Jump to content

Talk:Abd Allah ibn Saba'

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

This page is obviously written by a person strictly following the Shi'ite school of thought.

[edit]

Although not everybody is clever enough to notice this. Frankly, the 'Shi'a views' section is quite unnecessary, since the whole page itself consists heavily of Shi'a views. Therefore, I have set my mind to erase all corruption out of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomeyeahyou000 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page contains a Shi'ite slant, but instead of deleting that section, could we insert a section for Sunnite views, then keep most of the discussion in modern views and just clean that up for POV? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is gratuitous, irrelevant and in fact entirely unjustified

[edit]

It is very telling and significant, given the kind of fantasizing rabidly antisemitic discourse that is so pervasive in Muslim circles in the Middle East these days (as well as in the past), whether Shi-ite or Sunni, that none of the editors and commentators on this article seem to be aware that the supposedly "Jewish" derivation of the ideas attributed to Adbullah ibn Saba rests on no foundation whatsoever. Judaism has always rejected the deification of human beings, right down through the ages, for thousands of years. This is fundamental to it and is the consistent message of the Torah itself and all later Biblical and Rabbinic comnmentators and spiritual leaders. There is no debate about this. It deifies no one, for only God is God, and He is One alone, as the Shema itself (the central affirmation of Judaism) affirms. It has refused for example to deify Moses himself. That is the Rabbinic explanation for why even his burial place remains unknown down through the Biblical period (to the present). It is also the reason Jews have not accepted the Christian view that Jesus could in any sense be God incarnate, God the Son, part of a trinitarian divinity. The alleged "Jewishness" of Abdullah ibn Saba's ideology is mere ignorant fantasy, and if used to discredit any particular Muslim sect, then it demonstrates only the antisemitism of the accusers and exposes a deeper flaw and weakness in the belief system of those who use such arguments. Whether or not he himself was a Jew by birth is another matter, to be historically determined one way or another, or left undecided (obviously, even this is very much disputed), but it sheds no light on Judaism and Jewish beliefs, or wider views amongst Jews generally. Diversity is part of the human condition, and one can observe even in this article that not all Muslims embody any unitary "Islam," whatever that means, and the same is true of every other religious community. I would urge all the editors of this article to grow up.110.22.140.136 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof for these claims? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims? There are several given in my comment above.110.22.140.136 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources stating he started the Shia sect

[edit]

History of jews page 331. Along with other sources from Sunni articles also state this. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShaniAli1lo: Other articles are irrelevant. Regardless if they are "Sunni" or not. Please read WP:RS for sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The books I provided are more than reliable stop with your nonsensical rambling and read the books they are far more reliable than the some of the sources in the intro considering allot of the introduction is not even sourced direct your empty rage on unreferenced portions of this article instead of vandalising reliable information which are sourced. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: What do you mean books? You have given one single book,"History of jews", and does it even exist? This is Google Books showing no result, and this is WorldCat also shown. My "rambling" is not nonsensical. If a source in the intro is not reliable then tag it with {{better source needed}} (template:better source needed) or {{reliable source}} (template:reliable source). The lead or as you call it introduction doesn't even need citations as per MOS:LEADCITE. I am not directing "empty rage" at anything. For unreferenced portions add {{citation needed}} (template:citation needed. I am not vandalizing so don't accuse me of doing that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your obviously not looking hard enough History of Jews from the roman empire to the early medievil volume 2 bh Simon Dubnov he eplicity states he is the initator of Shia sect page 330 to 331 how many times do I have to repeat this its a neutral source not sunni. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: What is the exact title? As per WP:BIASED it does not matter if the source is "neutral" or Sunni. "Initiator" could just mean he was Shia as per the dictionary to admit or accept with formal rites into an organization or group, secret knowledge, adult society, etc. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
utter nonsense the author clearly states he is the first Shia and initiator of the Shia sect yet you try and divert the source and attempt to falsify it this discussion is over your agenda is clear. The title is already present on the reference list number 59. Go and read it.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: If you have a source where it says he is the first Shia then please provide that. The one you gave just says he was one of the first initiators. It doesn't specify whether the initiation means founding or joining it though. I am not attempting to try and diverse the source or falsify anything. I am sorry if my agenda was not clear from the beginning, but I hereby declare that I want this article to be follow the guidelines of Wikipedia to the best I can do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
School of thought should be Shia then. Considering the sources all state he was a Shia. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShaniAli1lo: That sounds reasonable. I'll let you make that edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to add school of thought into the infobox so I resorted to adding it to the known for section I tried a few times to add school tradition but nothing showes up....ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: Thanks for the clarification. Next time don't do that though.
@ShaniAli1lo: But what about this edit? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to censor Abdullahs Shia religion and school of thought than Kaab should follow suit. I tried adding the school of though on the infobox but it didnt work. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:OSE it should not follow suit. I suggest you undo your edit on Ka'ab al-Ahbar, and then perhaps we can ask someone to help add the school of though to the infobox. You might also want to delete the information in the known for section too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Unless a school of thought is added and a category of Shia Muslim is added I will keep deleting Kaabs so called Sunni school of thought this is the double standard I am speaking off. Considering Kaab was also referred to as a mythical man does not mean we need to add that to the intro hence dubious should not be added either makes no sense. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: What do you mean nope? I said we can ask someone to help add a school of thought. What happens on Ka'ab al-Ahbar is irrelevant. Their is no double standard and you should read WP:OSE. This talkpage is for what you want to happen on this article. Anything about the other article should happen at Talk:Ka'ab al-Ahbar. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No add it first here . I dont want to be diverted while you have your way on this article the ip who deleted the category got away with it without anyone batting an eye his edit summary was "misleading category removed" and no one questioned it while he went on and added the category of Sunni Muslim to Kaabs page I will not tolerate this and neither will any other editor you can try and get be blocked if you want but I assure you many others will rise up and make sure this article goes back to its neutral version I have already posted a message on all Islamic forums about this injustice and I will say this good luck then an army of editors descend upon this article to set it straight. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean add it here first? You have mentioned this article as a justification for the other one, and so this won't match the other one. Your fault for "diverting" by mentioning some other page, despite me telling you numerous time about WP:OSE. How about you check out Talk:Ka'ab al-Ahbar#Deletion of sourced information., undo your edits here and then, and they'll will discuss about what you want to add. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to fall in your trap If I revert my edit on Kaab I know you wont add the infobox on this article. I am waiting for other editors to come and sort this mess out in the mean time do as you wish. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: What "trap"? How do you know I won't add the infobox? How are other editors going to come? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

infobox school of thought

[edit]

All I wanted to add his Shia background to the infobx and it was well sourced but it came out wrong as I was unable to add the school of thought tradition section Emir knows what I am talking about. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@ShaniAli1lo: Well if you had actually looked at the individual infobox instead of saying that other stuff exists, then you would have noticed that the infobox here is Template:Infobox person but on Ka'ab al-Ahbar it is Template:Infobox philosopher. No school of thought parameter exists on this infobox, and different infoboxes can vary in parameters. As per Wikipedia:RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes religion was removed from the infobox used on this article, so we can't add that either. Is there anything else you would like to add to this article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edit is reasonable I have provided several references all of which are not sectarian in nature that refer to Saba as a "supporter of ali", "initiator of Shia sect" and a Shia I am willing to compromise and add it to school of thought/tradition section on Infobox not unreasonable at all. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: Please see above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
School_tradition is available it is also used on Kaabs page for his sunni background. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If religion is not allowed why is it on Kaabs page? ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ShaniAli1lo: It is not available on the infobox used here. This page uses Infobox person but that other page uses Infobox philosopher. It is not that religion is allowed on one page or the other but rather the infobox as per Wikipedia:RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Overall there is a consensus that the proposed name more closely matches the sources than the current one. There was also a proposal to simply move to "Ibn Saba", but that one doesn't have a consensus to retaining the logner one for now. If someone wants to reproposed that shorter name then they can do so in a separate RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah ibn Saba' → Abd Allah ibn Saba – This is the correct and WP:COMMONNAME spelling for this figure. Also, his contemporaries have the spelling Abd Allah rather than Abdullah e.g. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Abd Allah ibn Khazim al-Sulami, Abd Allah ibn Ubayy etc. Reliable sources rarely ever use the Persian-Urdu 'Abdullah' on historical Arab figures, the Arabic spelling should be used. Al-Thawr (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC) sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, Google search gives more hits for the current name in this case. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I am somewhat surprised by the results, given that 'Abdullah' is a very commonplace (and not just Persian-Urdu) contraction of 'Abd Allah', in this instance the sourcing bears out the the use of Abd Allah ibn Saba, most notably across multiple iterations of the Encyclopedia of Islam, but also more generally in scholarship, as can be seen by the greater overall usage, past and present, in Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ibn Saba On second inspection, while my initial vote may have been the correct option of the two, I think there is actually a much stronger case for Ibn Saba to be used alone as the article title - an option that overcomes the problems of the large variations in the spelling of his forename and in any case aligns better with the WP:COMMONNAME case made by an expanded Ngrams search, which shows that usage of Ibn Saba and Ibn Saba' prevail to quite a considerable degree. This would also be in line with the names of the likes of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina. This usage can be seen in works such as:

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheezhai: That search, without quotation marks, captured a lot of entries that just include "Abdullah" etc. If you limit the search to "Ibn Saba", there are only 837 results total. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323, my mistake on the last argument. New argument: Per COMMONNAME: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). In this case those sources happen to be books, journals and website articles written by qualified historians. In the RS, Abd Allah ibn Saba is almost invariably used. The three sources which you gave use Abd Allah ibn Saba in the first, and then later refer to this figure as Ibn Saba. This is common with other historical contemporaries of Ibn Saba. As such, reliable sources use Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr in the start and then Ibn al-Zubayr. We thus have the article's name Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, rather than Ibn al-Zubayr even though the Google Scholars and Ngrams show more results for Ibn al-Zubayr. I have rarely ever seen even a single reliable book which only uses Ibn Saba', and doesn't mention Abd Allah in the start. Another fact is that almost all articles/books/sources on this article use Abd Allah ibn Saba e.g.
  • Anthony, Sean, The Caliph and the Heretic: Ibn Saba' and the Origins of Shi'ism (2011)
  • Hodgson, M.G.S, Abd Allāh ibn Saba (1960)
  • Madelung, Wilferd, The Succession to Muhammad (1997)
  • Moosa, Matti, Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects (1988)
  • Tucker, William Frederick, Mahdis and millenarians: Shī'ite extremists in early Muslim Iraq (2008) etc. (there's likely not a single source only using Ibn Saba)

Cheezhai talk 12:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC) sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased article

[edit]

Does not state shia inclinations of Abdullah bin Saba. Clearly states he was a muslim, although most sources claim he was just pretending. Previous guy who pushed for several edits was outright rejected. Shame on you for betraying your own principals 39.36.95.83 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read some reliable sources on this subject and to rewrite the article here, citing the sources you've used for every piece of information you add (don't forget to include page numbers).
Many Wikipedia articles are in a bad state, so we can only hope that someone will come along to WP:FIXIT. But then, there are not many people who are both able to write a Wikipedia article and like to do this for free and without their name on it to get credit.
In such cases, we just have to wait for a person like that. Are you that person? You might want to give it a try! Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abd_Allah_ibn_Saba%27&oldid=1204434674"