Talk:Ahl al-Hadith

message: The statement is made below, but no details are given? Are we expected to read the reference material - needs additional writing - i.e. what are these shocking differences.
Originally, there were theological differences between Ahle Hadith and with the Hanafi school — the dominant Maddhab in the region they lived — with respect to the rules of praying (Salah), which "scandalized" the "generally very orthodox Sunni Hanafi" Afghan Musilms.[1]   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmamatma (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: under methodology

message: Are we sure that the jamiat ahle hadith website under the external links section is the same group as the one in the article?  It sort of looks like a commercial link. MezzoMezzo 15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we put together a section in the article making this distinction? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Web site

message: It just dawned on me that the real problem with this article is that it is not about Ahl al-Hadith, the people of hadith, as a methodology persevering throughout the centuries and mentioned in the early books of hadith literature. I included in this article quotes from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Muhammad al-Bukhari underscoring this reality. However, the creator of this page was apparently unaware of this and wrote about a specific group, as best illustrated by the content of the article, WP India insignia and the spelling of the term Ahl al-Hadith preferred here.
I propose, and hope to implement, the redirecting of this page to reflect Ahl al-Hadith as a historical presence, with only subheadings for the movement in India. There is no doubt as to the historical significance of the group by this name, however, they represent an era of a much wider history which should be represented here. Supertouch (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to respectfully disagree, actually. The Salafist movement has its beginnings in modern-day Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and is still predominantly an Arab movement; the Ahle Hadith were begun in northern India by Indian students of Yemeni hadith scholars and Azhar university, and it is still predominantly Indo-Pak in character. There are Arabs calling themselves Ahle Hadith and Pakistanis calling themselves Salafis, but these are very few, not to mention the differences in some practices between the two historically different movements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't there be a sub-topic called like "Similarity between Ahl al-Hadith and other branches of Islam" (like Salafi movement, Wahhabism, Hanbali, Hanafi, etc) ? Verycuriousboy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The REAL problem

message: I propose that this page be redirected to the Salafi page. Ahl al-Hadith is often used synonymously by the people. Sun NY (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to respectfully disagree, actually. The Salafist movement has its beginnings in modern-day Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and is still predominantly an Arab movement; the Ahle Hadith were begun in northern India by Indian students of Yemeni hadith scholars and Azhar university, and it is still predominantly Indo-Pak in character. There are Arabs calling themselves Ahle Hadith and Pakistanis calling themselves Salafis, but these are very few, not to mention the differences in some practices between the two historically different movements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't there be a sub-topic called like "Similarity between Ahl al-Hadith and other branches of Islam" (like Salafi movement, Wahhabism, Hanbali, Hanafi, etc) ? Verycuriousboy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Redirect

message: not different in salafi, wahabi, so i am already Ahl al-Hadith people & me proud  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beypeople (talk • contribs) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: same it is

message: * me checked Ahle Hadith, facebook page, but this page is unOfficial, but top updates & this page created by Hanfi converted to Ahle Hadis, his name is Moazzam Mirza, yes it is Moazzam Mirza famouse Watercolor artist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beypeople (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahle hadis facebook

message: User:Msoamu: Your edits have been reverted by multiple users now. It is clear that your edits are contentious and you need to discuss them here before continuing. And without insulting other editors or speculating about their personal beliefs, please. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing by Msoamu 

message: Since the term refers both to a historical ideology and a contemporary movement, should this be turned into a disambiguation page offering links to two separate articles? I would put a template on the page but I'm not sure if there's a "suggested split" template like how there's a "suggested merge" template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the template, put it up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: MezzoMezzo, I see you've put a lot of work into the article.  Based on the article's length and content, I'm not sure why a split is needed.  The article seems fine as is.  I understand there's a philosophical debate between the original India-based movement and the modern-day so-called adherents but I thought the article does a good job of explaining both.  I'm concerned that a split will simply be a content fork.  I would rather ban the disruptive users than allow everyone to have their cake and eat it, too.  Since there's been a dearth of responses on the issue, you might consider a Request for Comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, my motivation for doing this isn't because of the disruptive editing - it was solely because I thought that perhaps one being an ancient movement and one being an unconnected modern one was enough grounds. I will consider an RfC, though I have never done this before. Could you suggest an appropriate wording so it's clear to other users what I'm asking for comments on? MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: the article is currently confusing i agree a split is indeed needed. Baboon43 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion appears to have ceased without coming to a concensus. Since a request was made for an RfC then I will start one rather than just removing the tag. Op47 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Should this page be split up and turned into a disambiguation page. e.g.:
:Ahl al-Hadith
::Ahl al-Hadith (Ancient movement)
::Ahl al-Hadith (Modern revival)
Op47 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Split the page 

message: Please only put votes in this section. Any discussion to go in the threaded discussion section please.
*Oppose per my discussion above. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This article is confusing those who claim to be Ahle Hadees of the subcontinent in recent times with Ahl Al Hadeeth of Old and Ahl Al Hadeeth currently. The mentions of taqleed in the article are completely incorrect in the article Ibn Fulaan (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: The lead section appears to end in mid sentence. I haven't actively edited this article in perhaps a year; since then, the history page reveals edit wars involving multiple editors and the entire lead is quite different anyway. Keeping that in mind, I'm not exactly sure what the latest agreed upon version was, but it's clear that it's been broken, either by willy-nilly edit warring or vandalism; it ends in the middle of the sentence. What was the original, unbroken version of the lead? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead ends in mid sentence 

message: This article deals with two different subjects: 1) the early/classical movement called Ahl al-Hadith or traditionalists, and 2) the modern South Asian movement called Ahl-i Hadith, Ahl-e-Hadith, and Ahl al-Hadith (in decreasing order of frequency, according to my estimate). Standard academic tertiary sources treat them in separate articles:
# The Oxford Dictionary of Islam has two articles Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl-i Hadith
# Brill, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition has two articles Ahl al-Ḥadīt̲h̲ and Ahl-i Ḥadīt̲h̲
# Brill, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Third Edition, which is in progress, so far only has an article on the South Asian movement Ahl-i Ḥadīth
# The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World has only an article on  Ahl al-Ḥadīth, which doesn't mention the South Asian movement.
Hence, following the prevalent practice of RSs, these topics should be treated in two separate articles. Eperoton (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is best to have two articles.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also. The two movements are completely different despite sharing the same name. Saheeh Info 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree too, based on those sources.  ibensis  (What’s the Story?)  13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like we have a quick consensus. I've tagged the redirect Ahl-i Hadith for speedy deletion to make room for the split. Eperoton (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  I realized that I can just edit the redirect, so I went ahead and made the split. Eperoton (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  For your information, there's no such thing as a . You acted boldly and created a split before I could renew my objection. Have your way. Just know that there's a limit to acting boldly. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   I saw your objection and didn't take it into account because it wasn't relevant to the proposed split. "[The] original India-based movement and the modern-day so-called adherents" are still discussed in the same article, Ahl-i Hadith. There's no content fork. Do you disagree? Eperoton (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  To your other point, I haven't come across guidelines about the time required for consensus building, so I make estimates based on the received responses. If the rate of response is low, I wait upwards of a month. In this case, it was very high, and there were no objections. Also, I did check that you were presently active with daily edits, so I assumed that you had your chance to respond. Eperoton (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was editing. I didn't realize I needed to speak up in an immediate fashion as I didn't expect you'd be acting so quickly. I'm not going to argue the case itself as I haven't read any of the source material. Apparently I'm the only one concerned about this fork. I'm worried that what is really one movement is now being split in two to placate Islamists. Again, I'm not going to argue facts; I just have doubts about this split. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Identification of the two movements is a doctrine held by Ahl-i Hadith. RSs treat them as two different movements, so the split was done based on NPOV.  I'm not aware of any "Islamist" input on the issue. If you still have concerns after looking at the sources, I'm open to further discussion. Eperoton (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually a bit concerned about the claim that this split is somehow partially motivated by a desire "to placate Islamists." I'm not sure if that's simply a conspiracy theory about the sources or a subtle slight against the other editors involved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: I think the clarification needed tag you added needs clarification. :) What do we need to clarify there? Eperoton (talk)
: I think adding a date format that English speakers understand would be helpful, don't you think? MOS:ERA, MOS:JG. DA1 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ok, sure. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed tag