Talk:Atharism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Can anyone tell me why this page was redirected to Asharite? Sunni Islam and other websites make it clear that they aren't the same thing. There was a merge notice, but I didn't find any Athari material at Asharite. Art LaPella 01:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Art LaPella 03:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is there an external link leading to a book called "The 'Ash'aris: In the Scales of Ahl us-Sunnah" What has that to do with this article? I've removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.3.196 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category

Since this article is mentioned on the Sunni Islam panel I have included it in the Sunni Islam and Islamic Philosophy categories.Sakimonk (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I suggest that this page be deleted. There are no references. Any search for references amount to no credible sources. I believe that this is sufficient reason for an encyclopaedia to delete this page.

From a scholarly perspective, from my limited understanding it seems the very concept of a school of theology being premised upon a belief that avoids theology is not a basis for a designation of it being a school of thought. It is a view of minimizing or sidelining the importance of theology but not a school of theology. It would be like calling atheism a religion. I'd be very interested to hear from others on this topic be it from a scholarly or editorial perspective. --Ddragovic (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources can be found, though I think it can be agreed that this current new form is totally unacceptable. It is more or less ripped off entirely from the website of an individual named Suhaib Webb, a members of the Sufi and Ash'ari minority movements, both of which are opponents of the Athari school. All the sources currently provided are extremely biased in their presentation, and one of them is a blog (unacceptable in and of itself) whose sole purpose is to promote the Ash'ari point of view while calling it Athari, then claiming that the modern-day Atharis are not really Atharis. It's a bit ridiculous if one takes the time to actually read the sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up a bit and moved some more objective info from the Sunni Islam page. More will be forthcoming - even the current sources left, such as Sunni Path for example, are web sites which openly pronounce the Athari school of theology as heretical. While it's sufficient for a section on criticism, an actual Athari website such as Al-Athariyyah dot com would probably have more general information, as well as papers from non-Muslim academics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been researching Islamic theology for a limited time now, though at a doctoral level, and I am yet to come across any reference of a third school named "Athari". Again, I understand the concept of a 'non-school' but as an encyclopaedia I think that what is required here is for a reference to what is widely understood to be the case not a few blogger's ideas for a new school. Even with the changes I still don't see any credible references. Without references it shouldn't be here. I still stand by my suggestion to delete it altogether and simply note on another page that there is a 'non-school' position which some have referred to as Athari.--Ddragovic (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, I study Islamic theology and have read a great depth of material in Aqidah and the Atharia have always been regarded as the third Sunni school of thought, as a position contrasting to the people of Philosophy. In fact this is the defining point on which the Ahlul Hadeeth of Medina headed by Imam Malik ibn Anas were opposed to the Ahlul Ra'i of Baghdad that had deeply ventured into the works of Aristotle which was rebuked heavily by later authorities of Sunni theology such as Imam Shafi'i and most definitely Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal who had suffered torture for his affirmation of the Athari theological school in resistance to the dominating Mu'tazila school at the time he lived. Sakimonk (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sakimonk, I appreciate this academic overview but I still go back to my two basic points. Firstly, the credibility of references and secondly whether a non-school is a school. I agree with you on the basis of the position of Imam Hanbal and the concept that you summarized but I have not found scholarly references that refer to it as a school, but rather references to there being a movement against the very concept of theology as it being unnecessary. But rather than arguing here on academic points I think we need to focus on what is relevant to Wikipedia, namely, are the sources credible and widely held? If I can find, for example, five books which reference there being only two schools will this then suffice to change this page and remove references to it being a school? I have no problems with a definition of what athari is but referring to it as a school is just wrong. --Ddragovic (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern we can continue the discussion in light of further evidences at a more appropriate time and I do hope others will contribute. Also I have taken it upon myself to restore the page to my previous state prior to the vandalisation by "Ivegoturnumber" (as the user has been known for leaving scathing diatribe all across various apparently "Salafi" orientated articles and seems to have collected a plethora of talk page warnings - the edits horrendously violate WP:NPOV, if the user wishes to raise an issue they should flag the topic on the article talk page for further discussion instead of soapboxing)- following that I included all of your requests for citations and the edit by the other user. Many thanks! Sakimonk (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Sakimonk but that is a cop out. The whole point of this page is to discuss these issues now, not "at a more appropriate time". Since you obviously are unable to rebut my assertion I will be deleting all references to it as a "school". I suggest that unless you can provide legitimate sources that show that it is a school then there is no place for claiming such and my deletions of the term school should remain. Please note that I have also raised this topic on the talk page for Islamic theology and intend to have that changed too unless someone, anyone, can provide suitable sources suggesting otherwise. --Ddragovic (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a cop out, I'm genuinely very busy and I simply don't have the time to argue semantics. Call it whatever you like, I don't understand what exactly qualifies it as a School or Methodologly, all I know is that in most Islamic institutes scholars are either Ashari, Maturidi or Athari and all respect one another however severely disagree over what merits the correct understanding of theology. If you look at Al Azhar for example the cheif scholars are generaly Ashari however there are large number of Athari scholars who teach especially in the hadeeth department. Similar to how scholars typically are of the Sha'fi school however all other schools of fiqh` are taught from a number of different scholars. For example Hamza Yusuf is a famous Ashari scholar however his teacher Sheikh Bin Bayyah is Athari is aqeedah. It isn't actually a non-school as it has defining principles, for example what is typically mutashabihat (meriting either tafweedh or speculative interpretation) in the Ashari school is actually in the Athari school upon its "dhaahir" and its modality is designated as mutashabihat where tafwidh is applied and speculation is prohibited, if you understand. There are also the principles of taking the dhaahir upon no tashbih (establishing likeness), no takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine), no ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning) and no ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning). This methodlogy or School of theology, call it what you like, is widely followed by a large number of scholars and in fact a principle in theology is that naturally laymen are "Athari" as it is in line with the 'fitra', or natural disposition of the human being, and Allah knows best. I honestly don't see the difference between calling it a methodology or school but like I said, in Aqeedah (which is creed or defining principles of Theology in Islam) the Atharia is the third 'way' and always has been seen as that and its generally known as a madh`hab in aqeeadh which translates to "school of thought" if you understand what I mean. Many thanks. Sakimonk (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're busy and I won't make further changes until I hear back from you or a reasonable time has passed. As to your question as to what qualifies for a school, as an encyclopaedia the answer is whatever other scholars have determined as such. I understand what you have written but my point all along was not whether you could argue it from first principles but whether other scholars of repute have published the same opinion. In all of my reading I find references to two schools. If you think that there is a third school all that is required to convince me is to reference the claims of it being a school to credible sources as per WP:OR. Then I can add a second line saying that some scholars do not agree. I think that we're the only ones here so no rush and as I said, I won't change any of the work until I hear back. Cheers, --Ddragovic (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As I said I'm very tied up at the moment and I really do hope others will join in who wish to contribute usefully (at the moment all there seems to be is people soapboxing). Tbh the Athari tradition in its codified form would be dating back to the works of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah who is regarded pretty much by all as one of the cheif authorities - the reason it is downplayed generally in scholastic institutions is the extreme disregard for "kalam" which had gained immense popularity in Sunni places of knowledge throughout later history from the 10th century onwards. If you have a read through this for example (it is an extract from one of the writings of Mufti Taqi Usmani, I believe the Grand Mufti of Pakistan and cheif authourity of the Deoband institution in India I beleive) http://www.deoband.org/2010/04/hadith/hadith-commentary/the-issue-of-the-ambiguous-attributes-of-allah/ he mentions the various positions in theology taken by the scholars and of them he mentions the Athari position along with both Ash`ari and Maturidi positions where he sums up stating they are all viable positions. Let me know what you think. Sakimonk (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the Athari view on Tawhid and its division into three categories along with Iman. If you have a view of this video you'll see Sheikh Albani rahimahallah explaining Tawhid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xdkA6VFSk). To be honest the chief authority on Athari theology of this era would have been the late Sheikh Ibn Baz rahimahallah who passed away just over a decade ago, he himself along with Sheikh Uthaymeen rahimahallah and Sheikh Albani rahimahallah are effectively the three most highly regarded scholars of Athari theology of this era. The entirety of Saudi Arabia's Islamic institutions teaches solely Athari theology and every single Muslim identified as being "Salafi" is actually in essence Athari as the differential factor is his "Aqeedah" or creed as it is not really a matter of "Fiqh" that causes dispute generally. The "Salafi" theology is literally Athari theology however Athari is the classical term and there have been Atharis for over a thousands years as this is essentially the baseline creed of all Muslims before they delve into speculative theology and engage in philosophical deliberation (which was harshly attacked by the entirely of the scholarly community up until the advent of the Ash`ari popularity surging due to political power after the fall of the Mu`tazila a while after Imam Ahmed rahmahallah had passed away who is the originator and highest figure in the Athari school and is recognised as the founder of the school.) I understand the text is un-sourced however I haven't had the time to search around for suitable references online as this is generally mostly from my own reading in my own time and I have many, many books on the subject which I can't reference individually. :) Sakimonk (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am doing some further reading on the subject and Insha`Allah expand my knowledge on this subject, I hope you will like the citations - I sourced a number of quite reliable texts - original works in creed and so on and added some further reading. There is also a lecture linked that goes into the details, the speaker is qualified from Dar al Hadeeth in Makkah.Sakimonk (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sakimonk I went to the link you provided from Deoband and did not find a mention of Athari. Yes, you could argue that a position was established similar to that which you are probably correctly stating is "athari" thought, but again as mentioned above the problem is that there are no credible sources that discuss Athari as a third school of theology. Although its hard to prove the negative I will make this step just to show you what I mean:

1: There is no mention in the Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam Second Edition of Athari

2: By going to the Brill Encyclopaedia entry for Maturidi the following is stated: "Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Samarḳandī, Ḥanafī theologian, jurist, and Ḳurʾān commentator, founder of a doctrinal school which later came to be considered one of the two orthodox Sunnī schools of kalām" Note the mention of "two orthodox Sunni schools".

3: I randomly picked three books from my shelf on Islamic theology and had a look at their indexes, none of these books list Athari, having read them sometime ago I am quite sure that they do not discuss them either. These being "Islamic Theology: Traditionalism and Rationalism", "Development of Muslim Theology" and "Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology". But having said that Tim Winter in his introduction to the Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology mentions three schools of theology, Ash'arism, Maturidism and Hanbalism. From your perspective I presume that the term "Atharism" should be used instead of "Hanbalism" but that it is not is problematic.

Historically there are other schools but the main point is that we have a page that needs to define what are the schools of Islamic theology and since no published author seems to suggest that "athari" is one of them and none of your links that you've provided from non-traditional Western scholarly sources do so either I don't think that there is a case to be made to have it listed as a school. So overall I'm still not convinced and I suggest that until it can be shown that others have acknowledged Athari as a school that we either retitle the page to Hanbali theology (I can't comment on the validity of this as I'm not an expert in that field so I can only go by Winter's reference to it as a school) or to acknowledge that it is not a "school" but rather just a methodology. What do you think?--Ddragovic (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be apt to title it Hanblai theology as this is primarily a school in fiqh however it happens that the Hanabila incorperated Aqeedah into their Madh'hab aside from certain scholars such as sheikh Ibnal Jawzi Rahimahullah who was known to have independent views from the mainstream Hanabila - what I mean is that there are many Malikis and Sha'fis and Hanafis that are of this theology. I believe that most theological texts only address schools of philosophy (known as Kalam) being Ash'ari and Maturidi however the Atharia are strictly opposed to kalam - it should be noted that Atharia pre-dates kalam as what is meant by Athari is the original theological doctrine of the first three generations of Muslims (the Salaf) so I guess it would be a non-school in terms of Islamic philosophy however it is certainly a major "school" in Theology / i.e. being the major creed followed by all those who consider themselves to be "salafi" however non-salafi scholars are also "Athari" such as Suhaib Webb the Maliki Athari scholar - it is a bit hard to explain it concisely but I hope you get the jist of what I mean. Sakimonk ^talk 04:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

basically to sum - ANY work of theology from the Salaf is regarded as defining the Athari theological position, it is set and defined and not open to change, the Atharia believe THIS is the correct position in theology and that Kalam is a deviation in practice from the first Muslims whom are meant to be followed lest the Muslims deviate from the straight path. I really would prefer to address Athari as being a school of Theology as this makes it much easier to quantify and identify, a large number of Muslims study Athari theology - any work by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah rh, Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab rh who are the two main figures in the Salafi movement are staunchly based in Athari theology which strongly defiens Tawhid as the three categories which Ibn Taymiyyah identified from studying Quranic exegeses and "ATHAR narrations" (meaning a statement from the Salaf) from the first generations of Muslims hence why it is identified as ATHARI since it is concisely ONLY in line with the ATHAR narrations :) Sakimonk ^talk 04:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have become a circular discussion. I'm saying you're doing original research and as such its inappropriate for Wikipedia. You argue your point well but there are insufficient credible resources that support it in the way you have presented it. Every time I point this out you just repeat the same original research. I'll revert this now to other bodies to get involved. --Ddragovic (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

everything is sourced as far as I know, this is not "original research", this is the creed that can be found in all of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, sourced from Ibn Abdul Wahhab which is followed by the entirety of Saudi Arabia and the entire Salafi movement and effectively ALL modern day Hanbali scholars. The reason you don't find much information on it in British works is because there is a bias towards philosophical theology promoted historically by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th cent where most contact was made between the Biritish intellectuals and Islamic scholars. Currently Tim Winters whom you cite is heavily biased against this theology as he is a staunch advocate of kalam and is Asharite himself, he regards the Athari creed as heretical as do most sufis. I can assure you if you were to pick up any Islamic text originating from Saudi arabia or any work ascribing to the Salafi movement (known as wahhabis generally) you would find the theology is purely Athari, the grand mufti Bin Baz was an expert on this creed and his works are widely spread. The only problem is most of the works are purely in Arabic and Darussalam publishers are the main propagaters of the theology and "salafi dawah" in the English language. Now the problem with renaming is Salafi theology or Salafi creed or Salafi metaphysics is that it in actuality predates "Salafism" or the Salafi movement by a long shot as I said chiefly originating from Ibn Taymiyyah - if you look up ANY work by Ibn Taymiyyah or his students Ibn Qayyim al Jawzia and the chain thereon you would find they regarded all those who were not Athari as innovators to some degree. Look up the works of Uthaymeen, Albani and Bin Baz the three main sources of the Salafi movement, two of them Hanbali scholars and one trained as a Hanafi. As I said look up the source from Suhaib Webb who is a graduate from the prestigious al Azhar islamic university HIS creed is Athari and he cites Ibn Taymiyyah and Hassan al Banna's epistle (the founder of the Muslim brotherhood the CURRENT elected party in Egypt who's official creed in ATHARI, their only difference with the salafi movement is their openness with regards to whom can join their cause) and so on. Please look up every one of my points before you decide to remove cited information. Also one note the quote clearly states " came to be considered one of the two orthodox Sunnī schools of kalām" note it says schools of KALAM, yes this is true the two schools of Kalam in Islamic theology that are most widely spread are Ashari and Maturidi however the Athari creed is not a school of Kalam it is an Aqeedah followed that is against the use of Kalam (speculative philosophy) and purely ascribes to affirming the texts with conditions. Sakimonk ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Added a referenced section detailing the opposition of the creed against the use of kalam, I think we can now agree that "Athari" is in fact simply a creed as opposed to a school of philosophy, i.e. it is the now followed theological view with a basis in the creed of the early Muslims as opposed to the "schools" of kalam Sakimonk ^talk 06:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious need for copyediting

While the additions to this article over the last few months by a number of editors - especially Sakimonk - have been great, the spelling is horrible. All these double vowels and honorific titles need to be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tawhid rububiya and uluhiya

Why is there a discussion of this here on the Athari article? A person who doesn't accept these two things - that only God controls the universe and only God deserves worship - isn't a Muslim to begin with. Traditional writers from the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools didn't disagree with Atharis on this; rather, all three of them disagreed with each other on tawhid of asma and sifat only. I would suggest the removal of these two categories since neither Atharis, Ash'aris or Maturidis are distinguished from one another in those areas. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm concerned about the nature of this article currently. There are a lot of primary sources, which are acceptable to an extent per WP:PRIMARY but they shouldn't form the bulk of the sources for any article. They're also quoted from excessively. Additionally, there is some mixing between the Salafist movement and Atharism here which is wrong; division of tawhid into three categories is specific to the Salafist movement, and not all Atharis are Salafi even though all Salafis are Athari. Given that, and the excessive primary sourcing, I suggest that quite a bit of this article simply be deleted and rewritten from scratch. I'd like to see feedback from others first, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This statement as followed I believe is flawed;

"While the Athari Creed and the Salafi Creed are essentially the same, the only difference is in the manner of Tafweed. The Athari consign the specific meaning and nature (Tafweed al-Ma'nawiyya and al-Kayfiyya) to Allah alone. The Salafi affirm the literal meaning of the verse, and only consign the modality (Tafweed al-Kayfiyya) to Allah."

I've only ever heard this from people opposed to the modern day upholders of Athari scholarship as they use this as a means to say "you're following a newly innovated form of theology different from the traditional Atharis of old"

I believe we need help from someone more qualified to advise on this issue in particular and also on the statement by MezzoMezzo; is division of Tawhid into three categories an invention of the modern day salafi movement? user: Expergefactionist are you the actual user of the same handle from IA? because if thats the case I'm sure you can help out insha Allah.

In answer to the question from my own understanding; I think not! This can be traced back to the day of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah who was himself a well known Athari Hanblai scholar. The fact is, it is the modern day "Salafis" who ascribe to the virtues of traditional Athari theology as they wish to follow that which the Salaf were upon themselves! The "salafis" wouldn't want to innovate a new theological understanding different to those whom they wish to follow wal Allahu alim. whatever the belief of the Salaf was IS in itself in fact the Athari school of theology is it not? Sakimonk ^talk 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted material?

Most of the section entitled "Opposition to the use of Kalam" seems to have been copied from the dubious site http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/167692. The wiki Athari article was created in 2012 whereas the relevant page on Daniel Pipes website was created in 2010. It has therefore clearly been copied. In addition to this being a copyright violation, Daniel Pipes is a very controversial figure (please see his wiki page) and I am not sure a poster on his website can be considered impartial. As such, I will remove the relevant quotes and add properly sourced material.RookTaker (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made changes to the section above and removed all quotes that exist on http://www.danielpipes.org. I have added sourced material from an academic book. RookTaker (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Attributes of God

I have added a new section on "Atharis and the Attributes of God". The sources for this have come from:

• Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Concept of God in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Traditions: Representing the Unrepresentable
• Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism RookTaker (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Atharism and the Qur'an

I added a small sourced section on the Athari view of the Qur'an. It suffices for now but can be expanded in the future. RookTaker (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction?

The introduction section of this article seems to have little to do with Atharism, but more about Salafism. I think it requires a complete rewrite, particularly as not a single neutral source has been provided.RookTaker (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed part of the Introduction that deals with 3 types of Tawhid as this has nothing to do with Atharism. A section regarding the Attributes of God still exists. RookTaker (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The subjects covered in the "Introduction" have been broken down into separate sections as follows and is hence redundant:

"Athari Views on the Qur'an"

"Athari views on Kalam and Human Reason"

"Athari Views on the Attributes of God"

"Athari views on Iman (faith)".

The above sections have 14 references to reliable, neutral academic texts.

The current "Introduction" section however contains only 3 references. One to the unreliable POV source Dar us Salam Publications (a Salafi publishing house that considers all non-Salafis to be heretics), one is original research and one is so poorly referenced that the book title has not even been supplied.

As such, I will remove the Introduction section entirely as it is duplicated with better sourced texts already. RookTaker (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Athari Works

There is a section in this article entitled "Early works in Islamic theology" which has been copied and pasted from the polemic and fanatical Salafi Publications website (http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=AQD02&articleID=AQD020001&articlePages=3). This website clearly has a POV and claims that all non Salafis are heretics and deviants.

It is not clear to me why it was copied in the first place, given that this is not an article about Salafism. Additionally this is clearly a copyright violation.

I will therefore remove the entirety of this section. RookTaker (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Unfortunately, this article is plagued with quotes from very unreliable POV sources such as:

• http://asharis.com (fanatical Salafi site that considers all Muslims outside the fold of Salafism as deviants)
• Dar us Salam Publications (a Salafi publishing house that considers all non-Salafis to be heretics)
• http://www.sunnipress.com/index.htm (What is this? The "articles" on this site seem to have anonymous authors and no scholarly value)
• http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/ (A fanatical Salafi blog site).
• http://sunnahonline.com (A more moderate Salafi site but still full of bias)
• http://suhaibwebb.com (The personal website of the lecturer and author Suhaib Webb - is this reliable?)
• http://youtube.com (Need I say more)

None of the above have any scholarly credibility and should really be removed. There also seems to be a lot of original research from obscure texts.

There are better sources than the above such as:

• Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam. ISBN: 0230106587
• Jonathan A.C. Brown, Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. ISBN: 1780740255

I will look to tackle each of the existing unreliable quotes and where appropriate replace the text with a reliable alternative. RookTaker (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some of the unreliable sources in the opening paragraph and have added some citations from reliable non-partisan authors. A lot of work still needs to be done however. RookTaker (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed dubious quotes from blogs etc... in the "Founders" section and have added text and references to reliable academic titles RookTaker (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of this article is now referenced from reliable scholarly texts as opposed to the mess that existed before. I will keep an eye on this article to ensure that references to unreliable POV sources are not added in the future. RookTaker (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Article

I've removed a sufi author from article. Sufis are not atharis, sufis are those who are totally opposed to atharis as the sufis are the followers of philosophers or people of kalam. Islamic11111 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This might be your view, however the source given clearly states that 'Abdallah al-Ansari al-Harawi wrote a treatise entitled Dhamm al-Kalam in refutation of kalam. Please read Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam, 2010: p 37. ISBN 0230106587. He was also a Sufi. Please read Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam, 2010: p 48. ISBN 0230106587. Please don't remove Ansari from the article until we come to a conclusion on this page first. RookTaker (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing a source from an article because of what the author believes in isn't valid. Per WP:IRS, the source is judged on its merit, not its author. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Article edits

Dear user:RookTaker can we please discuss, I want the best for this article.Sakimonk ^talk 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Suhaib Webb

@Sakimonk: has attempted to insert the following into the article:

"The most important Athari text is the Tahawiyah, then the introduction to Aqidah found in the Epistle of Abi Zaid al-Qayrawani, the Lum’a of Imam al-Maqdasi, the works of Ibn Taymiyah and so on. I would also strongly encourage one to read Imam Hassan al-Banna’s Epistle on Aqida and the recent work of Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi "The differences between the creed of the salaf and the creed of the khalaf.""

This is sourced from the official website of Suhaib Webb. Whilst the content may or may not be accurate it is not a peer-reviewed academic site and seems to fail WP:SOURCE which states that:

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers".

Suhaib Webb's website seems to fit none of these. Before re-adding, please explain how the website is reliable per WP:RS and WP:SOURCE. RookTaker (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeffry R. Halverson

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much academic material regarding the Athari school. However, one academic text that is quite useful is the book "Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism" by Jeffry R. Halverson published by Palgrave Macmillan. This book has been used frequently in the article.

For example, the article states that: "According to Athari's, the real meanings of the Attributes of God should be consigned to God Alone (tafwid)" pages 36 - 37 of the above book. This was changed by @Sakimonk: to: "According to Athari's, the modality of the apparent meaning of the text with regard to the Attributes of God should be consigned to God Alone (tafwid)".

This change is not in the source and requires evidence. Could you explain why the change was made when the text does not state this? Additionally, the amended text doesn't read well at all.

Likewise, the article states that: "They do not attempt to rationally conceptualize the meanings of the Qur'an and believe that the real meanings should be consigned to God alone (tafwid)." This is based on the book which states that: "...or an attempt to to rationally conceptualize the meanings of the Qur'an and believe that the real meanings should be consigned to God alone (tafwid)" pages 36 - 37.

Again this was changed to: "They do not attempt to rationally conceptualize the meanings of the Qur'an and believe that the modality of the apparent meaning of the text should be consigned to God alone (tafwid)." This change is not in the text so why was it made? Please explain.

Again, Halverson's book quotes Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

"Ahmed Ibn Hanbal reportedly stated that "His Attributes proceed from Him and are His own, we do not go beyond the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet and his Companions; nor do we know the how of these, save by the acknowledgement of the Apostle and the confirmation of the Qur'an"." page 42 of the above book.

This was subtly changed to:

Ahmed Ibn Hanbal reportedly stated that "His Attributes proceed from Him and are His own, we do not go beyond the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet and his Companions; nor do we know the "how" of these, save by the acknowledgement of the Apostle and the confirmation of the Qur'an".

This is only a small change, but the text does not state this. Please explain why the speech marks were added?

Lastly, the article states that:

"While adherents of the Athari school are usually of the Hanbali madhhab (school of fiqh) they are not strictly identified with any particular madhhab."

which was changed to:

"While many adherents of the Athari school are of the Hanbali madhhab (school of fiqh), they are not strictly identified with any particular madhhab."

Halverson's book states that, "The Atharis can thus be described as a school or movement led by a contingent of scholars (ulama), typically Hanbalite or even Shafiite, that retained influence...." page 36. The book does not state that "many adherents of the Athari school are of the Hanbali madhab". Though I personally believe this is true we need to provide evidence from reliable sources as per WP:RS.

Please do not revert until we come to a conclusion on the talk page. RookTaker (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed Quote

The following statement was removed by @Sakimonk::

"He also declares that: "Allah is [a] thing, not as other things but in the sense of positive existence; without body, without substance, without accidents.".

This is sourced from the book Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Concept of God in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Traditions: Representing the Unrepresentable by Zulfiqar Ali Shah. This original work was a Phd thesis made by Shah in 1997 and supervised by Dr. Paul Badham. Why was this removed? It seems to fit all the criterion of WP:RS RookTaker (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reading section

@Sakimonk: added the following into the further reading section:

• Abu Ja'far Ahmad ibn Muhammad at-Tahawi, Al-'Aqidat at-Tahawiyyah (translated by Iqbal Azami). Published by UK Islamic Academy, 2002. (ISBN 9781872531427)
• Muhammad Ibn Salih Al-'Uthaymeen. The Beautiful Names and Attributes of Allah. Published by Darussalam, 2011. (ISBN 6035000789)
• Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah. The Creed of Al-Wasitiyyah. Published by Darus-sunnah, 2009. (ISBN 1904336299)
• Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah. Kitab Al-Iman: Book of Faith Published by Iman Publishing House 1999. (ISBN 0966214005)

None of these works are peer reviewed academic sources. Additionally, the word Athari is not mentioned in the above texts at all.

Please check for example:

• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qzvUBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT47&dq=The+Beautiful+Names+and+Attributes+of+Allah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TKGPVfWaDYP8UNaUgRg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Athari&f=false
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_Cxpfjri6o0C&pg=PA1&dq=Kitab+Al-Iman:+Book+of+Faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uqGPVb-NK8uAU5fKrvAK&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Athari&f=false

Therefore, I don't see why these should be added to the list. RookTaker (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're capable of intelligently pushing your subtle anti-salafi agenda. Essentially the vast majority of western oritnetalist english texts, or as you've termed them "academic" and "peer reviewed", on Islam collectively push for the heavily anti-salafi and pro-sufi kalami strain of what they like to espouse as sunni'ism. You've admitted this already, stating that "there aren't many academic works on Atharism". I don't have the time to attain references from academic works on theology which I'm sure YOU VERY WELL KNOW are VASTLY in the arabic language (from Umm al Qura, Madinah, Al Azhar, from blaad ash'ham and somewhat Deoband). However, there are probably only a small handful of english academic works which I could reference (including Dr Yasir Qadhi's thesis) which are not easy to attain. It is very unfair of you to exclude the books I have cited when they are informative books of 'ilm which are recognised in Islamic circles across the globe yet not regarded as peer reviewed academic works. The Athari theology IS the school of thought followed by salafis, the muslim brotherhood and alhamdulilah most of the Muslim youth who have read the works of Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rh and his students. InshaAllah I look forward to developing this page in the near future. Sakimonk ^talk 08:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also, please note your dishonesty with regard to the books I've cited; you acknowledge that "Books published by respected publishing houses" can be referenced or placed in further reading yet you excluded them. These works are written by the foremost Athari scholars. I am shocked at your disingenuous approach to editing these articles on Islam. If you were honestly familiar enough with the Athari school of thought you would have realised that the lack of the use of the word Athari is not surprising at all since "Athar" IS the textual narration from the Salaf, the book is PURELY BASED on Athar and NOT KALAM, hence it is ATHARI. Sakimonk ^talk 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You stated that, "Essentially the vast majority of western oritnetalist english texts, or as you've termed them "academic" and "peer reviewed", on Islam collectively push for the heavily anti-salafi and pro-sufi kalami strain of what they like to espouse as sunni'ism."

This is your point of view and you are entitled to that. However, Wikipedia guidelines state that "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Please review WP:RS and WP:SOURCE. It is our duty to upheld these rules on Wikipedia even if we think that it goes against our own ideas. Personally, I don't believe that the vast majority of academic texts are "anti-Salafi" or "pro-sufi kalami". Sweeping generalisations like this are not useful.

You also stated that: "I don't have the time to attain references from academic works on theology".

I'm sorry, but that's what we need to do before adding material. If you were able to find reliable sources for the material you would like to add it would surely improve the article.

You then stated that: "It is very unfair of you to exclude the books I have cited when they are informative books of 'ilm which are recognised in Islamic circles across the globe yet not regarded as peer reviewed academic works."

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was simply trying to ensure that the section contains entries that are relevant to the topic and balanced. From what I can see, the books added made no reference to the Athari school and were from printing houses that are not deemed reliable. Examples of publishing houses that are deemed reliable are Oxford University Press, Brill and New York University Press. An example of a book that is deemed reliable is the Encyclopedia of Islam.

Please read Wikipedia:Further Reading for details about the "Further Reading" section needing to be topical and balanced.

You also stated that: "If you were honestly familiar enough with the Athari school of thought you would have realised that the lack of the use of the word Athari is not surprising at all since "Athar" IS the textual narration from the Salaf, the book is PURELY BASED on Athar and NOT KALAM, hence it is ATHARI."

I don't understand this. I think you might be getting confused between Salafism (which came into existence a few hundred years ago) and the Athari creed which was in existence over 1000 years earlier. The 2 are not the same.

Finally, please do not accuse me of "pushing an anti-Salafi agenda" or being "dishonest" or having a "disingenuous approach". May I suggest reviewing WP:BATTLEGROUND. RookTaker (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Athari theology isn't a school of philosophy, it's the name given to the collectively methodology of deriving beliefs from the athar that aspires to emulate the tradition of the early Muslims, hence the name "athari". The "athar" are "the narrations", the texts themselves. Works in "athari" theology aren't ever necessarily self denoted as "athari" because it is in theory the default position of the ahlus sunnah, before the existance of kalam. The "Salafi" movement attaches itself to Athari theology; you will note there is no such thing as "salafi" theology because the aqeedah ascribed to is whatever the early muslims were upon (before the infiltration of Hellenistic philosophy etc.). I apologise if you were offended but I am simply calling a spade a spade. Western institutions staunchly resist the assertion that Ahlus sunnah are anything BUT sufi kalami ash'arite maturidi etc and "salafism" is always described as a neo-strain emanating from radical wahhabism etc etc. The reality is that when you study the original works of the Asharis and look at Kullabi asharites you will find a lot of overlap with modern athari / salafi theology and when you compare and contrast modern "salafi" theology with the oldest records of proponents of atharism you will find they are very much the same wa Allahu alim. We need to collectively understand that the jahmites and mu'tazilites. InshaAllah ta'ala we can come to an agreement in this regard. Sakimonk ^talk 10:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Founding imams of Athari:

Founding imams of Athari

1. Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i
2. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd
3. Sufyan al-Thawri

reflist

68.100.166.227 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah

Pay a little respect to Ibn Taymiyyah. He says that "My methodology is different than Mu'tazili, Maturidi, Ash'ari, and Athari-Hanbalite Schools. Read Muhammad Abu Zahra please. 68.100.166.227 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

SOURCES NOT WORKING!

In particular 12, which is also the same source used for a handful of other mentioning. We need reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCB9:9F20:91C6:F6E4:2028:5B1C (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Salafi or Athari

The Atharis can thus be described as a school or movement led by a contingent of scholars (ulama), typically Hanbalite or even Shafi'ite, that retained influence, or at the very least a shared sentiment and conception of piety, well beyond the limited range of Hanbalite communities. This body of scholars continued to reject theology in favor of strict textualism well after Ash'arism had infiltrated the Sunni schools of law. It is for these reasons that we must delineate the existence of a distinctly traditionalist, anti-theological movement, which defies strict identification with any particular madhhab, and therefore cannot be described as Hanbalite.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? The excerpt from the text is simply saying that this school of thought isn't restricted to Hanbalis and was actually a shared school across many madhahib. In fact the author doesn't go into the historical depth that in reality according to what I understand most of the early Muslim community was athari but asharism was essentially forced as the norm later on - for example the conquest of morocco by Ibn Tumart who decalred the moroccans as anthropormophists (due to their beliefs which were probably close to the athari school) and then waged a campaign. Eventually ashari'ism was instilled as the norm. Sakimonk ^talk 01:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the salafi theology (actually the term THEOLOGY is wrongly used since there are no theological discussions in Islam, the correct term is ILÂHIYYÂT=Divinity) nothing but ATHARI=the collections of hadith. If that was the case why are you redirecting salafi theology to salafi movement?

68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) NOTE The school of İLÂHHÎYYÂT is not the school of Theology.. İLÂHHÎYYÂT means Divinity.. you should first correct this...68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bro, this is an english wikipeida, aqeedah is essentially theology in Islam, it isn't literally theology but in a sense it is. Kalam is philosphical discourse which is a form of school of theology. We are making the equivalence of theology to divinity otherwise people won't understand what is meant by the terms. Sakimonk ^talk 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaning and adoption of the term

Continuing the discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard, I'm trying to round up sources that use the term Athari in order to understand its meaning and extent of adoption.

 The Atharis are often erroneously (but understandably) subsumed under the Hanbalite school of law (madhhab). [...] The Hanbalite madhhab, in contrast, largely maintained the traditionalist or Athari position [...] The works of Hanbalite scholars such as [...], among a few others, reveal instances of distinctly theological ideas occurring within Hanbalism, making it a far more diverse tradition than one may otherwise suspect. However, the overwhelming majority of Hanbalites did indeed fall firmly within the Athari camp with its unyielding rejection of theology. [...] one might think that the Athari movement (if synonymous with Hanbalism) was also relatively small [...] but [...] the texts and written sources generally reflect only the educated elites [...] Rather, the imaginative, narrative-centered, emotive piety of the Atharis must have retained broad appeal in the Sunni Muslim world. [...] The Atharis can thus be described as a school or movement led by a contingent of scholars (ulama), typically Hanbalite or even Shafi'ite, that retained influence, or at the very least a shared sentiment and conception of piety, well beyond the limited range of Hanbalite communities. pp. 34-36 J. Halverson. Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash'arism, and Political Sunnism

 Those who opted out of affiliation with the Ash'aris and Maturidis are often referred to as merely a group of Hanbalis [...] or Atharis, who relied on transmitted as opposed to rationally deduced sources. Their school is generally associated with an insistence on avoiding the use of rational argumentation in matters of belief, and a reliance solely on transmitted content (Qur'an and Hadith). p. 44 [...] the presence of Ash'ari thought was sufficiently great during the late Fatimid rule to have caused some protest from the rising Hanbalis and their non-Ash'ari Shafi'i allies. However, even the non-Ash'ari Shafi'is and the Hanbalis at times clashed in riots over theological issues; there was not a unified block of Athari "traditionalists" against the Ash'aris. p. 54 Aaron Spevack. The Archetypal Sunni Scholar: Law, Theology, and Mysticism in the Synthesis of al-Bajuri

 In the wake of the tenth-century Ash'ari synthesis, some Muslim theologians still maintained the strict details of the early Sunni creed. This continuation of the original Sunni thelogical School is often referred to as the Salafi school of theology [...] or as followers of 'Traditional (Athari)' or ahl al-hadith theology. p. 168 Jonathan A.C. Brown. Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World

Any others? Eperoton (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: User:Doug Weller mentioned Haverston's comments over at Template_talk:Sunni_Islam#Atharis, which includes multiple mentions of them. The issue I have with comments on the noticeboard by a fellow editor is that Hanbalism is fiqh, or jurisprudence; Atharism is aqida, or creed. That they're two different things isn't a matter of opinion, just like how Twelver Shi'ism (a creed, branch and theology) isn't the same as Ja'fari jurisprudence even though the two go together 95% of the time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Jurisprudence and theology are different things, no doubt about it. It's less clear, however, whether most RSs give them different names in this case. Some use the same term (Hanbali) for both, while others don't. I've lined up some standard references which I'll go through in the coming days and report the results here. Eperoton (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hanbali anti theological stance is not recognized by Sunnis because to recognize it would invalidate their own school. Only legal Hanbalism was recognized therefore you wont find athari in most reliable sources pertaining the subject. Hanbalisms rejection of theology may be one of the reasons why it has the smallest adherents of the four schools. Halverson assumes its an error when academics are intentionally leaving athari out due its unorthodox beliefs. Overall I believe the views above are fringe that use terms like "erroneously". It fails prominence to have its own article and even wikipedia arabic does not mention athari. The Hanbali article on wikipedia arabic has a section that lays out the difference between Ash'ari and Hanbali creed. Misdemenor (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The source using the term "erroneously" is both reliable and scholarly; to label it fringe is factually inaccurate. We also have multiple academic sources clarifying the difference between Hanbalism and Atharism. Pointing toward other language Wikipedias isn't a form of evidence for anything. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My point was that if Athari is so popular and known it would be recognized in the Arabic site. If not Hanbalism I suggest it would be better to have a section for Athari in the Salafi movement article. Per these sources I found [1] [2] [3] The Salafi page also mentions that Athari is promoted mainly by Salafists citing Halverson. I believe the Amman message did recgonize true Salafi thought, which could be interpreted as Atharism. Misdemenor (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutey not our job as editors to interpret sources; that's original research. Atharism predates Salafism, which is a modern movement, and it isn't fiqh so it is obviously quite different from Hanbalism, especially considering the fact that many Atharis follow/ed madhahib other than Hanbalism.

Every reliable source we've found has differentiated between Atharism and other ideas, and the fact that you keep jumping around, throwing out any suggestion you can in order to remove Atharism as an independent article, implies that there isn't any solid, policy-based reason for the suggestion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not notable to have its own article therefore its against policy to keep this article. Athari is being pushed by the modern salafists alone so it doesnt matter if its old or not. The modern Salafist movement claims to follow the first three generations therefore the movement may be new but it claims to follow "original islam". I would have to disagree about salafism not being fiqh. Salafism claims to incorporate all aspects of early muslims including fiqh of the first three generations. Sunnis began calling Salafism, Wahhabism because it was not following Sunni fiqh but rather something else. My source prove that its being used as a niche by Salafists. Athari is not recognized and if it was that probably is in the past just like zahiri school. I totally agree it is original research to suggest the amman message even recognizes atharism. Im affraid articles like these will only cause a red flag mainly WP:RGW Misdemenor (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I really am shocked by the amount of dishonesty and scarecrow arguments that I'm seeing here.

1. First you said the issue was notability, then you claimed that Atharism is Hanbalism, now you're back to notability again.
2. None of the sources mentioning Atharism, including the Muslim source (Suhaib Webb), are Salafist or pushing Salafism.
3. I never said whether or not I view Salafism as fiqh.
4. Sources other than the ones you provide mention Atharism independently; posting other sources don't cancel those out, that's not how it works.
5. Atharism is obviously recognized by multiple modern academic sources so please don't assume that people reading the discussion.
6. I never said that it's original research to say anything about the Amman Message, so please don't put words in my mouth (this is the second time).

You keep talking about Salafism, Salafism, Salafism...and yet this discussion isn't about that movement; it's about this ideology, which obviously predates Salafism and thus is not the same thing. By the way, are you claiming that Atharism is the same as Salafism or the same as Hanbalism now? I'm honestly having difficulty keeping track of the various positions you take in order to campaign against this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Its always been a notability issue I have not changed my position on that. It seems the discussion is going around in circles. You must believe there's some revival that academics are just missing out on again. We shouldn't promote fringe ideas here. The islamic articles are being over run with Athari as the lead, this is in my opinion soapboxing. Relax nobody is putting words in your mouth, you replied to my comment about interpreting the amman message.. The modern Salafist movement is tied into Atharism and the sources I provided confirm that. The argument that Athari is old and independent is irrelevant. The question is what is Atharism currently not so much of what it was. Yes Athari had a diverse crowd in the past but now it is strictly a Salafist title. It fails the significant coverage portion of the notability policy of wikipedia. My position is that it should not have an independent article however im open to it being merged to another article. You seem to oppose its deletion therefore im attempting to compromise. The article also falsely calls it a key school within Sunni islam using an unreliable source such as muslim matters site. Misdemenor (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect your desire to compromise. With that in mind, I would like to draw your attention to a few policies here, and I believe the reminder is relevant.

• The fringe policy is primarily in relation to pseudoscience; please see WP:FRINGE/PS. What you're doing is taking a theological view which might be a minority view (I'm not even touching that topic since my point here is that it's irrelevant) and you seem to be saying that because it's a minority view, it is also fringe. That's a misunderstanding of the content guideline.
• Per WP:SIGCOV, a topic which is not mentioned in passing and is mentioned in multiple publications passes the basic guideline, and without even delving into this article, I took a thirty second look and found publications directly discussing Athari beliefs that have been published by Palgrave Macmillan and State University of New York Press, plus there's an uncited source here on the talk page that could be cited that was published by Oneworld Publications. I didn't even look at the article in detail to see if there's more, nor have we taken the time to search for further topics (I have JSTOR access that I could use, and other users have others). This is not a borderline article: we're looking at multiple reliable academic citations unaffiliated with the topic itself. Suggestion a merge without even looking for more sources isn't responsible.

Give it some thought. I have other plans and hadn't intended to get involved with this article, but I can do so if further research is needed, and I think that Eperoton is already taking a look. But going on the mentioned guideline and policy, there's no reason to delete or merge this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)