Talk:Bid'ah

message: quotes  saying (Arabic: صدق الله العظيم ) as Bid'ah it's so common that many muslims believe it's part of hte religion.
--The Brain 12:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should say that bid'ah does only apply to issues of faith and not wordly issues.--Striver 06:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: example

message: I changed the following line: "Most Sunni differentiate...", to this: "However, there are also many Sunni Muslims who differentiate...". I felt the change was appropriate, as the claim that "most" felt a certain way didn't have a source for that.  I think it's more balanced now.
In retrospect, I forgot to sign this comment here when I initially made it almost five months ago.  MezzoMezzo 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited line 10/28/06. 

message: I notice the fact tags on this section.  I will add the references soon so please leave it to me.  ZaydHammoudeh 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bidah in Worldly Matters 

message: Recently, Rafchile committed a long string of edits to this article which can be viewed in the history of the page.  These included the deletion of all external links and their replacement with just one, the entire trashing of the old version of the article which was still being worked on and its entire rewriting, and the insertion of extremely biased views based on opinions from a Sufi perspective, which is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.  I will be watching this article more closely from now on, and if this article is vandalized again either as a joke or to push a certain point of view as Rafchile did, and through one large trashing of the article or a long series of "stealth edits" also as the recent vandalism was done, I will request that this article be locked and report the offending users for vandalism.  This is a professional site and is not a forum for individuals to present opinions and/or biased information to the public as though they are fact.  I will request that everyone interested in working on this article please be a mature adult and review all official Wikipedia policies on editing, vandalism, building a good article, and keeping a neutral point of view. MezzoMezzo 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent extreme vandalism of this article

message: Knives were present in the time of the Prophet Muhammad, therefore they are not a bid'ah.
Musical instruments are not a pure evil bid'ah, they can be used for good purposes and there is a difference of opinion in Islam regarding music.
This article is biased towards the Salafi-Wahaabi P.O.V. Bid'ah in worship was not always rejected, many companions did some things differently from their own free choice. Imam ash-Shafi'i allowed for "Sayyidina" to be added in the adhan, for example.
The external links, too, link to Salafi-Wahaabi, anti-Sufi websites.
:A few points:
* Yes, the knives thing is a little weird.  We could probably come up with a better example.
* There is no difference in opinion regarding music in Islam.  This is only something that has come up recently and primarily in Muslim countries that are secularized or have heavy Western influecne.  All four madh'habs agree that music is forbidden.
* Salafis and Wahhabis aren't the only one's who acknowledge that bid'ah is incorrect in Islam' for fourteen centuries, the ulema of all four madhhabs have agreed that bid'ah, specifically bid'ah in regard to ibaadah (worship) is what the Prophet referred to when he said "every new matter into the religion is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the hellfire".  Only the most extreme of people, primarily (but not all) Sufis, disagree with this.
* Please bring proof for this slander against the companions of Muhammad, as the notion that they ever brought anything into the religion that Allah or his messenger did not is extremely offensive from an Islamic perspective, not to mention historically inaccurate.
* As for the sites, only one of the links is critical of the general position of Sufism on this matter and only one of them refers to itself as Salafi.  The links are apt and representative of what the consensus has been for over a thousand years.
Regardless, I do thank you though for discussing it here first; most people (Sufis and non-Sufis) who oppose the traditional view tend to do a series of stealth edits or just trash the entire article.  I would advise to create an account to correspond with though, as being anonymous brings up questions of who it is posting comments, making edits, etc.  An account makes things easier. MezzoMezzo 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion; you are entitled to it and it is indeed valid.  Keep in mind that article talk pages are not for discussing the merits of article subjects, but rather how accurate article content is.  That musical instruments are haram is the majority view held by traditional Muslim scholars and the article reflects this.  There are opposing views under the external links section where you can find these differences of opinion; in regard to your suggestion, however, I think WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG are relevant here. MezzoMezzo 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The trouble with your POV is that in contemporary (and perhaps earlier) Islam, this is and perhaps was controversial. (See , , .)68.83.179.156 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bid'ah in worldly and religious matters 

message: Allegedly Mohammed said:
:“Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours [i.e., Islam] that is not a part of it, will have it rejected.”
Is this part of the Qur'an or is it in fact a Bid‘ah? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he say?

message: I have added a tag indicating the possibility of OR in this article since practically all references come from Primary Source material without any expert secondary interpretation thereof. References should focus on secondary rather than primary sources.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give some examples from the article - I can't see anything which looks like an interpretation by an editor that's not based on a secondary source. andy (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: References 1-4, 6-17 and 19 are all primary source material: Qur'an and hadith literature. I do not know 5, 18 or 20, and the rest are websites. Again, no expert secondary sources here.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've missed my point. Primary sources are OK provided they're only used descriptively. The references you list are all used descriptively, for example “Whosoever originates an innuendo in this matter of ours [i.e., Islam] that is not a part of it, will have it rejected.” [1] [2]. The only interpretive part of the article is According to Shi'a Islam which is based on a secondary source. You should challenge any aspect of the article that you feel is OR, and after a suitable time perhaps even delete it, but it's not appropriate to label the whole article as OR because it isn't and nor does it seem to have been intended to be  andy (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By way of example, the article begins by stating an unsourced definition of its subject matter, and then immediately justifies this definition through reference to the words of Muhammad (i.e. primary source). The article is not using primary sources in a descriptive manner, but rather is using specific references from primary sources in order to justify a particular definition of "innovation" as "innuendo." This entire article requires a basis in secondary source material, but instead simply refers to the primary sources to support the claims of the article's editor. Therefore, OR in support of a particular POV.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Another important point to consider in relation to Original Research and the use of primary sources is that the article is entirely in English, and includes direct quotations written in English; however, the sources cited are Arabic sources and so CANNOT be indicating the quotations as written. If a translation is being cited, then the translation ought to be fully referenced. If the editors are making their own translations, then this is clearly an OR problem.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research and Primary Sources 

message: The article states that the Quran condemns innovation yet refuses to site any ayat from the Quran. As the Quran is the ultimate source of law in Islam, believed by muslims to be revealed word of God, it stands to reason that suggesting the Quran says anything needs to be backed up by verses from the Quran. So if:
"Similar statements are found in other verses of the Qur'an and other Hadith as well"
then those should be cited. Or the statement that verses can be found in the Quran that reject bid'ah should be removed from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.175.160 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Wikipedia articles on such subjects isn't really to argue the specific points, but rather to inform the reader of the different views.  In that sense, primary source material (in this case the Quran or Hadith) should be used only sparingly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bid'ah in Quran? 

message: While all have the right to have their voices heard, we should avoid actually inserting our own views into the article.  This includes calling Uthaymin, a respected contemporary scholar of Islamic studies, a "Wahhabi" and claiming that Sufi views (in the external links section) equate to "traditional" views when the status of Sufism is disputed by non-Sufis.  Let's just present the information and allow readers to decide. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Insertion of POV

message: Recently, a great deal of material was added which enhances the article and gives a further look into the details of current views on the subject.  Some of the citations, however, are a bit problematic and I suspect that these quotes and their interpretations are being taken from English translations by authors adhering to the Sufi movement rather than the original Arabic source material.  Chief amongst these claims is that the Imams Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i and Malik supported the idea that bid'a falls into five categories.  While the modern-day Sufi movement holds this view - and it's a view that deserves to be expressed here - the notion that the three individuals mentioned above is categorially false.  I'll even go so far as to challenge any editor (in a friendly, constructive way) to bring me a direct quote from the original Arabic source material so that we can go to the actual printed books, with the chains of narration for these quotes and verify them.
I guarantee that this can't be done because the notion that bid'a is divided into five categories, while being a view held by many today, was non-existent in the time of these imams.  Additionally, the claim that Al-Shawkani recognized bid'a as being in five categories is highly suspect; I have easy access to a physical, printed copy of Nayl al-Awtar and can investigate but it seems like an odd claim, considering Al-Shawkani's views in books such as Irshad Al-Fuhool and Al-Qoal al-Mufeed, where his views are virtually the same of the modern-day Salafist movement rather than the modern-day Sufi movement.  While the Sufi movement's views deserve to be presented as Sufism generally falls into the category of Sunni Islam, the claims of some members of this movement that scholars from the early Islamic era such as Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i and Malik saw bid'ah as five categories is not only contradicted by the expressed views of these imams in their own books, but it is also chronologically impossible considering that the "bid'a in five types" view didn't evolve until later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, the evidences for categorisation of innovations is weak and most arguments in favour are heavily flawed citing incidents such as the performance of taraweeh which already had a sound basis in the sunnah. Sakimonk (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Five categories of Bid'ah

message: I propose that we merge Heresy in Islam into this article per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bid'ah and heresy are essentially the same thing. Additionally, the other article has no reliable sources. I recently removed every source given because all of them were primary. First, they were used improperly to push one point of view, then to push the opposite point of view. It's obviously a matter of academic discussion which should not boil down to rival sects using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Since they're essentially about the same thing, and the other one has no reliable sources at all, I suggest a merge/redirect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any response in ten months, so I will assume that there is no opposition to the suggestion. I have performed the merge and will try to trim shortly, though the main content itself coult use some work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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 :Bid‘ah'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 "kadri":
From Ibn al-Khatib: 
From Ibn al-Khatib: 
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⚡ 00:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Bid‘ah]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bid‘ah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150908105403/http://www.al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/33.pdf to http://www.al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/33.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121102005737/http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/bidah/en/chap2.php to http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/bidah/en/chap2.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522120645/http://muslimways.com:80/library/guard-your-faith/bid-ah/shaykh-uthaymeen-on-innovations.html to http://muslimways.com/library/guard-your-faith/bid-ah/shaykh-uthaymeen-on-innovations.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310104441/http://www.answering-ansar.org:80/answers/bidah/en/chap1.php to http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/bidah/en/chap1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070316221126/http://www.answering-ansar.org:80/answers/bidah/bidah.pdf to http://answering-ansar.org/answers/bidah/bidah.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bid‘ah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070316184846/http://www.answering-ansar.org:80/answers/bidah/en/chap2.php to http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/bidah/en/chap2.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bid‘ah. 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/20150626102140/http://www.sahihmuslim.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=BDH05&articleID=BDH050003&articlePages=1 to http://www.sahihmuslim.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=BDH05&articleID=BDH050003&articlePages=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929083233/http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/on-celebrating-the-prophet%E2%80%99s-birthday-sa-sheikh-abdullah-bin-bayyah/ to http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/on-celebrating-the-prophet%E2%80%99s-birthday-sa-sheikh-abdullah-bin-bayyah/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901015129/http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=BDH&loadpage=displaysection.cfm to http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=BDH&loadpage=displaysection.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303102748/http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=BDH02&articleID=BDH020003&pfriend= to http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=BDH02&articleID=BDH020003&pfriend=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820232641/http://www.bidah.com/ to http://www.bidah.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bidʻah →  – Page should be moved to render the curved apostrophe special character as a straight apostrophe, per WP:TSC. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 June 2022