Jump to content

Talk:Abu Dawud al-Sijistani

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

Question

[edit]

Does such a person exist? [1] --π! 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) The Abu Dawood referred in the atricle you mentioned, "AQ Afghan commander Abu Dawood", came several centuries after the subject of this Wikipedia article. Supertouch (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) please tell the persians to stop lying about the islamic scientists.abu dawood is from azad tribe as they mentionned before.and this tribe is an arab tribe not persian.please stop lying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civillisation (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a violation to the modern understanding for last name, middle name and first name, the English western language rules specify the name and passports are used to identify a person, in this case the translation of this name is: the father of David Suliman the son of Ashath alyazdi assijastani (Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn al-Ashʿath al-Azdi as-Sijistani) again it doesn't show the real first name, middle name and last name. It is a copyright violation to English standard and the origin of David name and the Aramaic version of Dawood, Dawud. This is a clear model of cultural terrorism linked to Islam.

Ethnicity

[edit]

He was born in Sistan, in east of Iran,of Arab origin of Azd tribe , (then Persia) and died in 889 in Basra Then why is ethnicity is Persian, if he was born to an Arab tribe? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

What is the best spelling to use? The title and text differ. HGilbert (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article is a violation to the modern understanding for last name, middle name and first name, the English western language rules specify the name and passports are used to identify a person, in this case the translation of this name is: the father of David Suliman the son of Ashath alyazdi assijastani (Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn al-Ashʿath al-Azdi as-Sijistani) again it doesn't show the real first name, middle name and last name. It is a copyright violation to English standard and the origin of David name and the Aramaic version of Dawood, Dawud. This is a clear model of cultural terrorism linked to Islam. Abi in Turkish is a brother Abi in hebrew is Father The common violation is by using incorrect siting and words to describe the person in the article.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Dawood. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

@Likio: I suggest you take your concerns here and post your sources instead of edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 1, page 114, makes no mention of his ethnicity.
  • In Islam and Muslim Art, Alexandre Papadopoulo, Page 50, "Ugo Monneret de Villard has pointed out "that the great Traditionists were all Iranian or of Iranian origin: al-Bukhari was from Bukhara but of Iranian family, Muslim from Nishapur, Abu Dawud from Sijistan, al-Tirmidhi from Bug near Tirmidh on.."
My concern is Papadopoulo appears to be just a writer, so the source for us is not WP:RS. Ugo Monneret de Villard was an art historian with some interest in Islamic art. Which for me will not work either.
I found no sources stating Abu Dawood was of Arab ethnicity.
So, my suggestion is to remove the ethnicity from the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. What about categories? Should we remove Category:Persian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam? --Wario-Man (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is nothing to support Persian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both removed. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Thanks very much.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab origin

[edit]

LissanX, In Page 471 he is mentioned as Arab in origin by the Cambridge Historical Dictionary of Iran, volume 4. Even though it's a highly pan-Persian work. It still refers to Abu Dawud as Arab in descent even though the Historical Dictionary of Iran, by Cambridge is very nationalistic in it's approach of re-branding figures Persian. [2]. Page 471 Abu Da'uud Sulaiman being of Arab descent. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Cheers[reply]

He was an Iranian, because his name is Abu Dawood Sajistani and Sajistan was a region in Iran. Breakspear Baelor (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran was conquered, inhabited, and ruled by Turks in those days. FYI, around half of today's Iran are non-Persian in origin. Go figure. Ifus1071 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was the point of this comment? And adding it in the midst of a old discussion a that? This is not a forum (kindly see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX). FYI, Sajastani lived between 817-889, before the advent of (Persianate) rulers of Turkic origin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources (incl. the third edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Encyclopaedia Islamica Online, the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Christian-Muslim Relations 600 - 1500 by Brill, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and so forth) do not state any ethnicity when dealing with Abu Dawud al-Sijistani. They only specify his place of origin, namely Sistan. Irrespective of whether he was of Arab or not (the Cambridge History of Iran is a very good source), given that the six top quality sources mentioned above make no mention of any ethnicity, we can safely assert that his ethnicity was rather unimportant in relation to him as a historic figure. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: I decided to recheck my library for the Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 4, and this is what it actually says on page 471; "Abu Da'ud Sulaiman b. Ash'ath al-Sijistani, a Persian but of Arab descent, who died in 275/888-9." Whoever used the CHoI source refrained from mentioning "Persian of Arab descent" and only decided to use "Arab". That's peculiar to say the least. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even though ethnicity was unimportant in those times, people nowadays give importance to such information. Having said that, some reliable sources assert that he was of Turkish origin. If his alleged Persian origin is mentioned, so should his alleged Turkic origin. Ifus1071 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show those alleged reliable sources that supports a Turkic origin? You might also want to read WP:RS and WP:SPS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was the one I referenced not enough? It fits with WP:RS and WP:SPS after all.
Suleyman bin el-Eshash es-Sicistani, Ebu Davud (2014). Ahir Zaman Hadisleri (End Times Hadiths) (in Turkish) (2nd ed.). Fatih, Istanbul: Şamil Yayınevi. p. 1. ISBN 978-975-9068-69-1. Korybiko (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Because I can see clear signs that it definitely doesn't. I'll tell them after you've replied. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it was a portion of Afghanistan too Sijistani (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Well please let us know what’s bothering you about the source? Is it because it’s not a pro-Persian reference? As has been mentioned above, if there’s an allegation that the person is Persian and it’s mentioned then fine. If there’s an allegation that he’s Turkish, then fine, it should be mentioned too. Wikimicky1 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for an answer. Also, refrain from making cheap digs at others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still waiting for an answer too. Sure, please refrain from dodging my argument. If you have something constructive to say then please do so by all means. Otherwise, please refrain from making threats on my Talk. Thanks. Wikimicky1 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the source I provided fits with WP:RS as the book analyzes and explains prophetic hadiths. It also has an ISBN. Mind you, your argument against another user was to ask him not to remove a source. Kindly come to a consensus. Wikimicky1 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that you would get your explanation after you made yours, pretty simple and straightforward. So having an ISBN = reliable? “Analysing” and “explaining” something = reliable? This is clear proof that you havent read WP:RS as well as WP:SPS. I will explain later when I am on a computer why your source doesnt have any suggestion that it is WP:RS, something which you still have failed to argue in favour for. Feel free to improve your “explaination” meanwhile. HistoryofIran (talk)
Oh wait, I'm talking to two different people. Interesting that you are answering for Korybiko. Anyways, right of the bat it fails WP:VER, I can't even investigate the source properly, especially since the name of the author is missing (Korybiko added the Turkish name of al-Sijistani instead..). Its published by a obscure publishing house which intends to ”fill the lack of Islamic reference works by the Muslims in Turkey”? That's great and all, but does not mean it is reliable. I couldn't find a single WP:RS that cited a source published by this source either. There's no way we're gonna put this 'source' alongside a source from Cambridge. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we’re different people. Why would you assume we’re related? Because it doesn’t fit your interests. No dear, your answer is clear evidence you are ideologically biased. Who is Cambridge? Are they the final say on religious subjects? So a source is considered reliable le by you if it’s published by Oxford or Harvard. I see. Hmm, most of Wikipedia is garbage then, according to your flawed logic. Anyway, you probabablu don’t speak Turkish. Chances are you’re just a pro-Persian person living in the West. No I’m not personally attacking you. I’m just saying things as they are. Your profile is enough to show how partial you are. And the fact that other editors ignore this shows how biased they are too. No problem. Abu Dāwūd will remain an Arab, or a Persian, or a Turk. He definitely will not remain what some Wikipedia editors judge him as. Wikimicky1 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just didn't pay proper attention to your names, that simple. What I speak or what background I belong to you is none of your business, my "dear". It didn't take long for you to show your true side - It seems almost like a privilege nowadays to discuss in a calm and mature manner. Anyways, I hope the best for you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

[edit]
Sijistani (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


He was Persian ( not a Persian speaker)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sisjistan

[edit]

Sijistan could be Iran and Afghanistan , so both countries should be acknowledged. Sijistani (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab or Persian

[edit]

Abu Daloud is an Arab and speaks Arabic. And not a Persian speaker, but an Arabic speaker Muhsin97233 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion. Next time you pov push in an article or write more of your WP:SOAPBOX, I will report you to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Dawud_al-Sijistani&oldid=1204464391"