Talk:Hanbali school

Repeating names

starting from "Al-Khallal" the text should be moved to individal pages.

In the list of scholars Ibn-taymiyyh is mentioned twice - 'King of Hearts81

It appears that in addition to ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Jawzi is also mentioned twice. I think someone should go down the list and make sure there aren't any more repeats...a change in formatting wouldn't hurt either, as it's hard on the eyes the way it is now. I can do it when I have the free time, though it would be nice if someone else could handle that. MezzoMezzo 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Perspective

This article reads very POV, and furthermore it reads POV from a terrorist perspective. --The Lizard Wizard 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) All muslims don't view the world from a terrorist POV.

Putting aside the matter of terrorism, in any case this is an eulogy, not an article. Tagged as NPOV. -- 212.63.43.180 10:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an article other than the examination of various POV? The labelling as a POV should'nt be used in times of controversy(terrorism and islam), or when an article is problematic to some, it becomes a form of "veto" against a point of view. Only the methodology used by hanbalism should be this "thouroughly" examined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.14.78 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very problematic to say 3% or 5% of muslims are followers of hanbalism, and would like to see reliable references regarding these figures. I would like to note that there is a difference between the school of thought adopted by a state and that followed by individuals within that state. The relation between the two is somewhat complex, as a citizen is not obliged to follow the state's school of thought. But it is undoubted that hanbalism is the fastest growing school of thought with the muslim world.

this article, especially the section on doctrine, has been butchered by some Salafis/Wahhabis... 69.113.7.9 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

....
Please help edit the Hanbali rulings of Salat and Islamic_views_on_sin . Thanks. Verycuriousboy (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My 2cents RE: POV

Clearly it is someone determined to prove a point that has written this article. The article reads too much like a Brochure for the Hanbali Madhab. Perhaps the author feels defensive of the Hanbali Madhab in this day and age of Islam-phobia.... but that is no excuse for language that so obviously carries a POV. I agree that the POV tag should stay on the article until someone can come along and fix the article. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is shockingly biased, and probably longer than it needs to be. I'd recommend a complete re-write. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not biased at all. All it does is inform, it doesnt try to convince anyone of anything. It information is also backed by good sources.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Practical Day to Day Differences

I would be most interested to know the practical day to day differences between this Madh'hab and others of the Sunni tradition. For instance, it is suggested towards the end of the article but not clearly stated that, followers of the Hanbali Madh'hab do not believe that Muslims should play board games like Chess or musical instruments. Is this the case? I think a section on the difference between Hambali followers and the wider Sunni community as it affects modern day Muslims on a day to day basis would be an important addition to this article. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is said that they do not play chess or music has nothing to do with them being from Hanbali madhab but but because they are good followers of Islam. Also it should be noted that music(with instruments) and chess(if it is used as gambling) is forbidden by the four schools of jurisprudence, so it is not only in the habali madhab but it is more stressed in this madhab.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Big time POV problems...and other problems...

I do not believe the map is completely accurate and it looks like someone drew it in Windows Paint. It shows Egypt as majority Hanafi which is not true. There is a sizable population of Hanafis in Egypt due in large part to the Ottomans. However, the majority is Shafi`i. It also shows Sudan as Shafi`i which is incorrect. Sudan is majority Maliki. There are many other problems with the map. Please remove the image from this Wiki entry. It is erroneous.

This Wiki entry also ignores the significant Hanbali populations in al-Sham (Palestine, Jordan, and Syria) and presents Saudi Arabia as the only Hanbali bastion. I don't want to assume, but is this a slap at the Syrian Hanbalis whom the Salafis feel are too Ash`ari influenced?

The Hanbali madhhab was far from "extinction" and did not require Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab to save them. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the Creed of Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab, to assert that the Hanbali madhhab would have died without him is completely fallacious. Many of the Hanbali scholars of Syria, while influenced by Muhammad ibn `Abdi-l Wahhab and admiring him greatly, would not have ceased to exist as his movement had little impact on the Arab world outside of Egypt (Muhammad `Ali Pasha's war against them from there) and the Arabian Peninsula.

Overall, the article is clearly written from the Salafi/Wahhabi perspective. The Salafi perspective should certainly be known and documented in this Wiki entry as they are, indeed, a school within the Hanbali school of thought, but to make the entire Wiki entry from their perspective only is not right. That's like the Wiki entry on Sunnism being written from the Sufi perspective only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute/Disputed

Some of the language in this article is very dubious/unscholarly in its tone/language. I have come to this article online to look up a term in an Islamic philosophy book and am somewhat disappointed! It reads like a personal treatise or religious pamphlet, for example:

"which represented the first three blessed generations of Islam, untainted with foreign dogmas" - so other approaches are tainted?

or "A scant reading of the Islamic history illustrates that the Hanbalis are known for having an outstanding character, fearlessness and eagerness for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil" - it would have been helpful if this reading - however scant it was - was referenced for all to see!

Considering the NPOV style and lack of referencing, I am unable to check the veracity of this article's content. I suggest that an editor more knowledgeable in the subject remove most of it and start again - it is too long to start going through, sentence by sentence and start correcting/referencing. Pob1984 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Surely there must be criticisms regarding this school of thought? I'm refering to "Islamic Law of Business Organization Partnerships" by Imran Ahsan Khan Nayazee. And in his comparason between the schools, On Page 236:

"A closer examination reveals that the Hanbalis do not apply their principles consistently. In fact, the reader gets the feeling that they have borrowed the forms mainly from the Hanafis and have changed the Hanafi stipuations that were objected to by Al-Shafi'i. The situation is further aggravated when the Hanbali jurist for some odd reason suddenly import a provision of Shafi'i law that one partner can terminate the agency of the other and the partnership may still continue. In reality, this knocks out the concept of contract partnership and participation from their law"

Faro0485 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias and erroneous information

There is an issue with the following statement:

"Due to this it is noted that there have been, in comparison to other schools, very few Hanbalis who inclined towards unorthodox views...".

I would disagree with this immensely. There have been a number of Hanbali scholars over the centuries who have held views on aqeedah/creed that were contradictory to the views of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his students. Many of the anthropomorphists within the Sunni Islamic tradition have claimed to belong to the Hanbali school, having taken his views on textualism (or one may say literalism) to an extremity. This phenomenon does not hold true within the other schools. Therefore making this statement biased and erroneous. I will be returning in a few days to remove it unless someone gives reason not to do so. M2k41 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What the guy or girl above said is completely inaccurate when you see the history of hanbali scholars. There was no anthropomorphic is them, only people who were accused to be anthropomorphic and they were refuted. I think this person also confuses Karramiyya and other sects who liken Allah to his creation.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed this part of the page

"Hanbalis are somewhat more lax in accepting hadiths (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal contains a few known fabricated hadiths. whereas Abu Hanifa tended to severely scrutinise hadith because he lived in Kufa in the middle of the Shi'a/Sunni conflict. Other schools maintain that a religious ruling cannot be given with doubt, and thus do not follow in some cases hadiths which authenticity may be in doubt."

This is because Musnad Ahmad was never meant to collect only authentic traditions or hadith, like Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. It was a hadith collection by Imam Ahmad to collect all the famous narrations, regardless of the status of the hadith reported in it. Thus, it is wrong to declare that the Hanbalites are lax in accepting hadith just because the existence of fabricated narrations in Musnad Ahmad.

And by the way, there are no anthropomorphists in the Hanbali jurisprudence in the true sense of the word “anthropomorphists”. Those who accused Hanbali scholars as anthropomorphists are usually those Hanbali scholars who are inclined or affected by the Asharis or Mu’tazilities school of thoughts, such as Abu Fadl At-Tamimi, who’s family, Rizq Allah At-Tamimi, had close interactions with Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, the famous Ashari scholar; Ibn Aqil, who was affected by Mutazilites school of thoughts until he later repented in front of Sharif Abu Ja’far; and lastly, Ibn Al-Jawzi, who was largely affected by the works of Ibn Aqil which was penned by Ibn Aqil during his Mu’tazilite stage. 175.143.63.236 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I removed the majority of the contents of this article as it was copied from http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1193& in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether this website is acceptable as a reference is highly debatable in the first place. Supertouch (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

The article currently mentions that Hanbali "accounts for approximately 15% of Muslims who follow it". Wouldn't it account for 100% of Muslims who follow it? I wonder if this meant to say that 15% of Muslims follow Hanbali. In any case this also needs a citation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the text in question (see diff). Given that it needed both {{Fact}} and {{Clarify}}, it isn't useful as written. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it meant that 15% of Muslims follow Hanbali. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Content was recently merged from Sunni Islam, though the more relevant discussion can be found on that article's talk page. Per Wikipedia:Merging, however, I am still required to open a discussion here. I would suggest reading my comments on Talk:Sunni Islam first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Terminology used in the Hanbali Madhab

There is apparently more than one view on the facts and on the interpretation --if they can not reach a synthesis, each view will have to be presented, in the principle of WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything which can be presented, though. The other article is purely OR and an attempt to push what the user views as a tradionalist Muslim POV - note that I didn't say traditionalist Muslim POV, but what the user views as such. He even seems to insinuate that the opinions of non-Muslims shouldn't hold any weight. He's basically admitting to POV pushing in addition to making what appear to be bigoted statements, and all of it is unsourced OR. What is there to merge? It really ought to just be AfD'd, as the highly POV nature of the article leads me to think the creator will oppose a prod nomination. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

on what basis do you know that the view is idiosyncratic? He gives a modern source, --or at least a modern printing of a source--and refers to another in the text. Even if I found them, I would not be able to read them. (I see from your user p. that you know Arabic very well. Do they exist, and can you find them?) He would probably say that all traditionalist members of the sect reject the Western POV, and that therefore their view needs to be represented also, along with those who are less traditionalist. There is a difference between pushing to have a POV represented and POV pushing. As I read his version, he admits there are other views. He certainly admits, as I think do all Moslems, that there are other sects. To me, there seems to be two differences here: one is the pronunciation of certain key words, the sort of thing on which irreconcilable difference can exist.The other. is just whom among various people are to be taken as authorities. Am I wrong in my understanding, that the question of authorities is the formal difference between the sects? The members of a group are not necessarily authorities about what the group really believes, but they are authorities on what the group says it believes. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the creator's comments on the article's talk page - he makes it fairly clear that the views expressed in the reliable sources aren't simply differing views, but are "wrong" and that the Muslim world, according to him, doesn't recognize the authority of non Muslim scholars of Islam. It seems like a true believer in Hanbalism is simply incensed that his subjective views aren't being presented as fact here. That's my main issue - the stated intent on the talk page. As for the article itself, then absolutely none of it is notable. Sheikh al- Islam isn't specific to Hanbalis, and that one school of thought or another refers to different individuals with the title is already in the relevant article. And Qadi does mean judge; what makes the fact that Hanbalis refer to a specific judge with the term notable at all? Where is the significant coverage of this outside of the book of one Saudi jurist (the given modern source you referred to)? It's a completely useless article. I understand why you suggested merging it here since the terms aren't notable enough for their own article, but is one source enough to determine that these terms are significant? The lack of significant coverage, coupled with the rather bigoted statement on the talk page in addition to clearly wrong, factually inaccurate statements - such as his dispute of Ibn Abdul Barr's discounting of the Hanbali school, which is well-known but obviously a devoted Hanbali will react to this fact with dismay - raises a red flag for the intent behind the article. After claiming that what "the page suggests" is inaccurate because he's a Hanbali and is offended by what the reliable sources say, he finishes his comment with: "The main problem with the page is the use of westerners whose work is not accepted by the Muslims." Doesn't that seem like a cause for concern? MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer your other question. Sunni and Shi'a are sects; Hanbali is merely a school of thought within the Sunni category. Nobody believes in Hanbali or, for another example, Hanafi as sectarian. In the past these schools of thought often clashes violently but that was a long time ago. So the differences between the Sunni schools are small things, like when Muslims line up to pray in congregation like you've probably seen on the news, when and how to they ritually rise and bow and move their hands? It's based on interpretation of the Qur'an and Muhammad's statements. Some issues are totally clear and have consensus of all Muslim schools, like Ramadan is one month, the Hajj pilgrimage is in a specific time, and so forth. Some details aren't as clear to the people differed. So the issue of different Muslim views isn't an issue here; it's this person's wholesale rejection of Western scholarship and his flat out denial of several key points which are not only sourced by reliable Western sources, but for which I could bring reliable Muslim sources in Arabic were I obsessed enough to jump into my bookshelf. I'm not going to because it isn't necessary because Wikipedia doesn't discriminate like this person seems to do, I'm just making the point that he stated very clearly that his intent behind creating the article was that he personally disagreed with what the reliable sources here in this article state. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking generally, In Islam as with other religions there are many traditions, which always divide further; in the course of time even initially trivial distinctions become institutionalized, and the resultant different traditions can be very diverse in both theoretical and practical terms. Understanding of a culture or ideology depends on understanding not just the commonly agreed principles, but what is not agreed, and the closer one looks the more aware one becomes of the differences.

At WP, I see that many adherents of Islam here want to try to present a unified view. (& similarly for some other groups--I've been involved in such discussions with respect to Judaism.) In all these cases I think they are trying to say saying they do not want to confuse outsiders, but I think some of it may also be because they do not want to show to outsiders how significant the practical differences are, or the divisions between different adherents. But this is not an abridged encyclopedia for children, and reasonable detail is appropriate. NPOV says all significant views are to be represented, I don't think you can be arguing that the Hanbali school is insignificant, but rather that the views expressed in the article in question are insignificant within Hanbali. How am I to know that? There's a tensions with the other NPOV requirement that we do not over-represent splinter groups, and below a certain size we may not include them at all, but the practice has been to be very inclusive about this for religion and politics, to avoid giving the impression that we are making judgements on these topics. To use your example, the general practice about Ramadan is the same; the actual details in various places are not the same. To just give the part that is agreed is oversimplified. The article we have is oversimplification: I am sure there are discussion of the details in Islamic law, and they should be given. (Some specifics about Qadi. In many traditions general words are used with particular meanings. See List of people called Rabbi for an example)

The author may reject Western scholarship, but the views represented are still part of the views to be taken into account. We had the question prominently with respect to Christianity, where a few people claimed that all sources from within the religion were inherently biased and usable, and that every concept of that religion was in terms of modern science, extreme fringe. Whatever one believes, that's not the way to increase knowledge.

Try to find some way of fitting it in. It's the simplest way to deal with this sort of problem. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:DGG: I see what you're saying, and thanks for taking the time to write all that - I read it twice just to take it all in. I will try to find a way to work the material in over the next few days and then we can see if a redirect would be possible. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:DGG: I've merged as much as I reasonably could here and to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qudamah. Additionally, I have started another biography article at User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox about the person who basically preserved the school. Let me know what you think. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the other article, and I do not think what else can be merged here; if someone wants it to be userfied please let me know. For the time being, I am removing the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Hanbali" or "Hanbalite"?

"A Hanbali [or] Hanbalite scholar"; "the Hanbali [or] Hanbalite school"; "a prominent Hanbalite [or] Hanbali": Is it possible to pick a correct form for the noun and the adjective, and stick to it? —Wegesrand (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, but the discussion to narrow that down will be tough because, as far as I know, there is no uniform policy on Wikipedia regarding the demonyms of Muslim theological groups. "Hanbali" is what you would say in Arabic, "Hanbalite" is the common attempted English rendering though linguistically we could also use "Hanbalist" (nobody uses that, though).

The problem you will run in to is that many people will promote one view over the other for political reasons, at times. Though I guess we could start a discussion here about this specific article and see how that goes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mezzo, I think the most appropriate term would be Hanbali. Hanbalite isn’t even used commonly among academics. Hanbali is actually the English transliteration of حَنۢبَلِي and is perhaps the most appropriate term. Nasiralamreeki (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits using primary sources as a vehicle for POV pushing

Recently, I had to reverse some edits which seem, as far as I can tell, like some form of inter-Hanbali POV pushing using primary sources. One of the issues is the "qiyam" during the prayer and placement of the hands; reliable secondary sources typically mention that the school places hands above the navel. What was inserted here was the opposite opinion (hands below the navel) along with a series of primary sources from some Hanbalite jurists with only book names and page numbers; no edition, publisher information, ISBN, etc.
Typically what happens on Muslim religious debate forums on the Net is that Muslim teenagers/youth will make claims, and then post long lists of author names, book titles and page numbers to claim they have support from classic jurists. Very often, about half the citations don't support the claim at all and it's just a swift copy-paste job to intimidate debate opponents. I'm removing what was added and reverting to the old version simply because I have seen this behavior before, and the other recent edits were also a cause for concern.
Among them was the deletion that Ibn Taymiyyah was referred to as "one of the two sheikhs" despite the fact that a reliable secondary source with detailed publisher info says he was; this is, essentially, the deletion of reliably sourced content and is problematic enough on its own. This is also a point of contention but, a broad reading of reliable secondary sources (more can be brought via GoogleBooks if this problem persists) is that he was a person of status within the school. Typically, the whole "below the navel" thing often goes along with slightly anti-Ibn Taymiyyah/Ibn al-Qayyim sentiment. Perhaps that isn't the case here, but considering that the user in question has past experience of blatant deletion of reliable sources on other articles (and getting reverted for it) there does seem to be a cause for concern. A discussion ought to be held here before engaging in such bold edits in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

missing

i ve seen these for other pages about other schools

Views 3.1 Apostasy 3.2 Blasphemy 3.3 Stoning 3.4 Violence 3.5 Slavery 3.6 Other views

but not hanbali.

Are Saudi Sunnites Hanbalites or Wahhabists?

Can someome explain why the Hanbali school is always mentioned to be adhered to by Sunnis in Saudi-Arabia (KSA), while Wahhabism is the state religion in KSA, although Wahhabists are have abandoned the adherence of the 4 Sunni madhhabs? If the latter is true, this would mean that, although the Hanbali school has influenced the state religion of KSA, Saudi Sunnites can actually not be referred to as Hanbalites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einar Moses Wohltun (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wahhabism never abandoned the four madhhabs; Salafism did. The two movements are closely related but still, technically, separate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hanbali. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210085038/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/sunni/hanb.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/sunni/hanb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hanbali

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hanbali's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sunnah":

• From Apostasy in Islam: "The Book of the Prohibited actions. Sunnah.com reference: Book 18, Hadith 222". Sunnah.com. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, 'When a person calls his brother (in Islam) a disbeliever, one of them will certainly deserve the title. If the addressee is so as he has asserted, the disbelief of the man is confirmed, but if it is untrue, then it will revert to him.'
• From Al-Shafi‘i: "Nafisa at-Tahira". www.sunnah.org.
• From Ibn Furak: G.F. Haddad. "Ibn Furak". Retrieved August 28, 2014.
• From Ali al-Qari: "Mulla Ali al-Qari". www.sunnah.org.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to Add Section for Wahhabism?

Creating a section for Wahhabism would improve the clarity of the page, instead of being jammed into the relation with suffism section and in the blurb—where I am not sure if it belongs, particularly with the description of scholarly debate about the origin of Wahhabism. It would probably be better to explain the place of Wahhabism in a separate subsection.

Is there consensus for such a change? AskYourselfWhy (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)