modern tradition, it seems prudent to correct this contradiction by removing the claims that Al-Azhar is the oldest university (even if that claim is made by some scholars, it is clearly the minority perspective) and changing pre-19th century references of "university" to "center of higher learning." However, given the discussion that has happened before, I thought it prudent to discuss this before implementing it. As a side note, the use of the Islamic Calendar in the History section is inappropriate and should be switched to the modern calendar (from A.H. to C.E.). Thought (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over a simple link -- Why?

What is going on with the edit war over a link to Cairo University? Is it something so major to keep reverting? And I would say Arthur Rubin COI has nothing to do with this article but at the same time there was nothing wrong with the IP Link. Why is it being reverted?--Inayity (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Saladin

None of the sources you supplied support your argument that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". Your first source simply asserts that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". The second source is a series of pay-per-view articles that also makes no mention of Saladin coercing anyone to do anything, let alone "forcing" Egyptians to convert to Sunni Islam. The third source only states that "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam". The fourth source's -- some guy's blog -- lone mention of Saladin is in the following benign phrase: "Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority". And the fifth states that "Saladin converted the university into an agency of orthodoxy as part of his war against Western crusaders". Again, nowhere does it state that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". That's original research, plain and simple. Causteau (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's you, if anyone, that doesn't know the meaning of both "restore" and "convert". "Restoring" Sunni Islam in Egypt is not the same thing as suggesting that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" like you originally stated nor is it the same thing as your revised statement that "Saladin converted Egyptians to Sunni Islam". He did no such thing. Nowhere does it say he converted anyone let alone Egyptians. It says he restored Sunni Islam in Egypt, meaning there was already a tradition of Sunni Islam in place in Egypt before the rise to prominence of the Shiite Fatimids. All Saladin did was put things back the way they were (i.e. restoration) per your own source. Causteau (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Al-Azhar ("The Brilliant") was founded in 970 AD as a Shi'ite mosque and center of learning by the ruling Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty. After Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.189.201 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's examine your quote, shall we? It goes Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". However, nowhere in the above quote does it state that Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school". Those are your words. The quote simply states that "the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam" -- no mention of Al-Azhar "becoming" a Sunni school or anything else for that matter. The university's scholars are the subject of the sentence here, not Al-Azhar. You also seem to be under the impression that the above quote supports your claim that Al-Azhar "became a Sunni school when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt", when the quote simply states that the university scholar's "began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam" "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids" -- not "when Saladin restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". This time, you are confusing the direct objects: in the first phrase, the Fatimids are the direct object since they are the ones being expelled by Saladin. In the second (i.e. your edit), your direct object is Sunni Islam since that is what is being restored by Saladin. So not only are you wrong here, but twice. What's more, with your latest edit, you've for God knows what reason replaced the fully referenced, direct quote I put in for some ambiguous piece of misinterpretation and syntax mismatching that still isn't supported by the sources you claim. Causteau (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This same anonymous editor has been inserting similar POV in other articles as well, usually in a manner that paints Sunni Muslims in a negative light. I have seen this many times before. Anonymous user comes in, attempts to push personal opinions stealthily, and becomes rude when they don't get their way. These actions have not gone unnoticed. Stop inserting your own personal opinions into this and other articles. It's not going to fly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Also for the record, this guy has been consistently inserting POV via a minimum of four IP addresses:
If this isn't an issue of violating the official Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, it's at least meat puppetry. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted it to be written just as the source said: Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt but Causteau, for some sad reason, kept pushing it too far. Again, neither of you too should be talking about POV. I mean, talk about irony. From what I see, MezzoMezzo, no one is pushing his own POV on this encyclopedia more than you. If your house is made of glass, don't be throwing stones at others. 77.42.188.194 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't, anonymous vandal. What you really wanted to do was insert the phrase "Saladin converted Egypt by force to Sunni Islam" just like you did on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page, and without even bothering to include a source. However, I made that impossible for you by 1) demanding that you include sources that actually support your assertion, and when you claimed to have done that, 2) have the good sense to look into those sources, and then expose them for the irrelevant and unrelated materials they are. Now you want to replace the direct quote I included -- which does, unlike your anti-Sunni POV, have a legitimate source -- with a phrase that still isn't supported by any of the five sources you've cited. I've already exposed your edits for the really lame POV they are, and now MezzoMezzo has made the extent of your vandalism even more clear to the world. Causteau (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
See this, this and this. Just as the source states, restored Sunni Islam in Egypt. Anyway it doesn't really matter. Wikipedia is not credible anyway and rewording a statement so that it suits your own agenda doesn't change the fact that Al-Azhar was founded by Shi'ites, Islam flourished under Shi'ites and despite Sunnis being the overwhelming majority in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of scientists and philosophers of the Islamic Golden Age that Muslims take pride in were Shi'ites. Your pathetic POV edits won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.188.194 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't have posted a more foolish and self-incriminating post if you'd tried. With that one paragraph, you've just proven everything MezzoMezzo and I have pointed out about your edits. They were intended to discredit Sunnis, just like we've been saying all along. Get this through your partisan head: when you post a blatant LIE like "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" as you've repeatedly done (your penultimate edit contained that exact phrase; don't even bother denying it), and then "support" that LIE with a battery of sources that don't once mention Saladin forcibly converting anyone let alone Egyptians, it is you that is the spin artist -- not me or Mezzo or any other editor. My edits were a direct quote from a source you yourself provided. That was my lone contribution to that portion of the article, and a simple browse through this article's page history readily bears that out. You, on the other hand, personally authored that slanderous LIE on Saladin forcibly converting Egyptians, which you then also tried to insert on the Al-Azhar Fatwa page. If you think that you're in the clear just because you've finally done what we've been asking you to do all along -- namely, to support your assertions with legitimate, relevant sources -- you are dreaming. Administrators are still going to arrive, and I'm personally going to see to it that they get a good look at your handiwork both here on this page and elsewhere. You have the gall to accuse others of having an "agenda" when you're going around from page to page posting lie after unsourced lie on Sunnis. The only thing that prevents Wikipedia from being "credible" as you so disingenuously put it, is serial vandals like yourself that see it as an opportunity to spread disinformation and propaganda rather than as chance to contribute to a scholarly, referenced body of knowledge. Before I forget, if your edits are so benign, if you are just trying to help make Wikipedia a better place as you seem to want the gullible to believe, then why not register as a user? Why edit page after page under various anonymous IPs when there are many pages that specifically bar such users from editing them? Could it be that you are afraid your vandalism will catch up to you? That people will grow wise to your true intentions and be able to unfailingly trace your edits back to you instead of one or several of your many anonymous IPs? Causteau (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Were this anonymous user sincerely trying to oppose the insertion of POV, this might hold up. However, his comments here about no one pushing POV more than me, and his edit summaries on other articles referring to Causteau mockingly as "you intelligent person" are not only signs of POV, but also violations of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and show a lack of sincerity that might possibly hint at attempts to even compromise Wikipedia. It certainly is looking like that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have personally never seen, in my life, anyone as ill-intentioned as you. I inserted a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica and you're trying your best to make Islam articles filled with your POV, as can be seen from all your edits, and worst of all, you have the audacity to talk about POV-pushing and compromising WIkipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You're going around on multiple IP addresses removing known terrorists from the "Lebanese terrorists" category. I'm not just saying you're ill intentioned; i'm saying you're likely a bit dangerous for anyone to even be associated with you. I apologize for being so forward as I can see that Elonka has a valid point in improving article content, but this needs to be said. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone may have made a mistake on another article, doesn't necessarily mean that all their edits should be suspect. So again, please, can we focus discussions here on the Al-Azhar University article? --Elonka 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, seriously? Saladin didn't restored Sunni Islam in Egypt. Egypt was predominantly Sunni, even under Fatimid Dynasty. Proof? When Najm Ad-Din Al-Khabwashani (Saladin's teacher in the Shafie school of jurisprudence, Ashari by creed) entered Egypt and dig up the grave of a famous Quran reciter, Abdullah ibn Al-Kizan, who was rested near Imam Shafie's tomb. Abdullah ibn Al-Kizan also belonged to the Shafie school of jurisprudence, but he was athari in creed i.e. Salafi. Thus, Al-Khabwashani despised him due to due creed difference and ordered his grave to be move away from Imam Shafie. This action caused a commotion there when majority of the people there rise to protest this action, but the protest was finally settled down with Saladin's army intervention. This was recorded in Siyar A'lam An-Nubula.175.143.63.236 (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Azhar University. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Azhar University. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Azhar_University/Archive_1&oldid=1219891299"