This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
It is true that the book is not about Sunni Islam, but it is written from a Sunni pov, and those are the articles in those categories. peace. --
Striver13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Again, does that rule out the fact that he could write from a neutral POV? Alternatively, consider that his article also says the book is 'non-polemical'. --
Blueraintalk10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
No its, not impossible, but its probable. The book is under the "Islamic literature" category and List of Sunni books is simply a list. How big is the probability that a 12th century religious book will be NPOV? 0?--
Striver15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The very reason why this book is renowned is because its written from a NPOV; it presents a historical and philosophical study of religions without critically analysing them. That's why its taken to be one of the earliest books written on comparative religion. Why else do you think the UNESCO would sponsor its translation, were it just a 12th century religious book? Besides, I don't know where you're getting the "Sunni POV" from? Whether Shahrastani was a Sunni or not is disputed in the first place. --
Blueraintalk16:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, he most definitely was not Shi'a. With NPOV i mean that i presume that the book states that God exists, that Muhammad was the prophet of God and avoided statements that would cause his contemporaries to accuse him of apostasy. --
Striver16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
"He most definitely was not Shia"? I guess then, that you haven't read much on Shahrastani. The rest of your comment, I don't know what you're talking about. This book gives a general account of all religions that existed upto his time. Like, say, an encyclopedia does. Where does the question of denying God's existence and apostasy come from? --
Blueraintalk17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
That is the whole point of NPOV. You don't see wikipedia state the existence of God as factual. If it would, it would be religious literature. Same with other issues, a encyclopedia that accepts basic tenets of Islam is a Islamic literature. --
Striver18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Encyclopedias do not have to accept or deny anything. They are just a collection of all existing knowledge. This book was, in the same vein, a collection of the "doctrinal opinions of all the world's people". It does not accept or deny basic tenets of any religion. It just states what they are. --
Blueraintalk07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
And btw, the burden of proof is on you if you want something to be included in the article, so till this issue is settled, I'm removing your additions. --
Blueraintalk07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Please keep the "islam-book-stub" and "List of Sunni Books" and "Category of Islamic Books". All these are relevant here to jump start this stub and expand it.
Almaqdisitalk to me23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
This is not a Sunni book on Islamic studies and its wrong to categorise it strictly under Islamic literature. You don't put tags that are irrelevant just to jumpstart a stub. --
Blueraintalk08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)reply