![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello, I have removed some cherry-picked sections from the subject.
There is a new section titled "On Divine Attributes" added by User:Shadowwarrior8 who has been blocked several times by different admins: Diannaa, Cabayi, & Mz7.
This user is only interested in preaching for the Salafi- Wahhabi beliefs and ideas. I wrote to him in the edit summary ( here) to rewrite this section again in order to comply with the policy of neutrality, but he came back again and added it in the same way without attributing the words to their source, because it is a controversial opinion that contradicts most sources, including Shah Waliullah Dehlawi himself, and so-called Shadowwarrior8 knows it!
Shah Waliullah considers himself a Hanafi/ Shafi'i, Ash'ari, Sufi. He described himself in his own words as: "al-Ash'ari in ' aqida, al-Sufi in tariqa, al-Hanafi by way of practice, al-Hanafi and al-Shafi'i in terms of teaching. The servant of Tafsir, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic, Kalam..." [See: Shah Waliullah Ijazah: Hanafi, Ashari, Sufi] There are other sources found in the article.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but please keep an eye on the contributions of this user Shadowwarrior8 ( talk • contribs) Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of " Salafi- Wahhabism" and other dog-whistles isnt in accordance with Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. The sources are well attributed and include quotations of Shah himself from his own book. Maybe you have a different personal opinion, but Wikipedia is not censored. ( talk)
- Thank you.
-- Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 15:03 pm, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree as well. It has just become a pool of quotes. Some of them needs to be re-written and add some enyclopeadic refs. ~~ -- Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 2:54 am, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with the recommendations of TheEagle107 I have attempted to accurately put forth the ideas of Shah Waliullah himself sourcing his own words and not leaving out information, also in respect to the Arabic version of the page. I am 100% open to discussion on how I can improve this section or any recommendations from fellow editors, but I hope that we can remain civil and represent scholars in accordance with their actual opinions rather than anachronistic labels like "salafi" and "wahhabi" which barely existed at the time of Shah Waliullah. I would like someone to update the infobox, however, as it still lists him as being of the "Salafi [and Wahhabi] movement" as well as "Athari" under creed. Thanks -- Probuddho ( talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Father of shah waliullah 43.242.177.49 ( talk) 15:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Some lying salafi-wahhabis keep trying to make this guy into Athari, which is a fine creed, although not true of Shah Waliullah, but somehow they assume he also was an antropomorphist like Ibn Taymiyyah. They keep on relying on A C Brown's biased wahhabi view and rejecting his widespread acceptance in Ash'ari/Matuiridi circles.
This whole page needs to be remade and more in line with the reliable Arabic page. 213.89.49.142 ( talk) 20:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Continuation from the talk page here
@ Probuddho The sources you inserted were primary, polemical sources; unreliable in wikipedia standards. "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Despite your personal opinion, the sources you inserted are simply not reliable. Furthermore, you deleted secondary, academic, published references of the last, stable version and inserted polemical sites in its place; which constitute nothing other than disruptive editing. Despite receiving a warning about it in the edit summary here, you chose to simply continue the disruptive activity instead of discussing about it in the talk page.
The reversions I did were all about undoing the disruptive edits and/or sourced content removal taking place in this article; by various IPs & newcomers. Such as this, where an IP altered content in the creed column from "Ash'ari" --->"Athari". And in your case, removing reliable references and altering sourced content.
A piece of quote you cited from a primary source means nothing to advance your assertions; since your personal opinion on what that quote suggests is only original research. Even the source itself doesnt suggest that the scholar permitted the view on "ta'wil" because his statements in the preceding paras contradict your claims. Either way, you have no secondary sources backing that the scholar himself believed what you claim; and unless you provide a reliable, secondary reference, these claims are POV or original research. On the other hand, the sourced content here, which states "On the nature of Divine Attributes, Shah Waliullah rejected the Ash'ari view" is clearly backed up by reliable, academic sources. It doesnt say he "rejected Ash'arism" itself as you claimed; it states that he differed with the Ash'ari position on Divine Attributes. This is supported by multiple, reliable sources.
An editor's activity is only to paraphrase contents from secondary, reliable sources. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Like Ibn Taymiyya, he [Shah Waliullah Dehlawi] rejected the speculative theology of Ash‘ari and advocated the straightforward acceptance of God’s description of Himself. [1]
References
Good morning,
I would like to request User:
Hightjack and others who have continued to mess with the labelling of Shah Waliullah as "Ash'ari" to cease their meddling with the page's current state. The source is academic and totally suitable and thus there is no need to continuously go back and forth on this matter. It is established. I say this with humility, that when something is so well known and attested to by good sources, it comes off rather childish to continue to try and dispute it.
Thanks,