Talk:Hadith of Najd

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

The Isnads in Sahih Muslim[edit]

In Sahih Muslim there are six successive entries about this hadith (#45-50 in book 41). All the entries go back to Abdullah ibn Umar. The prophetic part of all of these is identical - "Rasul Allah faced eastward and said 'Civil War will come from this direction where the Horns of Satan appear." Najd is not mentioned. The sixth entry uses the hadith to exemplify a remark made by Salim the son of Abdullah that the people of Iraq guilty of killing one another. This, I think puts a different spin on the hadith.

It would seem to me that the easiest reading is that Rasul Allah was predicting the Ridda and Salim was re-using the old hadith and applying it to the Abbascid rebels. I have no idea how thisjibes with the classical Muslim commentaries so I will not change the page at this time.

The article as whole reads to me too much like original research already and I don't want to make that worse. DKleinecke (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad ihs, good work on expanding the "Is Iraq" view! --Striver 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazak-Allah, and my apologies for the anti-shia polemics in response to Shia polemics. It was hastily done and after I had just read the anti-Wahab ideas. Also, I wasn't aware till yesterday that there is a number of Salafi/Sunni scholars who also subscirbe to the Najd is in Saudi view. And for the record, I myself have no fondness for the House of Saud, at least not in it's current state (for different reasons). --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 05:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation[edit]

I noticed that the last version of the article contained the following narration:

"O Allah bestow your blessings on our Madeenah, and bestow your blessings on our Mecca, and bestow your blessings on our Shaam, and bestow your blessings on our Yemen, and bestow your blessings in our measuring (fee saa'inaa wa muddinaa)." A person said, " O Messenger of Allah and in our Najd" and so he turned away from him and said, "there will occur earthquakes, trials and tribulations and there will appear the horn of Satan." -Abu Nu'aym in al-Hilya (6/133)

But the actual narration in Shu'ayb Arna'out: Sharh as-Sunnah’ (14/206-207 fn. 2) says:

O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Madeenah, and bestow your blessings on our Mecca, and bestow your blessings on our Shaam, and bestow your blessings on our Yemen, and bestow your blessings in our measuring (fee saa`inaa wa muddinaa)." A person said, " O Messenger of Allaah and in our Najd and so he turned away from him and said, "there will occur earthquakes, trials and tribulations and there will appear the horn of Satan.

I went ahead and corrected this. I'll see what I can do to bring more references from both sides of the story here, but lets make sure that the translations available are factually accurate. MezzoMezzo 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent insertions of Sufi POV[edit]

Recently, a number of IPs and new accounts have attempted to insert the Sufism point-of-view into this article. While the article should represent all points of view, this must be done with reliable, verifiable sources without taking sides. While the article may be unbalanced, as of yet, no editor has been able to provide proper sources for the Sufi point-of-view - that being that the "najd" referred to in the hadith is in Saudi Arabia. Most of this has been copy-paste from various blogs, as the Sufi movement in North America is quite active on the internet.
Let me just iterate here that I am not trying to bash anybody's beliefs. If an editor is Sufi or Christian or nonbelieving then that is fine and they can edit any article they like. But on this article specifically, there has been a very noticeable pattern of bias from the direction of the point of view that "najd" is in Saudi from before I made my above comments more than two years ago. Let's try to find reliable sources for this point of view, and add them to the article in a constructive way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided proof[edit]

I've provided proof. Now can you deny that? You can't. The biggest thing is that the fitnatul wahabiah emerged from Najd. Even the elder brother of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, that is Sulyman ibn Abdul Wahab(RA) called his brother being the Horn of Satan in his book Divine Thunderbolts.

117.98.12.150 (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on sufi views.[edit]

You will understand them by their fruits, is the valid sentence of Jesus Christ. And we understand nowadays very well. All over the world. Nobody can deny. Loqman (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on sufi views.[edit]

Wahhabism; even the term is denied by wahhabis. Hadith of najd is about saud-is (salaf of the king ?) and this a common belief among non salafis. your defence of salafism is only like USA defending israelor al qaida defending violence. Allah is watching. Zikrullah (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabis might deny this term but all over the world like Europe and North America they are more famous and well renowned as Wahhabis and this a household word in West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.249.212 (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously skewed article in favour of certain sectarian agendas[edit]

I have overhauled the article in the light of objective, impartial evidences.

Regardless of whatever sect any of the authors wish to ascribe to they must put substantial proofs for proposed changes.

It is proven from a plethora of authentic traditions and annotated by renowned scholars in the field of Hadeeth throughout history that the region refferred to has always been known to be Iraq, more specifically the locale of Baghdad as this was the location of the martyrdom of Ali ra [the prophets (peace be upon him) grandson].

Now we have a bunch of people thinking this is just all a big joke hurling wild conspiracy theories in the face of factual real evidences. Please do not make a mockery of this website as it is the closest thing we have to a real live encyclopedia and I would prefer to keep it that way. If you have such hatred for the people of Saudi Arabia or those that you call as being Wahhabi then please take your anger elsewhere unless you have sufficient proof.

I hardly think anyone with a reasonably sound intellect would accept pathetic un-sourced conspiracy 'sect' websites as being proof enough to overturn 1400 years of scholarship and preservation of the texts / traditions (hadeeth). Sakimonk (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't new. I've been watching the games played with this article since 2007. The editor who created it was famous for pushing Shi'ite POV, which on this topic happens to coincide with Sufi POV as well. He created a fiefdom of articles taking Sunni hadith and mistranslating them to support Shi'ite views, and basically proselytize his beliefs to readers.
Sunni scholarship has traditionally considered this hadith to refer to Iraq. Later theories didn't point to Saudi Arabia until a hundred or 150 years ago. Those views should be included, but it should be made clear when and where they came from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edits and the impartial stance of POV on wiki[edit]

Please, please, please do NOT using wikipedia as a soapbox to spread deliberate misinformation - it simply reduces the quality of articles and makes out wiki to be a haven for extremism in forcing a particular agenda down peoples throats.

This version quite clearly outlines the original text of the hadith and provides ample space to discuss the conspiracy theories prevalent today pertaining to this famous text.

THE WHOLE ARTICLE HOWEVER should NOT be simply askew and absorbed in the wild accusations themselves. We simply can not allow users to warp the viewpoint of an article in favour of their own sectarian agenda be it 'anti Saudi', 'pro-sufi', 'pro-shi'ite', 'barelvi' or what not.

Many thanks and please DO quote this and explain any reason for doubting my decision if you wish to revert my edit, I would very much like to circumvent an edit war :) Sakimonk talk 22:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current version nicely deals with 1. original unbiased text of the hadeeth with referenced scholarly views on it 2. the academic breakdown of the proposed location of Najd with referenced scholarly viewpoint 3. the array of unfounded theories proposed by various sects and those with skewed agendas (which is not the main focus of this article as this would be a skewed POV issue)
if you WISH to have an article discussing sectarian viewpoints please by all means make a new page entitled "so and so's viewpoint on the Hadith of Najd" :) Sakimonk talk 22:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good save, but the "conspiracy theory" comments are a bit much. It comes off as original research, as I don't think we have professional secondary sources calling these more recent view (that Najd is in Saudi) conspiracies. The adjective really ought to be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hadith of Najd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This article was copied word for word from this 2005 blog post http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?55352-The-Hadith-of-Najd. It was added to Wikipedia in 2006. This is violation of copyright and must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.236.72 (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I finally checked, and I'm not sure that's the case. The forum post (not a blog) was a copy paste of an article written by Abu Rumaysah, an American translator who'd originally written the copied article for Islaam.net. The text in this article which you removed back in December, however, doesn't appear to be copy pasted from there. There are common translations of Ibn Hajr's comments on the hadiths used in the text (which I've restored), but such translations are widespread and not specific to the article; Fathul-Bari was translated long before either website existed, and the quotes are extremely common.
If retaining exact quotes from Ibn Hajr is problematic from a copyright standpoint - and I don't think that it is, but I could be wrong - then the answer would NOT be deleting the article's content. This is especially problematic because you didn't delete all of the text - you retained the part of the text that links to the location in Saudi Arabia while deleting the parts (which were much more historically substantiated) that the location is actually in Iraq. This is a common POV pushed on Wikipedia, mainly by Sufis and Shias, who wish to portray the hadith as unequivocally prophesizing the rise of Salafism for the purpose of sectarian debates. It comes off as being dishonest because you could have also deleted the part of the text implying that the location is in Saudi Arabia.
I've restored the text because is it reliably sourced to both a modern-day publisher as well as to actual historical works such as those of Ibn Abdul-Barr, Nawawi, and other scholars accepted by both Salafis and Sufis. If the specific wording needs to be adjusted, then by all means, that's a simple matter of community collaboration. The way in which sourced text was deleted en masse, however, comes off as a good example of bad faith editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me. Are you serious? The forum post has been plagiarized word for word.
Consider the following in the forum (written in 2005 before the addition to the Wikipedia article):
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee said after quoting the words of al-Khattaabee explaining the meaning of Qarn (horn), "and others have said that the People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, informed us that the trials and tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the east and they were the reason for the splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction." [Fath al-Baaree 13/58 in commentary to the hadeeth of Najd]
This is in the article as:
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said after quoting the words of al-Khattaabee explaining the meaning of Qarn (horn) ;
"and others have said that the People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, informed us that the trials and ::tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the east and they were the reason for the ::splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction."
i.e. it is a word for word copy. This is in violation of WP:COPYVIO full stop.
This is a problem not just because of the copyright violation but also because we have no idea who translated the medieval text? If you claim that somebody named "Abu Rumaysah" translated it on islaam.net (huh - really??) then who is this man? What are his scholarly credentials? Is his translation peer-reviewed? Also, what "modern-day publisher" supports this as you claim? There are so many Wikipdia violations here we can go on all day about this (WP:IRS, WP:NPOV etc...)
You also state that "If retaining exact quotes from Ibn Hajr is problematic...". Who says that this is an exact quote? The text was written hundreads of years ago in Arabic so we need reliable scholars who can translate as opposed to people like "Abu Rumaysah" (whoever that is meant to be) on islaam.net.
and then "but such translations are widespread and not specific to the article; Fathul-Bari was translated long before either website existed, and the quotes are extremely common." Are they? Which reliable translation of Fath al-Bari exists in the English translation? I'm asking for reliable translations and not spurious bollocks from Darrusalam etc...
You'll have to do better than dimissing the removal of plagiarised text from a forum as "bad faith editing", and I'll give you an opportunity to justify your edits before reverting. 86.143.22.73 (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you don't seem qualified to even engage in this discussion.
The books of Ibn Hajr are widely available in modern editions, not simply manuscripts from hundreds of years ago. That's one.
I speak Arabic, as do many other editors, and verifying the claims (whether the quotes are retained or not) is a simple process. Using non-English sources by editors is entirely normal, but you seem to be unaware of that. There's another major problem.
The text isn't simply a copy-paste as well; that's three. I just checked the exact link again, so I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.
Your bad faith is also obvious. You don't think it's obvious that you only deleted text tying Najd to Iraq and Yemen etc. but not Saudi Arabia? This isn't a Muslim discussion board where you can simply shout opponents down.
If you revert even one time on the specious grounds you've mentioned, you'll not only get reverted back, but I'll also escalate this immediately to the proper boards for disruption. The fact that this article has become a tug of war for POV pushing for years, along with the discussion here and the revelation that you don't understand site policies on non-English sources, is enough justification to take this higher. You're not going to edit war your way into denying the obvious scholarly disagreement over the text of the hadith, and pretending that you're doing anything else by throwing out incredibly uninformed arguments isn't going to fool people over the age of twelve. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<< The books of Ibn Hajr are widely available in modern editions, not simply manuscripts from hundreds of years ago. That's one.>>
When did I say that the books of Ibn Hajar are not available in modern editions? Maybe try and read what I actually wrote before commenting. That's one
<< I speak Arabic, as do many other editors, and verifying the claims (whether the quotes are retained or not) is a simple process. Using non-English sources by editors is entirely normal, but you seem to be unaware of that. There's another major problem.>>
I speak Arabic aswell and no, it is not a "simple process" to translate medieval texts. The Arabic spoken by Ibn Hajar is different than colloquial or modern standard Arabic - something you very well know. It's no different to an English speaking person trying to understand Shakespeare. That's why we ought to rely on scholarly translations instead of people like Abu Rumaysah from Islaam.net as you suggested. That's two.
<< The text isn't simply a copy-paste as well; that's three. I just checked the exact link again, so I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.>>
Did you read my comments above? I gave a snippet of the article to show that much of it has been copied word for word. I'll give the snippet again below to illustrate the point:
Consider the following in the forum (written in 2005 before the addition to the Wikipedia article):
Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee said after quoting the words of al-Khattaabee explaining the meaning of Qarn (horn), "and others have said that the People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, informed us that the trials and tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the east and they were the reason for the splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction." [Fath al-Baaree 13/58 in commentary to the hadeeth of Najd]
This is in the article as:
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said after quoting the words of al-Khattaabee explaining the meaning of Qarn (horn) ;
"and others have said that the People of the East were disbelievers at that time and the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, informed us that the trials and :::: tribulations would arise from that direction and it was as he said. And the first of the trials that arose, arose from the direction of the east and they were the reason for the :::: splitting of the Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan loves and delights in. Likewise the innovations appeared from that direction."
So which of the above hasn't been copied word for word? That's three
<< Your bad faith is also obvious. You don't think it's obvious that you only deleted text tying Najd to Iraq and Yemen etc. but not Saudi Arabia?>>
The article clean up I did is here. So where is Saudi Arabia mentioned? So no I did not keep material related to Saudi Arabia. Did you actually read it? That's four.
<< If you revert even one time on the specious grounds you've mentioned,>>
Maybe try and read WP:OWN "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". You don't own this article, never have and never will. Anyone can edit, especially when it comes to removing material copied directly from a forum or added from dubious sites like islaam.net by the unknown author Abu Rumaysah (you still haven't stated who he is).
I've just had a further look at the content you have added. Not only has much of it been copied from Abu Rumaysah on Islaam.net as you admit, you are also sourcing from the following unscholarly websites:
  • ayha.org
  • danielpipes.org
  • en.islamtoday.net
  • systemoflife.com
  • ahlalhdeeth.com
  • islamhouse.com
These all fail WP:RS, something which you very well know. So, I am challenging you to explain why you keep adding garbage from the above sites when they clearly fail wikipedia guidelines. In fact none of the material that you added has been sourced to any publication of any worth. 86.143.22.73 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this discussion is more or less over. Congratulations on being the first person in a long time to expend my patience.
Aside from the fact that you not only don't know Arabic but also make absolutely ridiculous statements about it, and the fact that you don't seem to know what constitutes copy-paste, you also didn't read the material you deleted until now, August 2017. This comes in addition to the fact that, now that you finally did read it, you just arbitrarily decided that all the sources cited therein (which you didn't actually check before) must somehow be unreliable.
Your bad faith, POV pushing, and grandstanding are painfully obvious, not the least in the fact that you still haven't tried to delete the article's content again. You know that you don't have a policy-based case and seem to be trying to engage in a forum-style, point-by-point copy paste flame war. Sorry, that doesn't work here.
If you have a constructive change to suggest, go ahead and submit it here on talk for community review. If you're just trying to censor content that clashes with your own sectarian viewpoints, then I'm simply going to revert your edits again, and I'm not going to waste time on the flame war you seem to crave. Good day. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't reply to any of my points so I will be removing nonsense from the following websites which you seem to keep adding. You need to prove that the sites are reliable. I don't need to prove that the sites are unreliable:
  • ayha.org
  • danielpipes.org
  • en.islamtoday.net
  • systemoflife.com
  • ahlalhdeeth.com
  • islamhouse.com
If you re-add these bullshit sites again I will take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:DCC7:6D14:2026:586D (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV pushing. Take it to WP:RSN Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I thought as much. i have raised it in WP:RSN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:DCC7:6D14:2026:586D (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had feedback from Emir of Wikipedia regarding this and it has been over a week so I will be removing the material from the unreliable sources. If there is a constructive reason to add the material again it can be submitted here for community review. 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:18F1:6D2E:626B:B23A (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RSN notice[edit]

WP:RSN#Sources from Islamic websites Pinging recent editors: @VenusFeuerFalle, MezzoMezzo, Emir of Wikipedia, Thunderflash28, Aamiriik, and BD2412: Jim1138 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had feedback from Emir of Wikipedia regarding this and it has been over a week so I will be removing the material from the unreliable sources. If there is a constructive reason to add the material again it can be submitted here for community review. 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:18F1:6D2E:626B:B23A (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being so late; my time online has been quite limited, and moving on after a week of no response was a correct action.
I am back though, and I'm sad to see that some of the same POV pushing is still going on. From a year ago, points were made that the traditional sources cited (Hamawi, Ibn Abdul-Barr, etc.) are themselves reliable and well-known, and any translation of them may run closely to translations found on online forums. That doesn't change the reality of what those middle ages scholars wrote in other languages, nor does it change the reality that the text which was here in this article was technically different. Deletion of said text is entirely baseless now as it was back in 2017, and it can not stand - it's the removal of reliably sourced material. I'm also not sure why the citation to Daniel Pipes was removed - no justification has been provided for that.
The only material left is cited to primary sources mentioning Najd but excluding Iraq, and it's already known that traditional Muslim scholarship has noted both terms in authentic hadith. I don't know what to conclude other than that this is similar POV pushing to what we've seen before: an author is attempting to portray only one view among several here. With that in mind, I'll first revert the mass deletion, and then go back and remove only the material which was agreed to be unreliable per the RSN discussion. If there are further problems with sources provided (traditional Arabic sources or modern scholarly ones) then that needs to be addressed source-by-source. So far, one year into this discussion, that still hasn't happened. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Firstly, I went to RSN based on input from @Jim1138: and the only one to respond was @Emir of Wikipedia:. You have now muscled in on the conversation 2 weeks later and added material from some of these sources again without even trying to discuss.
Secondly, stop accusing me of POV pushing when it is you who keep adding dubious material from websites such as en.islamtoday.net. This was agreed to be unreliable on RSN yet you have added it in again today. I have therefore removed this again.
Thirdly, you reinserted the section Possible locations when it has no sources. One year on and you haven't provided any sources so I removed this also.
Fourthly, the quotes from Ibn Hajar and Khattabee have been taken from the forum ummah.com. This forum post was written in 2005 before it was copied into Wikipedia. The article was written by someone named Abu Rumaysah. Who is this man that you keep taking material from? What are his qualifications? I hope it is not this Abu Rumaysah. These quotes should be removed as they have not been taken from scholars with qualifications. 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:E933:FF3:3052:39F8 (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I understand that I'm coming in two weeks later, but discussion isn't necessary for sources which weren't discussed at the RSN. The Daniel Pipes source, for example, was found to be generally reliable there because Pipes is a recognized scholar. Yet in your latest edit, you removed material cited by his source as well as the Islamtoday source. Including the Islamtoday source wasn't found to be problematic, if I recall correctly; it's simply that the English mirror is down. Even if you feel that the source should be removed for discussion, then there was no reason at all to remove the text associated with it because it still had the Daniel Pipes source. As such, I'll reinstate the text since there's no basis for removing it, but as a gesture of goodwill I'll remove the broken link for Islamtoday for later review here.
As for the possible locations, then they're sourced by Hamawi. And as for the translations, then my answer now is the same policy-based answer as it was a year ago. You've made no effort to educate yourself on policy in the past year, so I'm not going to entertain you on this point. Go read Wikipedia policies about using non-English sources. If you don't, then there's no point in continuing discussion on that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just checked the RSN again at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_243#Sources_from_Islamic_websites, and there's nothing there at all questioning the reliability of IslamToday. It's mostly a news website with a fatwa section answered by multiple university professors. The original source used in this article was an English language answer by Dr. Umar al-Muqbil, and that's down. Personally I don't see a huge problem with an archived version since such a citation method is used all over Wikipedia, but if you feel strongly about then, then I can defer.
The same question was answered on IslamToday by another university professor, Turki al-Ghamiz, more recently, and his answer is still available on the Arabic version of the site. In his answer, he points out that Bukhari himself narrates the hadith multiple times, including under headings implying the direction of Iraq which weren't included in the primary sources you left after deleting 10,000 bytes of info. Al-Ghamiz also mentions the quote of Khattabi already translated in this article - this authenticates the Khattabi quote as accurate. I'll transliterate the Arabic here just to make the point:
"Najd min jihah al-Mashriq, wa man kana bil-Madinah, kana Najduhu badiyah al-Iraq wa nawahiha, wa hiya Mashriq Ahl al-Madinah. Wa asl al-Najd ma irtafa'a min al-ardh, wa huwa khilaf al-Ghawr, fa-innahu ma inkhafadha minha, wa Tihamah kulluha min al-Ghawr, wa Makkah min Tihamah."
He also refers to Ibn Hajr's Fath ul-Bari as well as Muhammad Ashraf Sanad's "Akmal al-Bayan fi Sharh Hadith al-Najd Qarn al-Shaitan" under the authentication of Abudl-Qadir bin Habibullah al-Sanusi.
What we can draw from this is:
  1. IslamToday's fatwa website is managed by a team of university professors in their field.
  2. The text associated with the site has a valid source, and non-English sources are acceptable per policy.
  3. The Khattabi quote in this article was incidentally found to be accurate.
  4. Sanad's book could prove to be a good academic addition to this article's citations.
With that in mind, I'll make the adjusted changes to the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave in IslamToday.net is a Fatwa (religious ruling) by an alleged Mufti and not a scholarly source. Religious rulings are unacceptable for an encyclopedia. In fact the entire website is a Fatwa website run by so called Muftis and this has been discussed before that they should not be used. 2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:855A:2C91:D15D:7E3A (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we’ve. Asically reahed the end of this latest disturbance, which is a good thing. No, you don’t get to redefine websites which you can’t even read for the sake of an argument. IslamToday is a news website, as I said, and shouting that down doesn’t change that fact. Like several news channels in the Mideast, it has in-house religious scholars as part of their oversight staff to both authenticate religious reporting and report personalized guidance; it isn’t comparable to AskImam, which is a one-man show. Additionally, even AskImam wouldn’t be a problem per the link you yourself posted. One person said it isn’t reliable, another said it is as a source for the writer’s own views. Considering the fact that IslamToday in this article is only being used to establish a difference of opinion to balance out the view of Pipes, rather than to make an assertion as to which view is right or wrong, then there’s no conflict at all with site policies.
Though to be fair, further sources are helpful for any article. The claim itself (that there’s a linguistic and geographic dispute) isn’t controversial in the least, but we can find other sources to add to the same citation at some point in the future. Beefing up the article with citations, especially with traditional sources like Ibn Hajr et al. could be beneficial for the readers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the lead as of June 2021[edit]

Although consensus on this article was already reached a few years ago via policy explanations, RSN discussions, and community work here, that consensus has been denied recently. A rechecking of sources never hurts, and hashing it out here again - while laborious - will still be a benefit. In order to go methodically, I’d like to address the lead, and only the lead, before moving on to other sections. I usually wouldn’t start with the lead of an article, but since this one is so short and so glaring in its problems, I think it can be wrapped up quickly so the community can move forward to other sections.
The original lead based on consensus can be found up to October 2019. Without any further discussion - not on this talk page or even in edit summaries - the lead was changed to the current biased mess which we can see. There are a few problems with this:

  • SalafiTalk and Masud.co are both sites which are only occasionally reliable. Both are sectarian sites who spout hate against their ideological opponents, and both of them has problems with both accuracy and completeness in translation.
  • Although both sources push their own sects’ POVs as being the truth, the article’s lead currently portrays Masud’s as being true while SalafiTalk’s as just being a sectarian claim. BOTH sources are the latter, not just one.
  • The current version has removed the quote by traditional historian Yaqut al-Hamawi whose discussion on the exact location of Najd pre-dates the current sectarian disagreement between Islamic neo-traditionalism and the Salafi movement. In fact, Hamawi pre-dates even the existence of those two sects themselves by about six centuries or so. He’s neutral to this.

My proposal is this: we restore the citation of Hamawi as the sober-eyed description of historical locations said to be Najd, and we leave the links to the two sectarian sources to cite the fact that disagreement exists. That way, no single religious movement’s beliefs will be represented as objective fact. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest 3 method[edit]

I suggest to people to research about the Companion who asked the Messenger of Allah to pray for his Najd: where did he come from? This answer will open the true veil regarding the location of najd referred to by the Prophet.

Some of the articles I've read, they saw the distribution of the residences of the companions at that time. they said that at that time there were no companions who came from Iraq, on that basis they were sure that the Najd that the Prophet meant was Saudi Arabia today (not Iraq).

perhaps we can also see from other sources of civilization that have interacted with the Arab region- through writing or ancient maps-whether they separate Iraq and Najd (modern Saudi Arabia). 112.215.65.104 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hadith_of_Najd&oldid=1202535496"