Talk:Bid'ah

[1] 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)Reply

This article was very one sided. That was not fair for the readers. Now it is more representing of the current situation. Shafi3i 16:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC).Reply

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)Reply

This hadith was misinterpreted by an incorrect translation: "The one who innovates a good innovation in Islam has its reward and the reward of those who would practice with it until the Day of Judgement ­­without lessening the rewards of those who practice with it. The one who innovates the innovation of misguidance, would take the sin for it and the sin of those who practice with it until the Day of Judgement ­­without lessening the sin of those who practice with it".

The original words include the phrase, whoever "sanna sunnah hassana" - whoever REVIVES a good sunnah, they he has the reward of those who practice it until the Day of Judgement. For example, the hadith Narrated by Abu Mahdhoorah in Sahih Muslim regarding the athaan: Allaahu akbar, Allaah akbar, ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah, ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah, ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah, ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah. Then he should repeat, ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah, ash-hadu an laa ilaah ill-Allaah, ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah, ash-hadu anna Muhammadan rasool-Allaah. Hayya ‘ala al-salaah – twice; hayya ‘ala’l-falaah – twice; Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah.

Narrated by Muslim, 379. If you notice, the athaan only has "Allahu akbar" twice in the beginning and not four times (which has ALSO been narrated in Authentic hadiths). They are both authentic forms of athaan. So if someone were to (using wisdom of course) teach this and have others give th athaan like this they would be reviving a sunnah that has been forgotten. Remember, for every Bid'ah (innovation) that comes, it steps on a sunnah. So it's not proper to say that who ever puts a good bid'ah has the reward, linguistically this is an incorrect meaning!! The words lean to the meaning of the statements above regarding reviving a sunnah. For the complete fatwa regarding this specific example about the athaan refer to:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21376&dgn=4 and http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=10458&dgn=4

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The Qur'an does not ban music, and given music's significance, it is difficult to believe that the Qur'an would not ban music, if music were wholly unislamic. Furthermore, being that allah is man's creator, he must have implanted in man the tendency to enjoy music, and hence, man must be divinely meant to enjoy music, under at least some circumstances. Music has been permitted by some muslims, since Islam began. That many of music's most adamant Islamic protectors may be from countries which are less conservative, does not negate the fact that those protectors exist, that they believe in Bid'ah, and that in order for this article to have a nuetral point of view, it must not claim that all new musical instruments, can only do evil.-Yarn 10/9/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.86.240 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

firstly your view regarding musical instruments makes no logical sense. Allah has placed a desire for alcohol in many human beings, that does not make it permissable. There are many hadith that directly state that musical instruments are detested and hated by the prophet muhammed SAW and that they are impermissable in islam. This idea that " the qur'an doesn't say it" is likethe same arguement teh western media makes regarding hijabs. Musical instruments are definitely impermissable although not bid'ah, you cannot call them innovations, tehy are simply HARAM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.211.126 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The trouble with your POV is that in contemporary (and perhaps earlier) Islam, this is and perhaps was controversial. (See [2], [3], [4][5].)68.83.179.156 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

it is from the hadith and no it is not a bid'ah, bid'ah doesn't mean anything not in the qur'an, it means anything not in teh qur'an and SUNNAH

81.153.211.126 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• That's not what the policy says: Primary sources that have been reliably published... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them... Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Most of the assertions in this article are simply descriptive claims. Where there is an element of interpretation such as the section labelled According to Shi'a Islam, secondary sources are quoted. andy (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

One of the first lines of policy says: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source..." This article bases itself on editor interpretations of primary sources almost exclusively without reference to secondary sources. That sounds like a pretty clear case of Original Research to me.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The article claims the following:

“Calls within Sunni Islam in the modern era have been made for a reassessment of the traditional view, especially by practitioners of Sufism.”

I don't think that the Sufi view on bid'ah is "modernist" or a "reassessment" in contrast to the Salafi view on bid'ah. After all, Sufism has been around for a long time, and it has been practised by renowned scholars in the past. From what I have read, Sufis don't think their hadras are bid'ah. An example of this kind of statement is Mufti Ebrahim Desai's fatwa on the matter (he is certainly not a modernist). I think this sentence should be reworded accordingly.--Rcrptmncr (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sufism is certainly old - ancient even, as opposed to Salafism - however, the views on bid'ah held by many associated with Sufism today aren't traditional. If we look at the monolithic works on bid'ah - chief among them al-I'tisam by al-Shatibi - then we find very little tolerance among historical traditionalists, Sufi and non-Sufi, for bid'ah; the attempted division of bid'ah into forbidden and permissible is a later development.

But you're right: it isn't universally held by Sufis, especially the more traditional, conservative Deobandi movement, of which Mufti Desai is a part. And, ironically, Umar Faruq Abdullah, whose book is used as the source for the above comment. Rather than rewording it, why don't we just delete the mention of Sufism there entirely since Abdullah doesn't mention it? Then the passage would read:

"Cals within Sunni Islam in the modern era have been made for a reassessment of the traditional view:"

And that way, it would avoid potentially contetious statements altogether. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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: Kadri, Sadakat (2013). Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law. Vintage. p. 185. ISBN 9780099523277.
• From Ibn al-Khatib: Kadri, Sadakat (2012). Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia ... macmillan. p. 185. ISBN 9780099523277.

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)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bid‘ah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bid‘ah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

For a good few years, this article has been a launching ground for supporters and allies of two Sunni Muslim movements to malign each other. Sufis and Salafis often try to use primary source quotes in able to paint the opposing movement as a misguided movement which is out of touch with the prophet Muhammad and his apostles. It's ridiculous, sneaky and an affront to the encyclopedia, and it needs to stop.
Seeing how controversial this issue is, I think that the following needs to be kept in mind:

• Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are allowed as citations: "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I and others have been watching this article long enough to know that care is rarely taken, misuse is common, and the end result is one movement trying to paint the other as out of touch.
• It is entirely possible to cite the factual information in this article without quoting the Qur'an or the prophet Muhammad directly.
• The issue of bid'ah itself is so contentious among modern day Muslims that the article becomes a lightning rod for WP:NPOV.

With that in mind, I think it's fair that we simply stop using primary sources quotes; it will only lead to Sufis and Salafis both saying: "See! See!!! The prophet Muhammad agreed with me and not with you, the Wikipedia article now proves to the world that you're a heretic!" As much as we can say that we'll prevent that, the reality is that we haven't, and we can't. I've been at this site for almost a decade; editing Islam-related articles is essentially a constant stream of brand new POV pushers using the site to show the world that their movement is holy and authentic and all theological opponents are blasphemers. There are a handful of other articles like that, but this one in particular has become a flash point.
Wikipedia is not an opinion piece here for editors to surreptitiously pontificate to readers about which movement they should believe is closer to true Sunnism. This is a professional site providing information. It is not here to present scriptural evidences piece by piece so readers may become armchair theologians; it is based primarily on secondary sources and presents professional discourse. I currently ran some edits in order to moderate the tone and some recent additions, though I can already see areas that need more attention. But from here on out, it needs to be noted that this article has been used as a propaganda piece for various movements for two long, and that's an abuse of the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MezzoMezzo: I agree that the article needs an overhaul and also agree with some of the edits you are suggesting. However, other edits you are suggesting seem erroneous. Please refrain from making mass changes until we discuss and agree here first. Other editors can contribute too. Therefore, per WP:BRD I have reverted your changes. I am happy to go through the article line by line if necessary.

To start with, as a general point, I see no harm in adding quotes from the Qur'an or Hadith if these quotes are used by reliable secondary sources themselves. For example, Goldziher uses a number of direct quotes from hadith literature to explain his interpretation of the subject.

I am a bit tied up now, but will hopefully expand on this later today / tomorrow. Saheeh Info 07:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo: first of all, thank you for your politeness - that is a rare thing these days.

Second of all, please accept my apologies for reverting you, but that must be done. You keep quoting WP:BRD...yet it is not a policy. WP:NPOV and WP:NOTOPINION, however, are. Policies must be followed; essays are only for advice. You have no basis for your reversion, and while I'm glad that we can discuss this in a polite way, the bottom line is that your reverts can not be allowed to stand; you're editing against policy while using an essay as your basis. I'm sure you understand, upon review, that such a thing isn't admissible on the site.

Regarding the specific points, then I'm returning to the misuse issue: the most recent version of this article, which I reverted from, was clearly promoting the division of bid'ah into good and bad as a fact and not an opinion. Oddly enough, a measure of the opposing viewpoint still slipped in to the article as if it was fact, though considerably less so. Aspects such as claiming that traditional Sunni Islam allows for the division and that only Salafis and Wahhabis disagree is blatantly false, especially considering that the people quoted for the "all bid'ah is bad" view predate the modern movements of Salafism and Wahhabism by centuries.

Look, the bottom line is this: there is no way to use primary sources in this article without winding up in trouble. The copy pasting of them is inappropriate considering proven misuse across several years - against both policies I mentioned - and citing them for statements will inevitably end up with the article contradicting itself since both sides of the argument use primary sources that they claim support their views.

People like Umar Faruq Abdullah are great - as would be Goldziher - to cite modern scholarly views on the dispute, which is exactly in line with WP:PRIMARY. Both individuals are recognized scholars and their words are easily verifiable by the reader. But this business of quoting directly from hadith and Qur'an has only led, on this and related articles, to POV pushing one way or another.

And as happy as I am that you're willing to go through this line by line, let me reiterate: your reverts were inappropriate and cannot be allowed to stand. WP:BRD is merely an essay and can be disregarded even without conflicting policies; the fact that it does conflict with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in this case makes reverting edits based on it erroneous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

As stated by Saheehinfo, please refrain from making wholesale removal of content without WP:CONSENSUS. Regardless of whether you think your edits are justifiable, restoring the article to your preferred version is WP:EDITWARRING and uncontructive. Those are two policy guidelines which you don't appearing to adhering to.

Quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith can be used if they are sourced used by reliable secondary sources to discuss the topic. There's clearly a disagreement between traditional Sunni/Sufi scholars and Salafi/Wahhabi scholars so rather than ignoring it, the different viewpoints should be included within the article. The issue of the various definitions of bidah is not a simple issue and in particular a lot of discourse has been about whether the earlier scholars who quoted that "all bid'ah is bad" were referring to a particular type of bidah i.e "actions which displease Allah and his messenger" or "new things against Qur'an or Sunnah". There is no harm in the article contradicting itself in order to give a balance view of both sides of the argument. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tanbircdq: per an apology I posted on Saheehinfo's talk page, I did review my comments and you did perform the correct action. My words directed toward him were uncalled for and my editing behavior lacked the preferred amount of forethought. I'll go the route of discussion with your guys and any other interested editors.

Now, to start with, I do disagree with your characterization: that Sufis somehow hold a traditional view, while the Wahhabi movement doesn't. That's exactly the kind of POV that's being pushed and it's clearly incorrect based on historical sources. A cursory glance at books such as that of the Shafi'i scholar Lalika'i, or the son of Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abdullah bin Ahmad, shows that not every early scholar held the view later exemplified by the muta'akhirin of the Shafi'is. Additionally, Shatibi in his book al-I'tisam probably agrees with neither the modern day Sufi movement (which always fashions itself with the misnomer "traditional Sunni Islam") or the modern say Salafi/Wahhabi movement.

So to start with, we need to remove the bias behind the very edits here: Sufis are NOT somehow more "traditional" than Wahhabis on this issue and vice versa, because both groups can clearly point to early scholars whose statements agree with their view.

Regarding the second issue you mentioned of direct quotes, I'd still oppose including direct quotes from primary sources per WP:PRIMARY:

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

We're seeing a clear misuse here if the basic assumption when writing this article is that either Sufism or Salafism are closer to the opinion of early Sunni scholars when it's clear that both movements have their early figureheads to point to. Using hadith and Qur'an quotes, I feel, would reduce this to an attempt to present readers religious scripture without the actual views of modern secondary sources. While I admit that this issue isn't as major as the inherent bias I see, I would reiterate my request that you rethink the issue with my comment in mind. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tanbircdq: and @MezzoMezzo: I am unfortunately busy today but will hope to contribute to this discussion in the near future.Saheeh Info 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo: and @Tanbircdq: I have no problem putting this on hold, then. We at least know that we have consensus on a current version, even if I might not agree with it, and we have at least three editors paying attention to this. We could all just ruminate on the issue for a while until Saheehinfo is a bit freer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MezzoMezzo: and @Tanbircdq:, apologies for the delay. I agree with Tanbircdq in that I see no problem with direct quotes from the Qur'an or Hadith literature if these quotes are made by reliable academic sources themselves and if the interpretation in the article is confined to what the secondary source states. For example, Goldziher, in his discussion on bidah in his book Muslim studies quotes the well-known hadith that:

"Anyone who establishes in Islam a good sunna which is followed by later generations will enjoy the reward of all those who follow this sunna, without losing their proper reward; but anyone who establishes in Islam an evil Sunna..." Muslim, Ibn Maja, Nasai.

and then he mentions how this was used to promote the distinction of bidah. This hadith would only fall under WP:PRIMARY if it were to have been added directly by an editor from the source texts (such as Muslim, Ibn Maja, Nasai).

Also, it is normal in an Islam related subject for academic scholars to make reference to primary sources - in fact it would be nigh on impossible not to. Therefore, my recommendation would be to keep quotes from the Qur'an, Hadith and historic scholars of Islam if they can be verified from reliable secondary sources. We should also add interpretations from these secondary sources where appropriate. This would be preferable than removing material. It would also ensure that the article would be mainly based on reliable secondary sources.

It's also worth noting that WP:PRIMARY states that:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

So it does not seem to be wrong to add primary sources if they have been reputably published and if the interpretation of the primary source is taken from secondary sources.Saheeh Info 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nice to have you back. I'll assume since you pinged already, that you and Tanbircdq will both see this (unless you guys don't mind the regular pinging).

Alright, so you're saying: quotes from primary sources if they're backed up by secondary citations, and interpretations of academic scholars. I hope I've understood your point correctly.

This gets to the crux of my issue, though: misuse. You're insisting that we can include those primary sources without them being misused (per the policy). I haven't seen that so far, though; the language here is clear that Sufism somehow takes a traditional view and nobody disagreed until the Wahhabis came along. That's the implication of the text, and it's obviously choosing one side over another, since the majority of the Hanbali madhhab, for example, never accepted the distinction of different forms of bid'ah, nor did a plurality of early Malikis, and neither group have anything to do with Wahhabism/Salafism; the distinction was mainly championed by Shafi'is of a later era.

So how can these sources be included without picking one side and promoting it? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo: and @Tanbircdq: MezzoMezzo has shown bias in a range of articles he seems to think the Sunni establishment are secret Sufis. I have had issues with him on other articles. The language is not Sufi at all he wants the Salafi narrative which has been proven fringe by academics. Misdemenor (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MezzoMezzo:, primary sources can only be considered misuse if they have been interpreted by editors without recourse to a secondary source. e.g. If I as an editor quote a verse of the Qur'an and then interpret it in my own particular way without evidence from a secondary source then that would fall under WP:PRIMARY. If the particular interpretation is provided by secondary sources then I don't see how this is a problem.

I'm looking at the two sections which you wanted to make significant changes to (Views against bad bid’ah and Views that differentiate between good and bad bid’ah) and don't see any mention of Sufi or Salafi. Can you elaborate? I do believe that these sections can be improved significantly by adding interpretations from reliable secondary sources. So, if for example, the majority of Hanabila rejected the notion of good bida, then that should be added to the article (as long as it is from a reliable source) - I have no problem with that. In fact it would add to the article quality.Saheeh Info 08:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo: I'm aware of the misuse issue, and based on my experience with this article specifically, I've come to expect it. This is a notable topic but unfortunately the article about the topic has functioned as a propaganda piece for whoever was willing to take out the time. However, if you're insisting that we can make this work, and have primary sources only interpreted by reliable secondary sources, then I'll take you at your word for it based on your rep (I have a feeling we've edited other articles at the same time previously but I can't recall when or which articles).

Now regarding my significant changes, then a lot of it becomes moot based on my first paragraph here and your comments about proper use of sources. To elaborate, though, because I suppose I really didn't before, keeping in mind that my formerly significant changes are now lesser in number and degree:

• The statement: "Traditional Sunni scholars, especially by practitioners of Sufism, argue for an inclusive, holistic definition," is the clearest instance of editorial POV pushing. Who decided that Umar Faruq Abd-Allah represents "traditional Sunni" scholarship, and that Sufism is merely an exceptionally poignant evocation of traditional Sunnism? Considering that the only source is Abd-Allah himself in one of his books, it seems like a major misuse of a secondary source.
• The block text quote from Nuh Keller. This has been a sticking point for a few years, as has the Masud.co.uk website. Keller has no professional qualifications to speak on Islamic topics; it's within the realm of possibility that he is knowledgeable but we don't know for sure and he isn't recognized by academia as a scholar. Additionally, he's an extremely bigoted person who makes outright takfir of rival Muslim movements (both Wahhabis and a few others as well), and he's not representative even of Sufism as a whole. Similarly, Masud.co.uk is not a professional website, does not have a proper, professional editorial board and most of the writers on there are like Keller: they have degrees in literature or other fields, lack professional qualifications and mostly just spew hate. Neither the site nor the person are representative of anything other than themselves.
• Since Abd-Allah and Keller are espousing the same point, then why do we have two block quotes for one view and no block quotes for the opposing view? And why two instead of three, or four, for example? Wouldn't it make sense to have one quote for the one view and another quote for the other view? And if we are to choose between the two quotes, wouldn't keeping Abd-Allah's make more sense?

Those are really my only concerns regarding the article at this point. In general, I dislike dealing with such controversial topics, but you and Tanbir have both expressed good manners and professional editing, so I'll stick around for the sake of that. If my comments have been unclear or strange, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase. Thanks for coming to the table. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo: I've been on a bit of a hiatus. Are you available? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tanbircdq: It's been about two weeks and I just noticed that Saheehinfo is on a month-long hiatus, just as I was, which sort of leaves us at a pause in this article. Do you be amenable to hearing the (now only two) changes I'd wanted to propose, or should we wait for Saheehinfo's return? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not Saheehinfo, but I might possibly qualify as Hasaninfo. :) I just wanted to mention this paper [6] discussing the views of "Anglo-American ‘Traditional Islam’" on bid'ah (search for "innovation") and other matters. It was once pointed out to me by Misdemenor, and I confess that I haven't read it in full, but it might be of use here. Eperoton (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Eperoton: I'd say you're saheeh li ghayrih at a minimum; never sell yourself short! Moving on before crickets can start chirping at my jokes, the source you've posted is relevant to this article, though perhaps not to the disagreement I had with Saheehinfo and Tanbitcdq; I'm a bit hesitant to just start enacting edits without them, because I recently took a Wikibreak as well and I know what it's like to come back after a month and find that one's absence was taken as not having an opinion.

The article you have there, though, seems to be a good summary of what Anglo-Western Muslims refer to as the "Traditional Islam" movement vs. the Salafist and Progressive (reformist as some call it) and other movements. It would be relevant in the section in question, though. My complaint above is that the article treats followers of that "Traditional Islam" movement with a capital T - a modern-day movement only known to the 1% or whatever of Muslims that live in the West - as followers of "traditional Islam" with a lower-case T, basically acknowledging their bias as objective fact. Ironically, Misdemenor was one of the main promoters of that POV as objective fact in the past two years (such users come in cycles on Islam-themed articles, as I can tell you after dealing with every POV possible for a decade).

But I don't know if Saheehinfo and Tanbircdq disagree with my view per se, or if they simply felt my previous edits were too bold to enact without a detailed discussion first; we never made it that far before I took a break from editing. I'm also not sure what you make of it yet, though more participation would certainly help in terms of discussing every possible change to the article and which one (or whether any of them at all) would be helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense to me in general terms, and I'll give the previously involved editors a chance to return from their Wikibreaks. Eperoton (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Saheehinfo, Tanbircdq, and Eperoton: It's been eight months. I hope that all is well and that we'll see more contributions on Wikipedia soon. That being said, after eight months I've not yet heard any specific arguments against my proposed edits above. Considering that the article contains, in my view, a rather clear WP:NPOV violation, I'm going to reenact the edits since I don't see any policy based prohibition to doing so at this time. Obviously, the door is always open for us, or even editors other than us, to revisit the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The "Views against bad bid’ah" section currently is basically a long list of random quotes from sometimes obscure characters with no information as to their background (Who on earth is "Abu 'Uthmaan as-Saaboonee"?) or sect and no hint on how these authors (?) define bidah or about their theory on what constitutes bidah. It's basically feels like a lengthy invective from obscurantists against mysterious, undefined "innovators".

It would be an improvement if editors could clean it up. I think it's probably not necessary to have so many quotes saying the same thing unless they are more contextualised. 183.89.31.139 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's an excellent point, actually. As it is, much of the entire wider section there ("In religious matters") seems to be a quotefarm. That isn't actually against a specific policy, but it's poor in style. The opening (Traditional view) and closing (Modern discourse) subsections are better, but the middle especially consists of, as you said, decontextualized copy-pasting from unexplained individuals (Views against bad bid’ah) or quoting directly from primary source religious scripture to make a point (Views that differentiate between good and bad bid’ah).

A problem here is that cleaning up existing content is arguably more time-consuming than simply writing new content from scratch, but I don't think there's a strong justification for totally writing a brand new version (which would have been the easy way out). Perhaps notices could be put on relevant wikiprojects to invite more editors; that way, the responsibility of cleaning up and fixing-upping of the problem areas could be shared by several people. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply