Talk:Forty Hadith of Ruhullah Khomeini

Stop editing

@FreeatlastChitchat:. the article is nominated for DYK, and during this process, the issue of the article is discussed and solved. So if have opinion about article or deit, firs explain it on the talk page of it or here or at nominated page of DYK. why do you edit the article, after copy editor? please stop the editing this article and let the process of DYK is done. thanksLstfllw203 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 just how is one supposed to know that a DYK is in process? Furthermore there are no rules saying that an article cannot be edited while it is going through DYK. Thirdly anyone can edit this article. Better read the policy at WP:OWN before you land yourself in hot water. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK is a secondary process, article editing is primary. Although the people at DYK might get irritated and fail the nomination if the article changes substantially over a longer period... we're far from that. I'd suggest that before we continue reverting each other, let's bring the contentious issues here to the talk page and discuss. I'm sure everyone had good reasons for their action; maybe we can reach consensus. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

user:FreeatlastChitchat cannot understand my mean, when two copy editor reviewed the article and edited, then you undid that edits, without any reason or acceptable reason. if you want to improve article by edits, there is no problem, but you undid the edits of copy editor!!!please be polite. @Pgallert: about the clarifying the sentence, you are right, he says those scholar confirm the Accuracy of Hadithes! about the quote i have explaned my reason at your talk page, isn't it better to put this on the article again?Thanks.Lstfllw203 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that WP:DYK is a secondary process. I would suggest, however, that basic editing and the nomination can work as 'hand and glove.' Improve the article, while moving it along so that it qualifies for DYK. That's my opinion. We can work together in common cause. WP:AGF! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem so far. Due to Wikipedia's byzantine editing interface it happens all the time that good edits are eliminated by later, likewise good, edits. Nothing is lost as all versions are in the page history. I'm sure FreeatlastChitchat intended to improve the article, just like the rest of us. --Pgallert (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested content

Why are there forty hadith?

I reinstated that explanation, as from my perspective it is not obvious where this number is coming from. Sorry for not bringing it up here on the talk page beforehand. --Pgallert (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There aren't any Hadith at the article!Lstfllw203 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pgallert: There is a strong tradition in Islam that any Muslim learns and memorizes at least forty sayings transmitted (Hadith) from the Prophet Muhammad. So, in different period of time, scholars gathered 40 Hadiths in different books.Saff V. (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The permission to relate the hadith

The relevant sentence was

In the preface to Forty Hadith, Khomeini writes that he had permission to relate hadith on the authority of three Islamic scholars, who he calls his teachers: Shaykh Muhammad Reza Najafi Isfahani, Shaykh Abbas Qummi, and Allamah Sayyid Muhsin Amin al-Amili.

I read this sentence in a way that Khomeini describes the last part of the chain of narrators - not sure if I am correct in this, but if so then it is relevant for the article on the book, in my opinion. As Lstfllw203 confirms this interpretation above, I would favour to re-add this information, too. --Pgallert (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pgallert This book is not a book of narrations, rather it is a book of interpretation. It does not require the author to have the chain of narration. the simple explanation is that if a writer says This is a book which contains hadith that came from the Prophet to me through some people, then the people around him may ask, Who gave you this knowledge? , Who is the first narrator? etc etc. All this will require a person to show a good chain of narration. However this book makes no such claim, rather it is the exact opposite. Khomenie himself says that it is his personal interpretation of traditions. So no one is going to ask him How did this tradition reach you? because he is not debating the authenticity of traditions, he just collected 40 traditions and explained them, the book is about explanation, not narration. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is one version of the book. Imam khomeini wrote the book by this style, first explained the chain of narrator, then nominated to Hadith and finally he gathered his personal interpretation. According to Hadith studies, the chain of narrator is so important. Ayatollah khomeini nominated to Hadith, so it needs to nominated the persons that confirm Hadithes. At the book is nominated to whole persons that transmitted hadithes one by one. I think there isn't problem that at the article is said that Imam khomeini get this Hadith from his teacher.Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think, your opinion is useless here, as is mine. We will be looking at what Khomeini has written and you can clearly see that he has said nothing about the chain of narration in the entirety of the book, because he knows that discussing chain of narration is useless. However when, during the course of EXPLANATION he wants to give a controversial hadith he says that the chain is strong, nothing more. Even there he does not discuss the chain. So discussing the chain is useless for this book because the author did not intend for it to be discussed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

it is better , first read the book then give your opinion! If you take look at the book, you find one part of book is about chain of narrators! if you have a little knowledge of Hadith, you can find that the chain of narrator is important part. so according this reason and also it is important that prominant scholars like Shaykh Muhammad Reza Najafi Isfahani, Shaykh Abbas Qummi, and Allamah Sayyid Muhsin Amin al-Amil confirmed this Hadith. @Pgallert: this article about the book and we must collect reliable information of the book. i wrote this sentence In the preface to Forty Hadith, Khomeini writes that he had permission to relate hadith on the authority of three Islamic scholars, who he calls his teachers: Shaykh Muhammad Reza Najafi Isfahani, Shaykh Abbas Qummi, and Allamah Sayyid Muhsin Amin al-Amili from this reference. what is the problem to adding the sentence to article? thanks for your patient. I'm busy too this day.Lstfllw203 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

according to user:Pgallert's opinion and my reason that explaned at above, I re-added sentence.Lstfllw203 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The quote from the book

The relevant sentence was

Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni: from a group of our teachers, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid, from more than one transmitter, from ‘Ali ibn Asbat, from Ahmad ibn ‘Umar al-Hallal, from ‘Ali ibn Suwayd, from Abu al-Hasan al-’Awwal . ‘Ali ibn Suwayd says, ‘I asked him concerning the utterance of God Almighty: And whoever puts his trust in God, then God suffices him (65:3).’ The Imam said: “There are various degrees of trust in God. Of them one is that you should put your trust in God in all your affairs, being well-pleased with whatever God does to you, knowing for certain that he does not cease in His goodness and grace towards you, and that the command therein rests with Him. So put your trust in God, leaving that to Him and relying upon Him in regard to that and everything other than that!

I must admit that I do not see how the quote corroborates the article. It is nice to have quotes, but not just as decoration. --Pgallert (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Pgallert, the quote is unnecessary.

you can check the Hadith at here. i picked up Hadith from this book. like this article or this i decided to add one Hadith of the book to the article. we write article to introduce the book, isn't it? so the attaching one Hadith of the book do this job in the best way. I would never do that to decorate article.Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry we are not blaming you for "decorating" lol. We are just saying that this quote is useless. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When there are more things such as pictures in article, we want to clear the topic and content. So, useing one Hadith from the book, help readers understand more about Hadith structure. When we don't use Hadith, readers must go to the book and see one Hadith. I think that one example Hadith is necessary.Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Imam Khomeini's book contains interpretations of hadith, not just the hadith themselves. I assume the hadith are well-known, why not quote something from the interpretation done by Khomeini?

The main text of the book containes the interpretations of hadith, so it is better to nominate to interpretation as Hadith, but there is two problem, first the interpretation is too long and second, it is meaningless to use interpretation without appropriate Hadith.Lstfllw203 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hoax information about the first collections etc

Discussion of hoax information that is now summarized in one comment

@Pgallert The following information is a hoax The motivation for Islamic scholars to compile collections of forty hadith into books goes back to Al-Khisal ("The Book of Characters"), written by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq. He writes that Mohammad said: "Whoever from my Ummah memorizes forty hadith, Allah will raise him on Resurrection Day as a jurisprudent and scholar". The most popular compilations were collected by Shahid Awwal, Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī, and Mulla Muhammad Taqi Majlisi. The following hoaxes have been introduced in this small paragraph. According to this paragraph The motivation for Islamic scholars to compile collections of forty hadith into books goes back to Al-Khisal ("The Book of Characters"), written by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq. However a simple look at Al-Khisal shows that it is not a book of forty hadith at all, rather it has more than 1000. Furthermore there is no mention of this book being the inspiration behind the said genre of hadith. So this information is a hoax. @Pgallert:Al-Khisal is collection of Hadiths about ethics, religious beliefs, and other subjects and has more than 1000 Hadiths. In this book, there is a Hadith from Prophet about gathering and memorizing Hadiths by Muslims. The author of article refereed to the Hadith that mentioned in the Al-Khisal. I think that the sentence has grammar issue and is better rewrite.Saff V. (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @Saff V. again you are trying to put in hoaxes. The book Al-Khisal is written by Ibn Babawayh, who never ever written a book called Forty Hadith. So your statement Also, author of Al-Khisal has a book with title of Forty Hadith is just not true. Present to us any source which says that Ibn Babawayh wrote a book on forty hadith. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @FreeatlastChitchat:Where I said this statement? It is better to see last revision of my answer. First see, then think, and at last answer.Saff V. (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Saff V. You are aware that I replied to a previous version of your answer, so first think then type, if you are not able to think, then do not type. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC) similarly we see that the claim The most popular compilations were collected by Shahid Awwal, Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī, and Mulla Muhammad Taqi Majlisi. is a hoax. When we look at Bahāʾ al-dīn al-ʿĀmilī's article we do not find any mention that he is a renowned writer of hadith literature. @Pgallert: Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī has important book with title of Forty Hadith (in Arabic:الاربعون حدیثا). The cover of this book is this. In the Imami Jurisprudence section written He composed works on tafsir, hadith, grammar and fiqh (jurisprudence).Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC) The accurate information about this will be found by reading Forty hadith which says that Imam Nawawi's Forty Hadith is the best representation of this genre. So, is the expression "Whoever from my Ummah memorizes forty hadith, Allah will raise him on Resurrection Day as a jurisprudent and scholar" in the Al-Khisal or not? And if yes, is this expression (itself a hadith, I guess) the reason to compile exactly forty of them, or not? Because neither Forty hadith nor Imam Nawawi's Forty Hadith contains an explanation of the number. --Pgallert (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @Pgallert the quote is in itself a tradition and present in many books of tradition. It may be present in the Khisal, but still it does not specify any number etc. So saying that it inspired people to gather hadith in groups of forty is pure WP:OR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Somewhat hard to believe a relatively new editor made this up on one fine day. That would be a monster of a hoax, even implicitly backed up by a hadith. Is there no explanation of the number? In other texts? In Khomeini's book? In Nawawi's works? --Pgallert (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC) As I said, I am not sure about Khisal being the source of that tradition. But that is a moot point, the sentence that scholars were motivated by this tradition of Khisal is an OR statement or a hoax. For there have been numerous other collections which were never inspired by Khisal, and we have no source backing up this claim. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC) In other words, @Lstfllw203: can you please state the source of this information? --Pgallert (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pgallert Quite true. Let me put the statements together in one list. Sources are required for the following statements

1. The motivation for Islamic scholars to compile collections of forty hadith into books goes back to Al-Khisal ("The Book of Characters"), written by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq. A source is needed to show that AL KHISAL is a book of just forty hadith and not a book of 1000. Furthermore a source is required to show that Al-Khisal was motivated by the hadith which mentions the number forty.

@Pgallert:Al-Khisal is collection of Hadiths about ethics, religious beliefs, and other subjects and has more than 1000 Hadiths. Nobody said that Al-Khisal is a book of just forty Hadith and you can not find a source for approving it. In this book, there is a Hadith from Prophet about gathering and memorizing Hadiths by Muslims. Muslim scholars use this Hadith for write collection of forty Hadith books. So, the author of the article refereed to the Hadith that mentioned in the Al-Khisal. I think that the sentence has grammar issue and is better rewrite.Saff V. (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Saff V. what you wrote is WP:OR. Please give a RELIABLE source that confirms that muslims are inspired by the hadith in Al-khisal". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The most popular compilations were collected by Shahid Awwal, Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī, and Mulla Muhammad Taqi Majlisi. A source is needed which says that these guys collected forty hadith into collections and thier collections are the most popular of this genre.

@Pgallert: Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī has important book with title of Forty Hadith (in Arabic:الاربعون حدیثا). The cover of this book is this. In the Imami Jurisprudence section written He composed works on tafsir, hadith, grammar and fiqh (jurisprudence).Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V. Firstly your source does not show that this is one of the most popular book of this genre. Secondly For such a claim, the source should be neutral. That means the source should NOT be a shia source because the genre of "Forty Hadith" literature is made up of both Shia and Sunni books. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I don't understand this consequence; you cannot possibly discount all Shia sources? You would, for neutrality, also have to forbid Sunni sources, and who else writes about the popularity of Islamic books? --Pgallert (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pgallert Shia scholars think that Sunni collections are lies, Sunni scholars say that Shia collections are all lies. Now sourcing a claim to a particular sect works quite well when we are in a genre specific to that sect, for example if a Shia writes a book on, lets assume, The ways one can beat oneself up during muharram. Well we can use Shia sources to say that this book is the best and the most popular in the genre of Selfharm During Muharram. The reasoning will be that no Sunni writes books about this subject, and any Sunni who does, cannot have enough information. However in a genre where there is overlap such as this Shias will have one view and Sunnis have another, so the best bet will be to get a neutral source, otherwise there will always be sources claiming the exact opposite and edit warring will occur with well meaning people trying to "improve" the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I'm vaguely aware of the differences. My problem is, is it realistic to find a neutral source? If there are conflicting views we can display both. If a topic is only relevant to one side, we can hint at that in the text (although, without a reliable source saying so, it would be OR. We do that [OR] all the time). In this particular case, I see no issue in saying something along the lines of 'the most relevant Shia collections are... while Sunni Islam favours...'. To scramble for an outside source, which could again be attacked as being too close to one side, seems a lot of effort to me with little gain. --Pgallert (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat I said your information is incomplete. If Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī's book is not most popular book of this genre, who has popular book? It is your opinion and we must the sources based on Wikipedia's rules.Saff V. (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude here, but what you just wrote is outright hilarious. Believe me, I do not mean to disrespect you, but you have just made me laugh even though I have been moody the entire day. Let me just quickly explain why your view is wrong here. According to WP:BURDEN YOU must be the one who provides a source for a statement. So saying If Shaykh‐i Bahāʾī's book is not most popular book of this genre, who has popular book? is just not right here. You must provide a source, and a neutral source in this article, which says this. Again, no disrespect, just pointing out the rules. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pgallert: I'm sorry. I'm so busy these days. This sentence The incentive behind this work was of course, the famous saying of the Prophet as quoted by Shaykh Saduq in his book al-Khisal: Whoever from my Ummah memorizes forty hadith, Allah will raise him on Resurrection Day as a jurisprudent and scholar. Some of the prominent Islamic scholars of the School of Ahl al-Bayt (a) such as Shahid Awwal Shaykh Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Makki al-Amili, Shaykh Baha al-Din Muhammad al-Amili and Mulla Muhammad Taqi Majlisi, have compiled Arbain Hadith on various topics. Imam Khomeini, however, focused on akhlaq (ethics) and taught his selection of Forty Hadith as part of his lectures on ethics to students in the holy city of Qom. He compiled the Arbain hadith in 1358 AH/1939 is referred to this reference and i wrote this part of article according to this source. I have no time for searching English, but between Persian reliable source like Islamic world Encyclopedia this Hadith Whoever from my Ummah memorizes forty hadith, Allah will raise him on Resurrection Day as a jurisprudent and scholar was confirmed by dominant scholar Muhammad Baqir Majlisi. At this reference is nominated that this Hadith is seen at books like, al-Khesal, Bihar al-Anwar, [[Kanz al-Ummal], Kashf al-ẓunūn.Lstfllw203 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, imam-khomeini.com is not a reliable source for a book by Imam Khomeini. The thing is, too, that while Wikipedia does not require a source in English, I cannot help you with Persian sources. I could stuff them into Google Translate, but the important part: evaluation how reliable and independent it is, cannot be done like that. We're not doubting the hadith itself, of course, but we're looking for a source that relates the '40' in this hadith to the '40' in many hadith collections. --Pgallert (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pgallert:I'm sorry for the late in response. I found thiese source that indicate the '40' in this hadith of Mohammad prophet is related to the '40' in many hadith collections, this is an article published in a scientific journal indexed in ISC. I can referred to this text of The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition: Supplement, Parts 1-2​​. I saw this relation at other sources but they are more reliable. Because you can't read sources in persian, I found user:Mhhossein who know English and Persian very well. I thought he can help you. Thanks for your patiantLstfllw203 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 both of your sources are against the sentences given in the text, thus they are making the case against this stronger. the text in Encyclopedia of Islam clearly shows that Imam Nawawi's collection was the one which was the earliest and the most important work in this genre, therefore this work by Nawawi should be the one which will be called as the "work inspiring others" to do the same. We can clearly see that the sentence The motivation for Islamic scholars to compile collections of forty hadith into books goes back to Al-Khisal ("The Book of Characters"), written by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq. is not present in either of your sources, rather one of the sources given says that this book is not the motivation, rather names another work as the motivation. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203: Thanks for letting me in! Well, what I see here are two reliable sources exactly supporting the claim that the tradition of authoring 40 Hadiths books stems from a Hadith by the prophet of Islam. 1) "This type of work has arisen, from one aspect, from the hadith which says..." [1] and 2)"This hadith [by the prophet] had been the core axis and the most important motivation and factor for muslims to write 'Arbaeen hadith' books. (It's the translation of the original text). By the way, please note that "The motivation for Islamic scholars to compile collections of forty hadith into books does not goe back to Al-Khisal by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq," rather it goes back to a hadith which exist in Al-Khisal and may be found in some other Hadiths collections. Pinging @Pgallert: for notification. Mhhossein (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: thank you for clearing that up. We can now remove this mention of al-Khisal as being a hoax. I have already given one source which shows that Al-Khisal has nothing to do with motivating people to write books on 40 hadith, rather it is Imam Nawawi's book that is the first of the genre which inspired others. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although Nawawi's book is a pioneer of the genre, it's not regarded as a motivation for others, rather it is the very Hadith by the prophet motivating the Muslims. Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I ahve added the information that the very hadith is the motivation, and that Nawawi was the pioneer. I have removed mention of Al-Khisal as it was a hoax. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is in accordance with the sources. Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hoax information about publishing

The sentence

The original version of Forty Hadith, written in Persian, was first published in 1980, a year after the Islamic Revolution.

is a hoax. Firstly according to a reliable source it was published in 1940. Furthermore the soruce used for 1980 publication is highly unreliable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with user: FreeatlastChitchat. This sentence should be removed.Lstfllw203 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception section

There is no need for a reception section, as there is nothing to put in there. Translations may be an accurate section heading to use, but reception is just not OK. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

this page is about the book. It's so important about one book that is translated to other language. It is not logical way to nominate to languages that book is translated to them in background part. At the back ground part we explain why Imam khomini authored the frothy Hadith book. Can you explain your reason? @Pgallert: what is your opinion?thanks for your patient.Lstfllw203 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This sentences, ‘’’In 2009, the book was translated into French with the assistance of Iran's Cultural Center in Paris and the translation was published by the Institute for Compilation and Publication of Ayatollah Khomeini's Works.[7] Four years later, the book was translated into Kurdish by Ali Husseini and published by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s cultural attaché in Turkey.[6] It has also been translated into English and Urdu’’’ have nothing to do with the background.Lstfllw203 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Pgallert I can help you for clearing the content. I think that FreeatlastChitchat's information in this topic is incomplete.Saff V. (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V. well lets see what your complete information can provide us. Please explain the "hoaxes" present in the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your questions are clearly showing that, in my opinion. There's no problem with that. Not all users are expert in all subjects! I explain them for copy editor and solve.Saff V. (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You would have to convince both FreeatlastChitchat and me, or else the arguments continue between us two. I'm happy to help. Let's work towards consensus. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pamphlet

As we read at source, ‘’ The ’40 Hadith’ is in fact Imam Khomeini’s pamphlet which he used to teach his students at Feiziyeh School in Qom Seminary. ‘’ The forty initially had been a pamphlet that Khomeini collect Hadiths in it and taught them to his student, then after years he decided to published it as forty Hadith book. So this sentence is wrong: ‘’ Khomeini also used the book to teach his students at Feyziyeh School in Qom Seminary’’Lstfllw203 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lstfllw203:  Done [2]. Mhhossein (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)