Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad Al-Munajjid

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

Spelling (Transliteration)

[edit]

The Name is often written with two j; perhaps we should prefer jj instead of j: Muhammad Salaah Al-Munajjid (Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ al-Munaǧǧid). The cleric himself writes his name as Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid : http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/islamqapages/2 91.61.195.97 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

[edit]

According to IIPH, which published many of his books, he was born in Syria. [1] And so says [2]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse fatwa

[edit]

This section should be modified or removed. First, he didn't say "kill Mickey Mouse"; he's not that stupid. He was talking in about how kids love these cartoon characters, which, in a strict salafi context, should be considered as vermin. So he's not an idiot; he's just a typically rigid cleric who's anti-fun, anti-art, and in that sense not a lot different than some Christian fundamentalists. Second, the Daily Telegraph is not exactly a good source for anything. Every story they touch is hyped and spun, which means you have to dig a little deeper to get any actual facts. The real story here is the western media having fun with this anti-fun zealot.Theonemacduff (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, making incredibly broad statements like "[The Telegraph] is not exactly a good source for anything" and "Every story [The Telegraph] touch[es] is hyped and spun" suggests that you may be allowing your own bias to cloud your judgment on this issue (The Telegraph is considered a RS for the purposes of Wikipedia). As for the brief substantive analysis that you have provided so far (i.e. "He was talking in about how kids love these cartoon characters, which, in a strict salafi context, should be considered as vermin") you will need to provide a RS to support this interpretation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

As Islamopedia is a reliable source, I am restoring my entry. http://islamopediaonline.org/about-us/about-islamopedia-online "Islamopedia Online is part of the Islam in the West Program, hosted at the Alwaleed Islamic Studies Program at Harvard University. It is financially supported by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University, the Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard University, the Transatlantic Program on Islam in the West based at the CNRS in Paris (see: Euro-Islam.info), the Social Science Research Council, the Minerva Fellowship. It is directed by Jocelyne Cesari."Patapsco913 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)23:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam21c is headed by Haitham al-Haddad Al-Haddad sits on the boards of advisors for Islamic organisations in the United Kingdom, including the Islamic Sharia Council. http://www.islam21c.com/category/islam21c-writers/Patapsco913 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Patapsco913:, Thanks for the clarification. It seems that http://islamopediaonline.org is fine as a source given your explanation. However the set of advisors for Islam21c.com indicates that it is not. Haitham al-Haddad is a deeply controversial figure both within and outside of the Muslim community. He has been described as a notorious extremist preacher by the Daily Telegraph and as one of the most active radical preachers in the country, reportedly a principal target of the Government’s new “anti-extremism orders” aimed at those not directly involved in violence but who voice extremist views . Likewise, the Independent newspaper stated that Al-Haddad’s views on many subjects are outspoken to say the least. and by the Times as somebody who supports FGM. I fail to see how a website with somebody as controversial and bigoted as Haddad as advisor can be considered reliable as per WP:NOTRELIABLE which states that Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. What are your thoughts? Thanks RookTaker (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Statements?

[edit]

Most of this section is taken directly from the IslamQA website. I don't believe that this is adequate for claims such as "The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them". Surely we need to back up these claims using reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS or remove them entirely. My feeling is that most of this section should be removed as it seems slanderous and fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. RookTaker (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, almost the entire article seems to have been taken from the IslamQA website. I am inclined to suggest removing pretty much everything that relies on the subjects own website (particularly the controversial material) and keep only material that can be backed up fro reliable secondary sources. RookTaker (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would not his views be obtained from his own statements on his own website especially as they are directly attributed in the citation? What would be slanderous about using a person's own words? Anyhow, the section that references the blog "my muslim thoughts" should be removed especially since the author's summary does not match the statementPatapsco913 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised a question in the Reliable Sources noticeboard, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Muhammad_al-Munajjid. RookTaker (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how this is a problem. This is a fatwa webpage by one of the top scholars of the Salafi Movement (per Al Jazeera). His fatwas are his opinion so it cannot be anything other than what it is. If we paraphrase a fatwa (which is needed since they are very long), we just need to be certain that it is correct; hence the attached quote. Anyhow, we quote Yusuf al-Qaradawi from his fatwa webpage as well as the Council of Senior Scholars (Saudi Arabia). It is the same as if we want to say that so and so supports xxxxx: if we have an editorial that the person wrote saying as much, we use it. Anyhow, IslamQA fatwas issued by al-Munajid are used by many news sources as a reliable source of the Salafi viewpoint (in fact it is one of the top English Islamic webpages out there). The statements he makes are the statements he makes. Also if you search Arabic Wikipedia for IslamQA, his fatwas are cited quite frequently to support the Salafi position. Anyhow, this page piqued my interest since somebody added biased statements about him condemning Mickey Mouse that I felt needed to be corrected. whether we like the guy or not, we have to be fair to him. We should remove the "my muslim thoughts content" Cheers.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Islamopedia Online accepts his fatwas as authoritative and look at the range of scholars on the advisory board of Islamopedia. http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/sheikh-muhammad-saleh-al-munajjid-saudi-arabia-answers-question-day-and-age-jihad-required-eve and http://www.islamopediaonline.org/about-us/about-islamopedia-onlinePatapsco913 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick purview of sources that quote IslamQA directly; they are worldwide:
Many of the sources cited in this section are not primary sources. Rather, they are taken from a variety of secondary publications such as The Daily Telegraph, USA Today, MEMRI, etc.. User:RookTaker's suggestion that this entire section be removed seems like an overreaction. As for User:RookTaker's concern that this material is slanderous, I would ask that he provide sources that contradict those cited here, or which at least suggest that the statements attributed to Al-Munajjid on this page have been incorrectly interpreted or translated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
User:Hyperionsteel I didn't suggest removing the entire section. I stated that I am inclined to suggest removing pretty much everything that relies on the subjects own website (particularly the controversial material) and keep only material that can be backed up from reliable secondary sources. So I would be happy to keep the portions of the article that are sourced from The Daily Telegraph and USA Today for example (in fact I added these a long time ago myself). My concern however is that those portions of the article that are purely dependent on links to the IslamQA.info website seems to fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. Is this not the case? RookTaker (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." In this case, Al-Munajid is providing his opinion based on the primary sources (the Quran, the hadith, other scholar's opinions). Hence his fatwas are a secondary source. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken regarding what constitutes a Primary Source. In relation to Munajjid the IslamQA website is a primary source since this is the website that he is responsible for (i.e. it is self published). Please review WP:USEPRIMARY. The Daily Telegraph newspaper however is a secondary source in relation to Munajjid as they are providing a view regarding Munajjid's ideas and are one step away from the source. Anyhow, knowbody seems to have replied to my concerns on the Reliable Sources noticeboard which implies that either my question was poorly formed or there isn't a problem. If the latter, then we can probably leave things for the time being. RookTaker (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of a secondary source

  • 1. A secondary source is built from primary sources. Secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the source is building on the foundation of prior sources rather than starting with all-new material. For example, century-old love letters on display at a museum are primary sources; a secondary source might analyze the contents of these letters. The fact that the analysis is based on these letters would be evident from the description in the source, even if the paper contained no footnotes.
-----Al Munajid is analyzing the opinions of other scholars as well as the Hadith and the Quran which is evident from the description in the source.
  • 2. A secondary source is significantly separated from these primary sources. A reporter's notebook is an (unpublished) primary source, and the news story published by the reporter based on those notes is also a primary source. This is because the sole purpose of the notes in the notebook is to produce the news report. If a journalist later reads dozens of these primary-source news reports and uses those articles to write a book about a major event, then this resulting work is a secondary source. This separation is not defined by the length of time that elapses or geographical distance.
-----Al Munajid is using both primary (Quran and Hadith) and secondary sources to explain his position.
  • 3. A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia.
-----Exactly what a fatwa is.
  • 4. Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize multiple primary sources, in due proportion to the expert-determined quality of the primary sources. This helps us present the material in due proportion to the sources' actual importance (in other words, assign appropriate WP:WEIGHT), rather than in proportion due to the size of the sources' publicity budgets.
-----Al Munajid uses multiple sources for his opinion which is self-evident when reading his detailed fatwas.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as self-published goes the policy states:

  • 1. "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
-----Al Munajid is an expert in his field of reporting the Salafi postion as evidence by Al Jazeera and his fatwas are published by reliable third party publications; and

2. "A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself."

-----Al-Munajid's fatwas are about his position.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athari

[edit]

Al-Munajjid believes that the Mu`tazila, the Ash'ari, and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology are wrong in applying Ilm al-Kalam (reason or rational discourse) to explain the Quran and are contradicting both the Quran and the Sunnah. There is nothing else left but Athari and clearly if he does not use Kalaam he can not be Ash'ari or Maturidi let alone a Mu`tazila. "Attributes that Allah ascribes to Himself require neither explanation or interpretation instead a Muslim should neither deny the divine attributes nor liken Allah to His creation but accept the statements of Allah in the Quran without questioning" - classic Athari belief.[1][2]

For a WP:BLP you need to provide clear evidence that Munajjid is an Athari. What you have done is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.41.102 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand Islamic theology? "But unfortunately the followers of most of those madhhabs and schools of fiqh have begun to follow the people of innovation and misguidance in their beliefs, so many of the Shaafa’is and Maalikis have become Ash’aris, and many of the Hanafis have become Maatireedis. But with regard to ‘aqeedah, the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah" Islam QA fatwa 69836: "The difference between different ideological groups and the fiqhi madhhabs – and can she marry an innovator?" Patapsco913 (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand how wikipedia works? For a WP:BLP you need to provide a reliable source which explicitly supports the claim that Munajjid is an Athari. Using your own interpretation is original research and WP:SYNTH which is not allowed. 31.49.41.102 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the hanbali school of theology is the same as athariPatapsco913 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are still doing synthesis. Not all Hanbalis are Athari. 86.132.235.202 (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Hanbali's were Athari. Some were rationalists. See the Athari article: However, others note that some Shafi'i scholars also belonged to this theological movement, while some Hanbalites adopted a more rationalist theology.. 86.132.235.202 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesis. I don't see any evidence that Al Munajid is a Hanbali (school of jurisprudence); his statement says that he believes in the Hanbali (school of theology). The Hanbali school of jurisprudence is not the same as the Hanbali school of theology. That is why I keep asking you to explain why you do not believe so and you have not even commented on the citation? Are you saying that there is no distinction or that the Hanbali school of theology does not exist? The source says that he believes the Hanbali school of Aqeedah is the right one (using his exact words: "the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah"). On the talk page for Traditionalist theology (Islam), there is a discussion of the different terms used to explain the different names used for this school of theology (Athari - Hanbali - traditionalist - traditionist -hadith scholars). Here is a citation from the entry on Ibn Hanbal "Ibn Hanbal's stand against the inquisition by the Mu'tazila (who had been the ruling authority at the time) led to the Hanbali school establishing itself firmly as not only a school of fiqh (legal jurisprudence), but of theology as well."Williams, W. Wesley (2008). Tajalli Wa-Ru'ya: A Study of Anthropomorphic Theophany and Visio Dei in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an and early Sunni Islam. p. 229. ISBN 0549816887.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely WP:SYNTH which makes clear that Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. If you are claiming that Munajjid is an Athari then you need to provide evidence that is explicit. You cannot combine evidence from multiple sources and glue them together to come to a conclusion that Munajjid is an Athari. This is even more the case for a WP:BLP. 86.132.235.202 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am using one source. What sources am I combining? "But unfortunately the followers of most of those madhhabs and schools of fiqh have begun to follow the people of innovation and misguidance in their beliefs, so many of the Shaafa’is and Maalikis have become Ash’aris, and many of the Hanafis have become Maatireedis. But with regard to ‘aqeedah, the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah." He is saying the Hanbali school of Islamic theology is the correct aqeedah. Are either of you even reading the source? https://islamqa.info/en/69836 Patapsco913 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source above merely states that in Munajjid's opinion most of the Hanbalis belong to "Ahl as-Sunnah". It does not prove that Munajjid is an Athari. You are concluding that Munajjid is Athari by joining this source with other sources that link Hanbalism with Atharism such as the talk page of Traditionalist theology (Islam). It is clear from synthesis that this is not allowed. Did you even bother to read synthesis?
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. 86.132.235.202 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. He is stating the Hanbali school of Islamic theology is the correct school. He is not referring to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence which you are referring?Patapsco913 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not explicitly state that Munajjid is an Athari. This is your conclusion which you achieved by joining this source with other sources which is precisly what WP:SYNTH is. 86.132.235.202 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Islam QA fatwa 205836: What are the differences between the Maturidi school of thought and Ahl as-Sunnah? retrieved May 27, 2015 ||"The Maturidis, like other kalaami (philosophical) groups such as the Mu‘tazilah and Ash‘aris, discussed the necessity of knowing Allah, may He be exalted, on the basis of reason before studying the texts (of Qur’an and Sunnah); they regarded that as the foremost duty of any accountable person, and said that there was no excuse for not doing that. Rather they believe that a person would be punished for not doing it, even if that was before any Prophets or Messengers were sent. Thus they were in agreement with the view of the Mu‘tazilah. This is a view that is evidently wrong, as it contradicts what is proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah"
  2. ^ Islam QA fatwa: 96323: The ‘aqeedah of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and the praise of the imams for him and Ibn Hajar’s attitude towards him retrieved May 27, 2015 | "The view of the salaf is one of moderation, neither denying the divine attributes nor likening Allaah to His creation. They do not liken the attributes of Allaah to the attributes of His creation, as they do not liken His essence to the essence of His creation. They do not deny that which He ascribes to Himself or that His Messenger ascribes to Him, which leads to denying His beautiful names and sublime attributes, and to displacing words from (their) right places (cf. al-Nisa’ 4:46) and turning away from (Fussilat 41:40) the names and signs of Allaah. Both those who deny Allaah’s attributes and those who liken Him to His creation are guilty of both errors. Those who deny His attributes failed to understand the names and attributes of Allaah except in a manner that is befitting to created beings, so they denied these concepts and thus they have combined both errors; first of all they likened Him to His creation, then they denied His attributes as a result. That is likening the names and attributes to what may be understood from the names and attributes of His creation, then they denied the attributes that He deserves to have that are befitting to Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted."
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Al-Munajjid. 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:

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) 18:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of quality sources

[edit]

This article is almost entirely based on either IslamQA or MEMRI, both very controversial sources. Also the sourcing to both often selectively quotes inflammatory information (which is a violation of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking). Some material on wikipedia articles from IslamQA (a self-published source) would be allowed given "the article is not based primarily on such sources", but that's obviously not the case here. Given that this is a biography of a living person, there would be a greater urgency in using higher quality sources and removing much of the poorly sourced material.VR talk 17:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If there is no secondary sources, all the contentious material based on MEMRI and IslamQA should be removed according to WP:Primary source "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" and WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately." Hyperzion (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion: and @Vice regent: I agree most if not all of his personal opinions could be and should be nuked unless they have been the source of independent coverage. This is clearly a soapbox article in essence. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_Al-Munajjid&oldid=1235866085"