Talk:Malik ibn Anas

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

Translating the Arabic word istiwa' to "sitting" is POV[edit]

Islamic sects dispute the meaning of the word istiwa' as it has many in the Arabic language. Assuming Imam Malik understood it as sitting is POV. Ash-Sharastanis Mihal wa Al Nihal is an Arabic book.

We should add a note at the VERY LEAST regarding this POV translation

In fact, claiming that the "modality" of "sitting" is unknown is contradictory.

MezzoMezzo let's find a NPOV way of citing this famous comment by Imam Malik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 18:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Ishaq[edit]

Didn't Malik Ibn Anas call Ibn Ishaq a liar, after he wrote his biography of the prophet?Faro0485 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born?[edit]

It says "born in 711"......"died at the age of 89 in Medina in 795". 711+89=795?--Bosniarasta (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The years are counted in the Islamic Lunar calendar, which gains a full extra year over the common Solar calendar every 33 years. ~~izady

Inappropriate tampering[edit]

Recently, validly sourced information regarding Malik bin Anas' censure of kalam theology has been deleted, likely because it clashes with the point of view of some modern-day malikis. Malik's censure of kalam was well known and is documented by a number of historians, so to delete this information isn't appropriate. Additionally, the addition of fabricated hadith isn't in line with Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Malik[edit]

"According to Al-Muwatta, he was tall, heavyset, imposing of stature, very fair, with white hair and beard but bald, with a huge beard and blue eyes.[1]"

The reference here is incorrect. This description does not appear in the Muwatta (I found it in later biographical works, for instance Al-Dhahabi's Siyar A'lam al-Nubala) . Whoever added this sentence did not pay attention to the quoted source which does not state its original source (It just says "elsewhere")

Can you provide a published source to cite instead? Zerotalk 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bio / jail[edit]

Need more bio, particularly his imprisonment and possible arm injury sustained therein. Also support for Muhammad Naf me Zakiyy Roamingkurd (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imbalanced presentation in theology[edit]

I’ve found a bit of free time to finally look into some of the more suspect claims regarding Malik’s biography. This is the first of what will be a slow, steady audit of the article, because - as has been mentioned multiple times here on Wikipedia - G.F. Haddad is extremely sectarian and has a history of making highly contentious claims.
The first to look at here is a claim under the theology subsection of the views section which is sourced solely by Haddad. The claims are that Malik is commonly thought to be opposed to kalam (dialectic), but that he couldn’t have been totally opposed because his teacher Ibn Hurmuz was a kalam master. This is problematic both due to Haddad’s specific claim (though he has the right to his view), as well as the fact that the common view (that Malik was opposed to kalam) isn’t given the weight due to a commonly held view.
This will require the posting of Arabic text which I often have trouble with on my mobile, so I’ll post this in stages and edit back my own comment for the sake of formatting.
The second problem isn’t major: Haddad is a professor of the field, and in a technical sense, meets the requirement for a reliable source. However, positive attribution ought to be given to his view on Malik and kalam since his view is based on specious grounds to the extent that I believe it counts as fringe. The claim regarding Ibn Hurmuz being a kalam master is based on a single line in his biography, that biography generally being consistent throughout Muslim biographers (here comes an Arabic quote which I will try to post upon a second edit):

أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أخبرني أحمد بن سهل ثنا إبراهيم بن معقل ثنا حرملة ثنا ابن وهب ثنا مالك أنه دخل يوما على عبد الله بن يزيد بن هرمز فذكر قصة ـ ثم قال : و كان ـ يعني ابن هرمز ـ بصيرا بالكلام و كان يرد على أهل الأهواء و كان من أعلم الناس بما اختلفوا فيه من هذا الأهواء .

The comment that he was “insightful of dialectic” says nothing about his approval of it, as traditional scholars were quite active in using it to refute “ahl al-ahwa,” most commonly referring to the Mu’tazila. This use is attested to by Ibn Abdul-Barr, an author frequently quoted by Haddad, who explains the usage of kalam by traditional Sunni scholars as:

قال مصعب بن عبدالله الزبيري: كان مالك بن أنس يقول: الكلام في الدين كله أكره.. و

كان أهل بلدنا يكرهونه, وينهون عنه, نحو الكلام في رأي جهم والقدر, وكل ما أشبه ذلك, ولا أحب الكلام إلا فيما تحته علم, فأما الكلام في الدين, وفي الله عز وجل, فالسكوت أحب إلي, لأني رأيت أهل بلدنا ينهون عن الكلام في الدين, إلا ما تحته علم . قال أبو عمر بن عبد البر: قد بين الإمام مالك رحمه الله, أن الكلام فيما تحته علم هو المباح عنده وعند أهل بلده –يعني العلماء منهم رضي الله عنهم- وأخبر أن الكلام في الدين نحو القول في صفات الله وأسماءه وضرب مثلا فقال: نحو رأي جهم والقدر, والذي قاله مالك عليه جماعة الفقهاء والعلماء قديما وحديثا, من أهل الحديث والفتوى, أنما خالف ذلك أهل البدع, كالمعتزلة وسائر الفرق, وأم الجماعة على ما قاله مالك إلا أن يضطر أحد إلى الكلام فلا يسعه السكوت إذا طمع برد الباطل وصرف صاحبه عن مذهبه, أو خشي ضلالة عامة أو نحو ذلك . وقال اب عبد البر: أجمع أهل الفقه والآثار من جميع الأمصار, أن أهل الكلام أهل بدع وزيغ, ولا يعدون عند الجميع في طبقات الفقهاء. (جامع بيان العلم (1768).
This is beside the fact that the entire discussion is regarding Ibn Hurmuz, not Malik Ibn Anas. Given Eperoton’s explanation above, I must agree that Haddad’s comments that Malik mustn’t have been opposed to kalam based on Ibn Hurmuz’s knowledge of it shouldn’t be deleted. However, unless more authors can be found holding the same view, then it wouldn’t be appropriate to present Haddad’s view as some kind of academic truth or widely held view; positive attribution to him needs to be made in the text.
The other issue is the lack of representation of what is actually the commonly held view. This is another issue of how the text is presented - Haddad’s view is presented without attribution, whereas the traditional view, right or wrong, isn’t presented. In addition to the comments of Ibn Abdul-Barr above, we can also see Ghazali’s comments on the traditional scholars and dialectic:

و إلى تحريم الكلام ذهب الشافعي و مالك و أبو حنيفة و أحمد بن حَنْبَل و سفيان الثوري و جميع أئمة السلف.

This is a fairly harsh view, and likewise it would deserve attribution in the text. However, I don’t think it can be emphasized enough that views like these do render Haddad’s view uncommon at the minimum. This not only requires a more representative text, but it also reveals the wider problem of relying on a single author for what is a contentious subject. That fact requires a further look into any sections solely sourced by the views of Haddad, who himself is a human lightning rod for POV given his sectarian views. I will wait, however, before continuing as verification of sources and representativeness isn’t something to be rushed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN would be a good place to ask about the reliability -- or otherwise -- of Haddad for specific material that is currently cited using them as a source in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo: I've read your comments and quotes with interest, but I'm reluctant to support any changes based on it. These passages feature technical distinctions -- whether there's ilm (which, I'm guessing, means scriptural evidence here) underlying kalam, and whether it's pursued for its own sake or to refute "the view of Jahm and al-qadar" and other false doctrines -- which clearly require some interpretation based on background knowledge, and so I think we need secondary sources analyzing this material or expounding alternative viewpoints to avoid OR. They don't have to be academic, but they need to be comprehensible to the average layman. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MPS1992: that’s an interesting suggestion. Are you suggesting that this specific issue be brought there, or that we leave the door open for that option in general?
@Eperoton: would the gist of it be that we basically need more secondary sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo: Exactly. Eperoton (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: alright, the first source I have as a biography on Malik is by Abdul-Ghani ad-Daqr, and the title is (wish me luck with the Arabic text):
الإمام مالك، إمام دار الهجرة
This edition was published by Dar al-Qalam in Damascus in 1998. Ad-Daqr was a rather uncontroversial sheikh from Syria, and his biography on Malik could serve as one of (hopefully not the only) the supplements to the views section.
Before I begin reposting parts, though, I’ll actually need to ask you about policies on that. Are we able to post links to e-books? Daqr’s work is available on archive.org, and Arabic authors aren’t really known for opposing the spread of printed books online, but this is one area I haven’t dealt with before. Obviously if this is to serve as a verified source, it will need to be available to all readers ‘’somehow’’, but I’m unused to this case.
As a preview to you and other editors, the material of interest in Daqr’s book is the chapter starting on page 285, where the author states that Malik was “the furthest of all people from the way of dialectic.” MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo: I'm not familiar with this author or publisher, so I'll defer to your judgment. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, verifiability doesn't presuppose easy availability, though if a source is available online, making it easier for fellow editors to locate them is a welcome courtesy. Both book distribution and copyright enforcement in the Arab world is in a bad shape, and I would imagine that authors such as this may welcome online distribution of their works which wouldn't be available otherwise. However, if you have concerns about including a URL, you may simply include the author's name and book title in the Arabic script, so that others can do an online search for a copy. Per WP:NONENG, in case of a dispute, others may request a quote and translation. Eperoton (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: well, part of the reason is that I don’t want to make the changes to the article unilaterally. I can easily post a translation of the relevant passsage myself, and I was hoping that other editors could participate in the wording of the new version. Daqr represents the commonly held view, and Haddad’s wording implies that his own view is uncommon. How do we reword the article while avoiding synth or OR? I think a good way is if we can pull more editors into the discussion.
Do you, or any other editor reading this, think we could go based on translation of the passage and then appealing for help on a Wikiproject to see if two or three or whatever other editors could comment on new versions of the section? MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MezzoMezzo: It's not necessary to include a translation if there's no dispute and no one asks for it. The standard way to phrase alternative viewpoints is along the lines of "A states X, while B states Y". Unless we can find RSs that make generalizations about these views (which one is more common, etc), we can only provide basic verifiable information about the A and B, such as their titles or posts. I can help with the wording as time permits (I'll be traveling over the next couple of weeks). Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To Eperoton and all editors interested: my surge protector burned out a few nights ago. I still have my mobile which I’m using right now, but I’m not used to it and I’m also trying to catch up on work with a different device (which I can’t use for editing). I expect to be able to contribute again within the next few days when I get a new surge protector. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have access to a computer today and tomorrow, and then I'll be away for a few days after that. The source checks on this article will be a long-term process, so there's no rush. With that in mind, I'll suggest a wording here. Perhaps more editors will take interest, plus I've found in the past that taking things slow when it comes to source verification leads to better results.
The current wording is: "Malik was not completely averse to the idea of dialectic theology, as it is sometimes assumed;[25] on the contrary, it is recorded that he studied 'at the feet of Ibn Hurmuz,' a master in dialectic theology, for 'thirteen to sixteen years'." My concern is the cited wording "as it is sometimes assumed." Working the Daqr source (and any other sources we might find in future searches) into the wording could be difficult, because one of the two sources making opposite claims is attempting to generalize those claims. I'd suggest removing that part of the text for now, as any generalization should come from outside sources making the claims anyway - preferably a neutral academic source which doesn't take strong theological positions, and neither Daqr nor Haddad meet such a standard.
I'd like to suggest this instead: "Abdul-Ghani Ad-Daqr claims that Malik was 'the furthest of all people' from dialectic theology who was the most knowledgeable of their discussions without accepting their views. G.F. Haddad, on the other hand, claims that Malik was not completely averse to the idea of dialectic theology; on the contrary, Haddad points to Malik having studied 'at the feet of Ibn Hurmuz,' a master in dialectic theology, for 'thirteen to sixteen years'."
I just thought of that wording now, so it's very rough. I'll leave that here to see if there's more feedback on the wording. If not, or if there aren't any other suggestions, I'll adjust the wording in the article when I get my own comp up and running in a few days, and we can move on to the next part of the "Views" section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should use more neutral synonyms for WP:SAY, like wrote, argued, etc, but otherwise it looks fine to me. Eperoton (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pressed for time since I only recently got my computer up and running again, but I did a quick check on the "anthropomorphism" and "beatific vision" sections. These two seem uncontroversial as the Ash'aris and Atharis (the two denominations which clash on Malik's view, primarily) agree with each other on these anyway. Just to further bolster the section's sourcing, I did a quick page number check on Daqr's book and also found him addressing the topics. Since there isn't a doctrinal controversy over those topics, I'll go ahead and add the extra sourcing now. Because I'm catching up on work, I can't estimate when I'll be able to continue verification checks on other parts of the article, but there's no rush. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Malik ibn Anas. 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) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malik_ibn_Anas&oldid=1194714668"