Jump to content

Talk:Kutub al-Sittah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authenticity

[edit]

The two first are referred to as the Two Sahihs which indicates that they are authentic. The others were not claimed to be all authentic. In fact, thier authors (such as Tirmizi) declared many of these traditions as non authentic.--Islamic 13:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic, please stop removing referenced information.--Striver 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver: that information was not referenced. Supertouch (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

"Due to this, some people state that they were all Persian and not Arabs [4]." May I suggest that it is kinder to ignore non-notable people purveying claims known to be false than to quote them immediately after showing that they're wrong? - Mustafaa 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Islam.org is not nn.--Striver 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book

[edit]

Search results on google books for "kutub al sittah" return desired topic (see [1]). However the six books doesn't do that. Pass a Method talk 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely comfortable even if sources insist on using a non-English name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states:
"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)."
The reliable sources use an Arabic name, but we're supposed to use a name in the English language according to the same sentence. It puts us in a quandary here. It further says:
"If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it."
In most English sources I have found, both terms are mentioned, while a few use just the Arabic version and only a tiny fraction use the English version only (hence the inclusion of the Arabic version even after the move). Now, the lead does say here:
"Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title."
But I would argue that in English language discourse, both terms are used. I don't think a quick Google search will be handy in deciding which one is decisively used more than the other because:
"Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English."
Hence, I am still uncomfortable and would prefer that the name be changed back to English with the Arabic version mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, as I had originally done. Obviously, another editor doesn't agree with that. So is there some project page where we can list this to elicit more feedback? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could make a request for a page move. Pass a Method talk 07:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's better, then sure. How do we do that? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use the template under single page moves in WP:RM/CM Pass a Method talk 11:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Not a specific enough title. Shii (tock) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Shii (tock) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kutub al-Sittah → The Six Books – I thought this move would be uncontroversial, but I realize now that there is some opposition. Per my explanation in the section above, I think this article should be moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I oppose this slow "indigenisation" process (for want of a better word), that has been taking place on some English Wikipedia articles over the last few years, especially ones that use diacritics and other IPA-isms. I !vote to go back to "Rightly-guided Caliphs", "Companions of the Prophet", and "Islamic creed"/"Muslim creed" (rather than "testimony"). Green Giant (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kutub al-Sittah → Six major hadith collections – This is the clearest and most unambiguous English name for this article. It was the stable name for six years from article creation in March 2006 to July 2012 when someone decided that an English phonetic version of the Arabic name is a better title. However as I stated at the end of the RM above, the best title is Six major hadith collections. Green Giant (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, unambiguous English title. Shii (tock) 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. for several reasons. Firstly many of the points raised in the previous thread apply here too. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states that conciseness is a criteria - i.e. 14 letters vs 25 letters. Then six major hadith collections only give 74 results (see [3]) Compared to 284,000 for the current title (see [4]). Without quotes its 30,000 vs 7,000. Thus a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. It would fail consistency as similar article titles have retained their arabic prose and theres no reason for this to be different. If we are going too the extreme with english naming conventions, we might as well go the distance and call Rashidun the four rightly guided caliphs, or call Sahaba the prophets companions, or why not call "shahada" the islamic testimony"? But the main reason remains the fact that sources for Kutub Sittah outnumber the proposal by thousands. The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural and 74 vs 284,000 and 30,000 vs 7,000 is clearly a no contest. Pass a Method talk 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may not be the word-for-word common title, but your Google Books results, not all of which are in English, give something like it as a common gloss: " Kutub al- Sittah (six canonical books of the Tradition of the Prophet)", "anonical hadīth collections (al-Kutub al-Sittah), " "six major collections (the Six Books or al-Kutub al-Sittah) ", "Kutub Al-Sittah (6 kitab-kitab hadis).", " enam kitab hadis yang disebut kitab shahih (kutub al-sittah) ", "kutub al-sittah (Enam Kitab Hadis)", " Enam Kitab Sahih (Kutub al-Sittah)", etc. Many of the remaining results appear to be Arabic books. Shii (tock) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility of reader confusion with such a generic title as "The Six Books"? There is a dab page called "Six Books" which was a redirect to this article until October 2011, but now disambiguates between this article and "Six books" of ancient China although it isn't clear which books are being referred to. More importantly, there are at least two works which use the words "six books": Byrne's First six books of Euclid and Bodin's Six books of the Commonwealth (both of them may not be full articles yet but they are notable enough to warrant full articles at some point). There is also a biblical term, "Hexateuch", referring to the Pentateuch plus Joshua, and there are number of "hexalogies" (six-book series) such as Tolkien's six-book The Lord of the Rings (although it is better known as a trilogy), Jensen's The Long Journey, Mackenzie's The Four Winds of Love, and Manning's Fortunes of War, and most notably the six-volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. I cannot see how we could argue which is most notable out of these possibilities, so it is better to have a clearer title. Certainly I would be happy with alternative English titles, such as "Six books of Hadith", to disambiguate between the above examples. Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you replying to? Shii (tock) 01:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Pass a Method. :P Green Giant (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's arguing for "Kutub al-Sittah", not "six books" which was just rejected Shii (tock) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. I don't know why but I thought he was still arguing for "six books". Green Giant (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I normally dislike direct replies on such discussions, but I think Pass a Method has worked with me enough to know that it's nothing personal and it doesn't affect how we interact at all. He commented: "If we are going too the extreme with english naming conventions, we might as well go the distance and call Rashidun the four rightly guided caliphs, or call Sahaba the prophets companions, or why not call "shahada" the islamic testimony"?" I would fully support changing other articles from Arabic prose to English prose as well, on the same principles. Here's the thing...those thousands of hits which use the Arabic name al-kutub as-sittah? All of them are Muslim polemical/missionary websites. Look I've actually contributed to such sites, I have experience with this. Let's take those hits on search engines and measure them against WP:IRS, for example. We wouldn't be able to use any of them to source an article here, so why use them to base the decision for naming an article? I would argue that those hits which turn up sources of actual benefit for the purposes of Wikipedia are mostly dry, academic sources - largely written by non-Muslims or Muslims teaching/researching at non-sectarian institutions - who use English translations for all these terms. Damn sorry this got so long everybody. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pass a Method just bumped me on my talk page, but it wouldn't be canvassing as I already saw this RM and (sorry) thought it didn't stand a chance. Green Giant, nice idea, but this isn't a title, it's a description. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like this is headed for no consensus again, which means the title will likely stay as is. So I will say this: even if we keep the Arabic title, the current title is wrong and a grammatical mistake in the Arabic language. Kutub as-Sittah means "the books which belong to the six." Six what, who knows. The actual Arabic term is "al-kutub as-sittah" in which case "sittah" or six becomes an adjective for a noun determined by the definite article "al." If the title is going to stay in Arabic, let's at least do it right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not entirely correct. When it has a "u" sound it can be both an adjective and noun. English and Arabic have different focuses regarding its pronouns hence you cannot immediately transfer the two. Check out corresponding arabic usages and you will see similar contexts. Pass a Method talk 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "u sound," but I can assure you that what I have said here is entirely correct. If you want to talk about Arabic, let's use Arabic terms. As it is right now, Kutub is mudhaaf and as-Sitta os mudhaaf ilaihi; it cannot be anything else. Sayyaaratu al-mudeer means the car of the manager and in a vacuum, it cannot mean anything else, as an example. At no point in Arabic will you find a native speaker referring to this subject as "kutub as-sitta" and being considered to have spoken correctly, period. It needs to be al-kutub as the man'oot and as-sittah as the na't, with the tah marboota at the end because kitab in the mufrad is mudhakkar. So Pass a Method, I really feel you couldn't be more wrong on this and while I would ask you to bring even a single instance of this topic being referred to as كتب السته instead of الكتب السته, I know that no such example exists outside of typos. So again, I have to strongly reiterate that if we are to keep the Arabic title, then the current title is 100% wrong and is not even what the books are called in the Arabic language to begin with. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued by the apparent difference between the Arabic spelling in the first sentence (|الكتب السته) and the title used in the article at Arabic Wikipedia (كتب_الصحاح). Is there a good reason for the difference? Green Giant (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is, actually, though an argument could be made as to what is the most common usage in Arabic. كتب الصحاح means the books of the authentic narrations, Sihaah being the plural of saheeh. Sorry for the double vowels, I'm just trying to show where the enunciation is. In this case, the books are possessed by the authentic narrations and the term is used. In the lead for the Arabic version, الكتب الستة is also used which literally means the six books - sittah is describing kutub, and because the noun being described is definite - al is the definite article - then the adjective (na't) describing it must also be definite. Also in the lead the term كتب الحديث الستة is used, which means the six hadeeth books (again, sorry for the double vowels). It's more specific but in a religious context, all native Arabic speakers will know what you mean if you just say the six books, even Arab Christians. That's the linguistic reason; as for the choice of title in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, then I have a feeling based on this discussion that the title likely isn't going to change due to lack of consensus on anything, unfortunately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain the Arabic version using "Kutub" without the "al" before it? Pass a Method talk 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Arabic version isn't "kutub as-sitta," it's "kutub as-sihaah." So like I mentioned before, in this case it is possessive and that's not a mistake because these are the books of the authentic narrations. But nobody says the books of the six; maybe I could name some weird movie about magic books owned by six vampires or something like that, but in this case the reference is to the six books with the al in front of them per the first sentence in the Arabic lead, with the actual title of the article being kutub as-sihaah or the books of authentic narrations. Which is technically a misnomer anyway, as the hadith books if Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaimah and others are arguably more important, but I wouldn't have a case there because people say the six books and they mean a specific six books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i'm fine with al-Kutub al-Sittah Pass a Method talk 10:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I think I'm ready to rescind, as it seems community consensus is against an English name. Not sure how Green Giant feels. At least we can have a proper Arabic name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should i make a move request? Pass a Method talk 11:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list is a much wider list that goes beyond hadith books to include tafsirs, seerahs, jurisprudence, history, critiques and various miscellany, but does not include any descriptions in the way this article ("Kutub al-Sittah") does. What I am proposing would encompass the books listed in the first section, List of Sunni books#Hadith but with some description added, instead of just the wikilinks. When the RM is closed, if there is no support for expanding the current "Kutub al-Sittah" article, then I see no reason to not create a separate list for Sunni hadith literature. Green Giant (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kutub_al-Sittah&oldid=1217090020"