Talk:Hanbali school

message: 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)
thread_title: Repeating names

message: This article reads very POV, and furthermore it reads POV from a terrorist perspective.
--The Lizard Wizard 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Islamic Perspective

message: 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)
thread_title: My 2cents RE: POV

message: 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)
thread_title: Practical Day to Day Differences

message: 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)
thread_title:  Big time POV problems...and other problems... 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV dispute/Disputed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias and erroneous information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits using primary sources as a vehicle for POV pushing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Are Saudi Sunnites Hanbalites or Wahhabists? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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 :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: 
From Al-Shafi‘i: 
From Ibn Furak: 
From Ali al-Qari: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Hanbali]]