Talk:Kalam

Article titles and disambiguation

With merely two subjects on this disambiguation page I believe it would be better to just link Abdul Kalam at the top of the page instead of forcing the Kalam article onto a page with the tedious title of Kalam (Islamic term). There really is no reason to do that. gren 04:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone should add a redirect from the following search terms: Islamic theology, Islam theology, and Theology of Islam. freestylefrappe 06:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

My Arabic is very rudimentary, but doesn't the Arabic text says something like "`alam al-kalam"? In any case, I'm quite certain that it doesn't say just "kalam".

This is very unfortunate. I doubt the Kalam people of Papua New Guinea would appreciate their one and only ethnonym being redirected to an article on Islamic theology. There's not an article for them yet, but there should be, and one day will be - in fact I may create one soon. I propose retitling it "Islamic theology" - a much fairer solution than forcing Kalam to be called Kalam (tribe).Timothy Usher 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not redirected — but in any case I very much doubt that the people of the Kalam tribe would care (nor do I see why they should). The simple fact is that the this usage of "kalam" is vastly more common and important, and Wikipedia style is to place the most common and important usage in the main article namespace, using a disambiguation page for the rest. Note also that "Islamic theology" would be an inaccurate title for the article, as kalam is more specific than that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about them not caring (for now), but...I'd never heard the term Kalam before, while I'd been hearing of the Kalam people and language for many years. Nor would the Arabic term seem "vastly more" common and important, were one to judge by the size of this article and comments on talk page. I am confident that the vast majority of English speakers have heard of neither.

If "Islamic theology"/"Theology of Islam" is an inaccurate title, it shouldn't be redirecting here.Timothy Usher 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To Timothy: the full name of Islamic theology is `ilm al-kalaam. Pecher ^Talk 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. With regard to relative importance: try Googling; try the index of any library. believe me, "kalam" is a common term in theology, philosophy of religion, islamic studies, etc.
2. Redirects generally point to the closeest article in terms of relevance; most redirects don't point to synonyms. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal line

Mel, will you please explain why you're insisting on putting a horizontal line after the disambiguation notice? Pecher ^Talk 13:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, first, it serves to separate the article from material that isn't relevant. Secondly, when I raised this issue at three different Talk pages at the MoS, the majority of editors taking part in the discussions agreed that it looks better.

Now, perhaps you would explain why you're insisting on removing it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is rather uncommon to have this sort of line on top of the page. How many pages that have it can you name? Pecher ^Talk 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen in on very many pages, though I don't keep notes (you could search for it). In any case, "it's uncommon" is not a good reason for deleting something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Theology?

From the introduction I wasn't exactly sure what Kalam is, is it simply Islamic theology or is it a branch of Islamic theology or is it a school of Islamic theology. The introduction just says it is one of the Islamic religious sciences, but that is a very broad term. Could someone educated in the matter clarify it in the introduction itself?

It is actually a philosophical practice, so I suppose you could say it is a branch of wider theology. Unfortunately, most of this article contains general information about Islamic theology in general, some of which isn't directly related to Kalam. It's no wonder the article isn't clear, as it stands most of it is unsourced and sort of ambiguous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Kalam is essentially Sufi interpretation of various aspects of Islamic teachings and so many sunni followers reject it. This article should give more detail on actually what teachings are different from the mainstream ideology that causes rejection of this theology? Merely quoting the critics is not enough on wikipedia. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism of the four imams and other traditional imams was not blanket in nature. "What has been forgotten today however by critics who would use the words of earlier Imams to condemn all kalam, is that these criticisms were directed against its having become "speculative theology" at the hands of latter-day authors. Whoever believes they were directed against the `aqida or "personal theology" of basic tenets of faith, or the "discursive theology" of rational kalam arguments against heresy is someone who either does not understand the critics or else is quoting them disingenuously." Nuh Keller Jaw101ie (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuh Keller is neither a reliable nor neutral source, though. He's a religious cleric and polemicist; if you can find similar comments from a recognized historian then that's fine, but the opinions of controversial religious figures isn't appropriate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I love how, unlike every other serious topic, Islamic Theology - that is rational and peaceful discourse of the Quran - jumps straight to criticism. This is the aspect of Islam that genuinely inspired Maimonides, the greatest jewish philosopher who ever lived, and made him reflect critically on his own tradition. It is this strain of thought that was incorporated in his Guide for the Perplexed that spurred the Enlightenment via Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz, and Hegel among others. Really this is a shameful section though I am not surprised considering the repulsive arrogance within Islam today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.156.232 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 28 days; no discussion in last 20 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Ilm al-Kalam → Kalām – Although the current title is valid (see, for instance, Islam and Modernity, Edinburgh University Press, 2009), the common name of this topic in reliable, English-language sources appears to be 'Kalām'.

See, for instance:

• Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy (Brill Publishers, 1999) by Hans Daiber
• A History Of Islamic Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2004) by Majid Fakhry
• Islam: An Historical Introduction (Columbia University Press, 2002) by Gerhard Endress
• Islam and Christian Theology (James Clarke & Co., 2003) by James Windrow Sweetman
• Islam in the Modern World (HarperCollins, 2011) by Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Some sources, such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998) and the Encyclopedia of Islam (2010), use the lowercase letter 'a' instead of the grapheme 'ā', but the latter is more accurate and reflects common English-language usage; in any case, Kalam already is a redirect.--Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unsure i - MOS As I read it Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) states that the strict transliteration is not to be used in titles. cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) is marked historical and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic appears to be a proposed guideline only. Why should they trump WP:COMMONNAME? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  I see that, but that is often the case for diacrictics/MOS/orthography issues on en.wp. The energy spent in this RM would be better spent sorting out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) (which should be revived, not left as marked historical) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. It's good for WP:RM to handle test cases, but it's also incredibly time consuming and disruptive. I could give as an example ongoing painful Talk:Ana Ivanović where acres of bytes could be spared by editors just following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Serbian), rather than a wasteful WP:COMMONNAME discussion which works against WP:MOS "consistent with related articles". Is this proposal "consistent with related articles"? If it is then edit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) to reflect reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  I see what you mean: it's better to have one, long, centralized discussion to adopt a clear standard rather than multiple disparate ones that might be shorter individually but consume more time overall and might lead to inconsistent outcomes. I am probably not the most suited to start that discussion, since I cannot read Arabic and know little of its grammar and orthography. Nonethless, this weekend I will read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic and relevant discussions that I can find, and perhaps that will provide a starting point for me to participate in a broader discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unsure ii - removal of "study of" ilm علم The ar.wp and fa.wp of course are no guide, but علم, "study of", is useful as an embedded disambiguator. Of course "study of speech" and "speech" can be slightly different, even if kalam is used with ilm to mean the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per wikilaw. 190.175.207.60 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Could you clarify, please? Who is "wikilaw"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Black Falcon, this is a one-edit IP, I wouldn't bother asking. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, you're right. Thank you. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is English language Wikipedia and there's no diacritics in the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Likewise Black Falcon GoodDay has the dozens of Zoës and Chloës pointed out every time he pastes this. Best to concentrate on updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Arabic) if it is need of updating. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Several article on the SEP use "kalam", but I can't find one that uses "ilm al-kalam", despite many instances of various "ilm" terms. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aristotle

Is it relevant and are there other sources than Maimonides for the issue that by his time, Mutakallim writers had proposed their own version of the atomic doctrine and that a vacuum could exist? The Leo Strauss edition of Guide for the Perplexed discusses this issue because a fairly long discourse about it appears between the two main portions of GftP -- and Maimonides, as an Aristotelian, argues against Mutakallim viewpoints. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Science?

Forgive me any failings in this post, this is my first.

I arrived here after looking for some information on the Kalam cosmological argument and was immediately struck by two things in the opening sentence:

"...kalām, is an Islamic science born out of the need to establish and defend the tenets of Islamic faith..."

Firstly, there is no such thing as Islamic science, any more than there is a Christian particle physics or Hindu gravity. All science has to be universal or it isn't science.

Secondly, I have issue with it being born out of the need to reach presupposed conclusions. This is a greyer area admittedly, as many scientists have set out to prove what they thought was happening and proved themselves wrong, but it is a challenge to think these Islamic scholars are truly adhering to the scientific method, publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals etc. Evidence of this lack is suggested here:

" the widest controversy in this discipline has been about whether the Word of God, as revealed in the Qur'an, can be considered part of God's essence and therefore not created, or whether it was made into words in the normal sense of speech, and is therefore created."

however it has definitely not been presented (with evidence) in a peer-reviewed journal (their peers being the global scientific community) that the Qur'an is the Word of God in the first place.

Pre-supposing unsupported premises is not part of the scientific method.

Also:

"studying of 'Ilm al-Kalam is considered by Muslim scholars to fall under the category of necessity and is only permitted to qualified scholars, but not for the masses or common people.[4]"

makes me wonder how you become a "qualified scholar", but I suspect the answer is entirely unscientific.Mytheroo (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Kalam is recognized by vast majority of Islamic scholars of today as well as before, to be a pseudo-sholarship. The naming of it as "ilm" or science is indeed a rejected act. The article itself is heavily biased and showcasing a great deal of "false balance" by bringing what is otherwise considered a "fringe discipline" and presenting it as mainstream. All four heads of Islamic jurisprudence have strongly rejected it. The quotes in the article about al-shafee and others supporting it are unsubstantiated and contradictory to their established written view, el-shafee in particular reportedly writing "For me to meet God with the gravest of sins on my conscience, is better for me than to dabble with al-Kalam".

Al-Kalam is mostly seen as a discipline of argumentation, and later on started creating "byzantian debates" on unresolvable matters of faith attempting to use mental reflection to make determinations that cannot possibly be made, such as that one you mentioned "Quran created or eternal word of God". So all argumentation is philosophical which is why most Islamic scholars rejected al-Kalam, including Al-Ghazali, Abu Haneefa, Ibn Hanbal, Malik, el-Shafee, Ibn Taymeyya, Ibn el-Qayeem, and those are the pillars of Islamic scholarship across history. Sampharo (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I.e this is where Islam stopped being open minded and feel into rote repetition and orthodoxy. The fact that you think that is an argument that "cannot be made" is a sign of the sort of thinking that modern Islam encourages. There is no argument that can't be made. Greatest tragedy in Islamic history was the triumph over the rationalist and the closing of the Islamic mind.2601:140:8900:61D0:C80B:9269:1F4D:D81B (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Kalam as speech

A Tunisian friend of mine used to quote an Arabic saying, but some 20 years ago he became Canadian by marriage, and now neither he nor me can remember the second half. AFAICR, it began: "Kāna kalām el-foḍḍa, ikūna s-sakāta ðahab" كان كلام الفضة، إكون ٱلسكات ذحب… (I'm not sure of the spelling) which means something like "talk is silver but silence is golden". There were two more verses, on the rhythm (IIRC): tataTĀ ta TĀ ta TĀ tata, TĀ ta ta TĀ. Can anyone refresh my memory? — Tonymec (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this comment is terribly old but why not, you're thinking of " اذا كان الكلام من فضة فان السكوت من ذهب " which translates to "If talk is of silver, silence is golden", an advice given by Luqman Al-Hakeem to his son, narrated by Al-Awza'ee that it was originally said by King Sulaiman Bin Dawood Sampharo (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but there was a second half to it, approximately as long, and (IIRC) rhyming with it; and it is that second half that I can't remember. — Tonymec (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, is the question related in some way to improving the article? If not, I would recommend asking it in a more appropriate WP:FORUM. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

source? Ahendra (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Kalam

Kalam i s a speech or saying of good 138.75.15.126 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you can see that there is nothing

Mashallh 2600:6C46:6A00:10FF:2D91:277:5C8D:8A59 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Maimonedes opinions on Kalam

In common Islamic argumentation it has become stereotypical to attribute the flaw in Kalam to it being "Greek philosophy". For instance, from the article:

Because the source of Ilmul Kalam is human intellect, which is based on Hindu and Greek philosophy. On the other hand, the main source of Tawheed is revelation. Moreover, Ilmul Kalam includes restlessness, imbalance, ignorance and doubt. That is why the Salaf Saleheen condemned Ilmul Kalam. And Tawheed is based on knowledge, conviction and faith,….. Another reason can be said that the foundation of philosophy is based on assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts and superstitious ideas

Ie, Kalam and philosophy are just thrown in the same basket and blamed. The narrative is constructed such as to not implicate faith in the affair - the actions of the Mutakallimūn are speculated to be entirely because they used reason/philosophy, reason/philosophy here being equated simply with "...assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts..." It is of course true that many of the "demonstrated" arguments of the Mutakallimūn were in fact in practice simply "...assumptions, false beliefs, imaginary thoughts...", and it is also true that they described to others their thought process as having been source in "reason" and "philosophy". And frequently they would (mis)use terms from philosophy in their arguments, for instance the term "demonstrated". However, having read the Guide of the Perplexed, by the important medieval Jewish Rabbi and philosopher Maimonedes, who was somewhat close to the tale end of this affair and knowledgeable of several of those involved, and included an extensive history and criticism of them in this philosophical work of his, I was able to find different, and more comprehensive, accounting on the history of the Islamic Kalam.

The Mutakallimūn were *not* of course philosophers, they were theologians that encountered certain propositions from Aristotelian philosophy they disliked.

The first along this line were actually Christian apologists in late antiquity, before being taken over almost entirely by Muslim Mutakallimūn. In any case, most importantly for them, they objected to Aristotle's claim of the eternality of the universe, and, speculated that such a claim would, if true, disprove the existence of God. As such they developed counterarguments using the little they had decided to pick up of philosophy in pursuing this goal, and eventually devised one that they found satisfactorily disproved this notion. Once they had this argument that all seemed to them to be good enough, they declared this argument to have been "demonstrated". Importantly at this point, they began to perceive themselves as having philosophically proven the existence of God. One should note that what I have described in the previous paragraph, *is not* philosophy. It is pseudophilosophy. The initial premise that prompted this investigation - that the eternality of the universe would disprove God - does not necessarily follow. Meanwhile, once they had "solved" the problem and "proved" the temporal creation of the world, it also does not clearly follow that God would necessarily exist (even if the initial premise is assumed valid). Their use of the term "demonstrated" is also noxious, because all it clearly meant here was that it became commonly held opinion that the argument was true (to be fair, among Islamist jurists such commonality of opinion *does* in many cases constitute sufficient "clear proofs" for endorsing religious rulings - as they were theologians, I guess it would make sense to them from their context that this is what a "demonstrated" argument consists of; unfortunately for them, in philosophy, things are such that common opinion does not at all serve for the purpose of "demonstration", but they did not understand this. Obviously had they "demonstrated" the existence of God they would be by far the greatest philosophers in history. However in reality they were that level of philosopher who does not even understand what a demonstration is.

Once they had convinced themselves and many others in the Caliphate of this momentous discovery of course, things changed - at this point this becomes a critical basis of faith for many people, that God had been demonstrated to exist. So inevitably the state began to enforce this as dogma, and to suppress beliefs harmful to the faith, including of course disbelief in the temporal creation of the world. And at this point it is of course not possible to even point out their mistake, if you point out that their proof is not demonstrated in a philosophical sense, such an action is disbelief in its truth, and so impermissible because that would threaten faith.

Now of course their brilliant argument largely revolved around assuming that only a single entity could "logically" before the creation of the universe. At this point it would not take someone long to work out that, had the Koran been uncreated, it would also violate their brilliant argument which had so clearly demonstrated the existence of Allah. So this is where the period of happiness comes to a close, now we are torturing scholars for having an opinion that contradicted a speculative and bad philosophical argument that had somehow found itself in the position of being a key proof of faith. That would not indeed go well for them, and for some reason 99% of Islamic jurists cease talking about them here because there is no need anymore for a bad guy to pit against the valiant defenders of faith who would be on the other side of this conflict. But in fact Kalam would continue on for hundreds of years after this, and proceed in a similar fashion.

Building iteratively over time one layer over another, where they would perceive a need for something to be true to support the faith, or ever increasingly just the system itself, hastily cobble together an argument for it's being true, and upon finding one that seemed more or less good enough to all of them, declare it to be demonstrated, and so on and so on. They would of course readily write over and disagree with whatever preceding philosophical premises they felt they had to to get to where they wished to go. Many of the premises were largely based on purely imaginary scenarios; once again, they were not good enough at philosophy to understand the difference between imagination and the intellect. Eventually, the system had developed its own bizarre pseudo-physics as well, which was based around atoms, denied entirely the concept of necessity, and considered the universe to be just arbitrary arrangements of atoms spontaneously particularized by Allah into whatever configuration for no other reason than that He willed it. This also eventually degraded to them discounting the senses as valid sources, as the senses were clearly flawed and if the senses disagreed with the "demonstrated", clearly the senses had to go. Essentially, to protect their pseudophilosophical system and "demonstrated" arguments, they ripped out the entire basis of philosophy and rationality.

Now that we reached this point, I'd like to point out that we consider the Mutakallimūn to be a thing of the past, as the quote above indicates. However, I imagine some among you have probably heard very similar arguments used elsewhere. Denial of any necessity, conception of the universe as nothing more than ephemeral configurations of matter that Allah for whatever reason decided to particularize in that perceived form and shape at that time, as well as completely discounting the senses (ie, suspiciously castigating anyone who disagrees of "...merely believing their senses...), to the point of stubbornly refusing to believe them when doing so would necessarily contradict that which has been demonstrated by 'itja. One does not see any of these in modern philosophy, but I do not think it can be said that there is not *some* major and important discipline out there in modern society which readily does all of the above. They may even consider such to be part of their authentic doctrine from time immemorial, but this is understandable I suppose since custom so often seem that way. Many are also still seemingly impressed by the Kalam cosmological argument, despite supposedly being against Kalam. One can understand how in such an environment such a noxious and stifling movement was able to gain such purchase and spread so quickly and with so little opposition, as there is seemingly little care in those who are unvirtuous and iniquitous, besides achieving certain results. So how would they notice?

In any case, as for their association with the Islamic Philosophers, this is completely laughable. The Islamic Philosophers wrote extensive rebuttals of the above and were forethright in their criticism and opposition to kalam pseuophilosophy from the beginning. Some were religious judges, but they, understanding the inherent incompatibility of the two disciplines, did not use philosophy in their jurisdiction, or for that matter attempt to import customs from the practices of Islamic jurists into philosophy. The kalam was objectionable to them because of it's clear intellectual bankruptcy, as it had never from the start been practiced for the sake of philosophy itself, but only as an avenue by which they thought they could accomplish other goals. And in doing so they grossly mutilated and did great offense to theology. Moreover they were persecuted for it - it is obvious that several of Al-Farabi's texts which contained extensive criticism of Kalam were completely suppressed such that no extant copy of them exists today. This hundreds of years after the inquisition where supposedly in the common narrative Kalam disappeared. Al-Ghazali of course, was also hugely opposed to the philosophers, but surely for entirely different reasons because, as we know, his views were certainly so different than those of the wretched Mu'tazilites who did all of this for, well I guess because they disbelieved so hard or something, and as we know Al-Ghazali was truly among the righteous.

In any case I think a summary of Momainedes exposition would do much to benefit the article, since it is much more extensive than that usually given by Islamic scholars, who seem significantly more focused on highlighting the unrelated, and in fact, opposed, school of Islamic philosophers, than anything that was actually a tenet of the kalam. If anyone could find a scholarly summary to reference and link the highlights, that would be good. I only have the primary source myself which would be unsuitable to attempt to adapt into a wikipedia article.2601:140:8D01:C90:B92F:AEB2:2986:85FB (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ahendra

You have transgressed the rules of Wikipedia by pushing your own point of view. You made have this entire article about the views of critics when there was already a section for criticism. This page is about Kalam and its schools. The criticism can be concise and left alone on criticism section. You need to look at Salafism and see how fair articles are meant to be. You have made the criticism section the main section for kalam. It is too long and redolent. It needs to be reduced and you have added figures that are heavily disputed. More importantly, you have included primary, polemical, and unreliable in Wikipedia standards as sources. "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." In spite of your subjective viewpoint, the sources you included are just untrustworthy. Additionally, you replaced the last, stable version's secondary, academic, published references with polemical sites, which are nothing more than disruptive editing. You have deleted entire sections and moved sources around. You called a neutral secondary source written by Duncan Black MacDonald as contradictory despite calling the section you have made as supporting view. You have pushed your polemic sources written by Salafi scholars like Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab al-'Aqi and others. This is considered disruptive editing. By citing arbitrary passages from primary sources, you are merely making POV or original research assertions. "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You have also made grammatical mistakes. For the sake of neutrality, I will be removing polemic sources and primary sources that are not in line with Wikipedia policy. For some are spread in every section and some are disputed. I will restore sections you have removed. You need to start observing WP:ONUS and gain consensus for your disputed sources before applying those contentious edits. The status quo ante version is the version that remains in place while a content dispute continues to be unresolved.

I will be citing primary and secondary sources in support of each other by showing you the scholars you have enlisted as being against kalam is not entirely true and with this dispute cannot re-introduced back into the article.

We will begin with Abu Hanifa. He wrote works in Kalam such as Fiqh al-Akbar and Fiqh al-Asbat.

• According to Josef van Ess said:

  Already the Kitāb al-fiqh al-absat attributed to Abu Hanifa is composed in the form of a manual for dialectical discussion (kalam)

• Fiqh al-Akhbar, al-Alim wa al-Muta'allim, letters to Uthman al-Buti and a paper of rejecting the thinking of Qadiriya (Islamic section that believe in supremacy of human's capability). These papers...were not fiqh but kalam (theology).

Muwaffaq relates in Al-Manāqib that Abu Hafs as-Saghīr said in Muqaddimat al-Iman al-Kawthari pg 175: [1]

“Abu Hanifa studied kalam and debated people until he became proficient in it.” He also relates from Zaranjari that “Abu Hanifa would lead a class (halaqa) in kalam,” before studying under Hammad. He also relates through Harithi that Abu Hanifa said, “I was possessed of skill in theological debate, and a period of time passed [like this]…The people of argumentation and debate were [mostly] in Basra, for which I entered Basra more than twenty times. Sometimes I would stay for a year, sometimes less and other times more. I would debate the various groups of the Khawarij: the Ibadiyya, and the groups of the Hashawiyya.”

Murtada al-Zabidi in (Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin 2:14) quotes from Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Kardari’s Manaqib al-Imam al-Azam that Khalid ibn Zayd al-Amuri said [2]

“Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zufar and Hammad son of Abu Hanifa would debate people on theological issues, i.e., they would overcome their opponents for they were the Imams of the science (of theological).”

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his History of Baghdad [3]

Abu Hanifa said: "I looked at Kalām to the point that I became so capable in it that I was pointed out because of it."

• A person came to Abū Hanīfah and wanted to debate with him about predestination, Abū Hanīfah said: “I have left Kalam, go to my son Hammād.” [4]

This saying indicates that he authorized the Kalam even though he himself left it because he was old. This is why he left kalam, not because he considered it a bad science.

Malik Ibn Anas next. According to G.F. Haddad, Malik was not entirely opposed to the concept of dialectic theology; rather, Haddad notes that Malik spent "thirteen to sixteen years" studying "at the feet of Ibn Hurmuz," a master in the field.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates in his History of Baghdad in an authentic chain:[5]

• Imam Malik said: "Ibn Hurmuz was a man that I loved to emulate […]. And he was very knowledgeable in Kalām and used to refute the people of desires."

Al-Dhahabi says about Ibn Hurmuz under his biography in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala'. [6]

• The faqīh (jurist) of Madīnah, He is one of the Tābiʿīn, he was distant and pious. Imām Mālik often attended his sessions and learned from him.

This is sufficient but I could look for further references stating Malik Ibn Anas authored one book on Kalam that hasn't been passed down to us.

Al-Shafi'i next. Al-Shafi'i was not entirely against the science of Kalam. Rather he was against the kalam that didn't align with the Quran and Sunnah.

• Al-Shafi’i said: "Every mutakallim on the Book and Sunnah is the limit that is required"

Al-Bayhaqi comments as follows:"This shows that Shafi’i didn’t approve of Kalam not being based on the Quran or Sunnah." [7] According to this secondary source.

As you can see. He did not tolerate kalam falling into the wrong hands. This can be derived from primary sources as narrators of early Shafi'i scholars explained whenever al-Shafi'i rebuked kalam. He was referring to people who he sees as being innovators.

Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā (al-Shāfiʿī's student) narrated al-Shāfiʿī speaking against Kalām. Yūnus then said that by “Kalām”, al-Shāfiʿī meant Kalām of the people of desires.” [8]

Similarly Ibn Asakir narrates in his Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī, Zakariyyā al-Sājī (d. 307), the narrator of al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204) criticizing “Kalām”, explained that what he meant was the Qadariyyah, and not Sunnī Kalām. [9]

More over al-Shafi'i was a scholar of kalam in his own right who would debate with the opposition. Hafs al-Fard, who was a Mu'tazilite theologian, said about Imam al-Shafi'i after a debate:

You called an independent neutral historian Duncan Black MacDonald and accused him of making contradictory reports just to push a point of view when he was simply following Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. You are not allowed to put down another view and call it contradictory. This is literally disruptive editing.

As for Ahmad bin Hanbal.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said:" we were ordered to remain silent (from Kalam) but when we were called towards kalam (based on necessity), we engaged in it." (Al-Hanabila wa ikhtilafuhum ma’a al-Salafiyya al-Mu’asira, pp. 182-183, first ed). [10]

Similarly a secondary source reports this. Duncan Black MacDonald states the Hanbali school and followers of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal would generally avoid kalam and philosophical talk all together, seeing it as an innovation, and only address it out of necessity.

Which is why Ibn Taymiyyah said:

• "Thus, the Kalām which was blamed by the Salaf is the wrong kalām, and it is the one which goes against legislation and reason." [11]

The criticism of Kalam from scholars was specific to the Mu'tazila, going on to claim that other historical Muslim scholars such as al-Ghazali and al-Nawawi saw both good and bad in Kalam and cautioned from the speculative excesses of unorthodox groups such as the Mu'tazila and the Jahmis. What has been forgotten today, however, by critics who would use would of earlier Imams to condemn all Kalam, is these criticism were directed against having become speculative theology at the hands of latter-day authors. Whoever believes they were directed against the aqidah or personal theology of basic tenets of faith, or discursive theology of rational Kalam arguments against heresy is someone who either does not understand critics or else is quoting them disingenuously. The author of this work is a Jewish historian, researcher and author named Saul Silas Fathi who quoted Nuh Ha Mim Keller showcasing his agreement in page 315-16 [12]

The polemic website almanhaj is unreliable. All of them are noted to being Ash'aris or supporting Ash'aris.

I will start with Ibn Surayj.

Wael Hallaq said:

Ibn Surayj is universally held to be the unrivalled leader of the school, superior to all other contemporary and earlier Shafi'ites, including Muzani. Significantly, unlike Muzani, he is distinguished as Shafi'i loyal and true discipline who single-handedly defended the madhab and rendered it victorious. In his time, he was the most influential professor of the Shafi'i law......... He also is said to have been the first to teach juridical dialectic and to combine a superior knowledge of hadith and fiqh. And like Shafi'i, he combined all this with a knowledge of kalam.

According to this reputable secondary source. He did not reject kalam and combined it with the science of superior hadith and fiqh just like al-Shafi'i.

Christopher Melchert states:

Ibn Surayj himself was notably hospitable to the methods of kalam, and followers of his took up Ash'ari kalam from the very beginning. More over, it is now evident that the followers of al-Ash'ari considered him merely the first among in line of semi-rationalists going back to the ninth century, hence including most of the ninth-century Shafi'i school.

Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi is well-known to be an Ash'ari. According to [[Louis Massignon], he ran into a vicious dispute with the Hanbalis.

Abu Ishaq Shirazi, the Ash'arite rector of the Nizamiya. His forces retraction represents one episode in the struggle carried on by conservative Hanbalites against Ash'arite Shafi'ites, who got back at them five years later when Abu Ishaq Shirazi succeeded in getting Abu Ja'far Ibn Abu Musa arrested.

Similarly A. C. S. Peacock said:

This pragmatic approach was well described by Nizam al-Mulk, the Shafi'i vizier.... He had been approached by Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, the leading Ash'ari in Baghdad, complaining of the Hanbalites with whom there had been fierce clashes leading to deaths when the Ash'arite Abu Nasr al-Qushayri had been allowed to preach at the Nizamiya.

A research has been conducted on the theology of Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi. It's been published as: [13]

This research studies the theological thoughts of Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, a prominent scholar of the fifth century Hijri, with special reference to his work in this field, namely, Kitab al-Ishara ila Madhhab Ahl al-Haqq. In order to make a critical analysis of his thoughts, the researcher selects some key issues ofKitab al-Ishara, such as, the first obligation of the mukallaf, the Existence of Allah, His attributes, the relation of the attributes with the essence of Allah, and the anthropomorphic verses and traditions. The study reveals that al- Shirazi does not hold any odd or pioneer views in theology. All the views he expresses in Kitab al-Ishara are in conformity with the views of the early generation of the Ash‘arite theology. There is a misunderstanding between some scholars as to whether al-Shirazi is an adherent of the Salafism or Ash‘arism. The study gives due consideration regarding this issue and eventually arrives at a conclusion that he is an ardent follower of the Ash‘arite school based on his two works in Theology, namely Kitab al-Ishara and ‘Aqaid al-Salaf which clearly assert this point. The fatwas he issued to explain his stand on Ash‘arism also confirms his allegiance to the Ash‘arite School.

The same weak polemic source you added claim Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi was against Abu Hassan al-Ash'ari and the link also claims the Shafi'i madhab was mostly against him. Let's have a look at the horses mouth.

Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi states:

❝Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī is the Imām of Ahl al-Sunnah (People of Sunnah), and the masses of al-Shāfiʿī's Aṣḥāb (companions) are upon his doctrine, and his doctrine is the doctrine of the People of Truth.❞

Yet you created a whole section called "Ash'arite paradox" when vast majority of Shafi'is who are considered to be from the ashab unanimously embraced al-Ash'ari?

Abdullah Saeed states the following@

Malikis and Shafi'is, on the whole, became Ash'aris in theology, while a significant section of the Hanafis became Maturidis (who in many respects are similar to Ash'aris). [14]

Similarly, Henri Lauzière [15] (if you wish to know his background) states:

Most Malikis and Shafi'is were Ash'ari in creed , for instance , just as most followers of Hanbali law were also Hanbali in creed [16]

You only brought a primary source from Ibn al-Salah and his fatwa was to forbid philosophy and logic. Kalam is a seperate rational science. Al-Nawawi did not forbid kalam as I've quoted above. He put some conditions just like al-Ghazali and the same goes with Suyuti. I will be showing you from primary sources and accommodating them with secondary sources and from this should end any confusion. Al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Salah, al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti are in all agreement with regards to kalam. They did not forbid it but encourage a certain group of intellectuals to study it and to use it against those who are infected with deviance.

Al-Ghazālī says in his Wasīṭ 7/13:

❝As for Uṣūl, it isn’t individually necessary upon every person, except a correct belief in Tawḥīd and the attributes of Allāh. Then, if a doubt befalls him, he is obliged to remove it and it’s not upon him to learn Kalām, but it’s necessary that every area has a Mutakallim, occupied by warding off doubts and refuting innovations. We’ve mentioned the details in al-Iqtiṣād fī al-Iʿtiqād, as the science of Fiqh can’t accommodate its explanation.❞ [17]

Similarly, Ibn al-Salah agrees with al-Ghazali and quotes him in his commentary on Wasit. He states:

❝His (al-Ghazālī’s) statement: ‘it is not upon him to learn Kalām’ relates to his earlier statement: ‘it is not individually necessary upon every person...’ and it does not return to his statement ‘if a doubt befalls him as his doubt, if it exists in a way such that it shall not disappear except by ʿIlm al-Kalām, it is binding upon him to learn it, as he (al-Ghazālī) himself explained in other than this book (al-Wasīṭ), and Allāh knows best.❞ [18]

al-Suyuti did have a contempt feeling towards speculative theology (kalam) and pushed for strict submission (tafwid). He, however, only opposed the use of logic in the Islamic sciences. He does, however, agree with Al-Ghazali's conservative view of kalam, which states that the science should be studied by scholars who meet the necessary requirements to administer the appropriate dosages as bitter medicine to people who are in dire need.

And the same for al-Nawawi [19]

Most of your sources are either polemic or primary sources. You have made the article mostly about the views of the critics and their history related to kalam along with posting images of non-Kalam figures. Kalam and its schools have a wider history. You don't need to fill criticism in every place. There was already a section for it. It makes sense why you removed the section and filled it everywhere. The thread needs to be cleaned up for neutrality. As an editor, you must work with other editors to seek consensus as these articles are not yours to edit alone. If you take the approach of edit-warring. I will take this to the arbitrary and file a report because you have violated Wikipedia's policy but I don't prefer taking that route if the editor complies with working as a member of encyclopedia. The criticism section is full and covers most of the article. For neutrality again, I will remove scholars that are disputed. The needs major reduction and only needs to be concise. I hope we can work this through. Ayaltimo (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all.. before we going for the case, at least notice first if you have criticism for recent edits i have contributed so far. without rolling back the versions so many versions ago before we reached conclusion

This i need to inform you to provide my defense against your accusation for callimg my edits being disruptive and not adhering neutrality of wikipedia. brb your points calling my edits has pushing POV Ahendra (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

now let me address one by one

1. about about Josef van Ess

According to Josef van Ess said:

Already the Kitāb al-fiqh al-absat attributed to Abu Hanifa is composed in the form of a manual for dialectical discussion (kalam)

kalam which Josef van Ess spoke here is etymological Kalam as dialectical discussion, not Kalam as philosophy of theology

2. about Syafiq Hakim's reference which u brought in about Al-Fiqh al-Akbar

Fiqh al-Akhbar, al-Alim wa al-Muta'allim, letters to Uthman al-Buti and a paper of rejecting the thinking of Qadiriya (Islamic section that believe in supremacy of human's capability). These papers...were not fiqh but kalam (theology).

you need to provide the specific part about Syafiq Hakim's claim about the "kalam discourse" which resemble mutakallimin here.. since last time i check the page Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, its rather about Abu Hanifa largely to refuting Muʿtazila. as example... in the part where Abu Hanifa stated: ومن أنكر أن الله تعالى في السماء فقد كفر ..."Whoever denies that God Almighty is in the heavens has disbelieved." you can check the direct translation of english yourself in the translated version of Mufti Abdur-Rahman ibn Yusuf if you have access for it.

3, about Muwaffaq relates in Al-Manāqib that Abu Hafs as-Saghīr said in Muqaddimat al-Iman al-Kawthari pg 175: [20]

“Abu Hanifa studied kalam and debated people until he became proficient in it.” He also relates from Zaranjari that “Abu Hanifa would lead a class (halaqa) in kalam,” before studying under Hammad. He also relates through Harithi that Abu Hanifa said, “I was possessed of skill in theological debate, and a period of time passed [like this]…The people of argumentation and debate were [mostly] in Basra, for which I entered Basra more than twenty times. Sometimes I would stay for a year, sometimes less and other times more. I would debate the various groups of the Khawarij: the Ibadiyya, and the groups of the Hashawiyya.”

I don't think this is contradict the latest additions about how Abu Hanifa once learned Kalam before he started studying under Hammad

According to his own admission, Abu Hanifa, the founder of Hanafi school; was once observed kalam and became prominent scholar of the subject. However, he was later lost his confidence about kalam after he cannot solve the issue about Talaq (Divorce in Islam). Thus Abu Hanifah decided to completely abandon kalam and instead pursue the jurisprudence study under a tabi'un scholar named Hammad ibn Abu Sulaiman. Within the span of the rest of his life, Abu Hanifa has interractions with the following generation of kalam scholars, which causing him to grew more worse opinion about kalam, as Abu Hanifa found out they often rejecting the scripts of Qur'an and Hadith whenever it contradict with logic. From then on, the Hanafi scholars started their hostilites against the kalam scholars. Abu Yusuf, one of the best pupil of Abu Hanifa, even engaged in fierce debate against Bishr ibn Ghiyath al-Marisi, prominent mutakallim and disciple of Jahm bin Safwan.

So why not adding the reference u mentioned in Muqaddimat al-Iman al-Kawthari instead of doing major overhaul by yourself without discussion first Ahendra (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

4. about ur claim Murtada al-Zabidi in (Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin 2:14) quotes from Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Kardari’s Manaqib al-Imam al-Azam that Khalid ibn Zayd al-Amuri said [21]

“Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zufar and Hammad son of Abu Hanifa would debate people on theological issues, i.e., they would overcome their opponents for they were the Imams of the science (of theological).”

debate people on theological issues does not equalize one as Mutakallim... then for the subjective claim of Murtada al-Zabidi that Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Hanafi as Imams of the science (of theological, address the his view as personal view, since there is no contemporary evidence which support his proclaim

5. about your claim in al khattib al Baghdadi's record

• This saying indicates that he authorized the Kalam even though he himself left it because he was old. This is why he left kalam, not because he considered it a bad science.

This is your opinion, you are breaking the WP:OR policy here about Original research. you formulate your own understanding to interpret the record of al-Khattib al-Baghdadi by urself

6. about Malik Ibn Anas According to G.F. Haddad (wikilink not existed, who is this), Malik was not entirely opposed to the concept of dialectic theology; rather, Haddad notes that Malik spent "thirteen to sixteen years" studying "at the feet of Ibn Hurmuz," a master in the field.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates in his History of Baghdad in an authentic chain:[22]

• Malik Ibn Anas said: "Ibn Hurmuz was a man that I loved to emulate […]. And he was very knowledgeable in Kalām and used to refute the people of desires."

you are either not understanding Arabic or LYING here. i have checked the link: it stated

كَانَ ابْنُ هُرْمُزَ رَجُلًا كُنْتُ أُحِبُّ أَنْ أَقْتَدِيَ , بِهِ , وَكَانَ قَلِيلَ الْكَلَامِ , قَلِيلَ الْفُتْيَا شَدِيدَ التَّحَفُّظِ

literal translation

• “Ibn Hurmuz was a man…” I loved to follow his example. He was a man of few words (kalam), gave few fatwas, and was very cautious.

obviously this is talking about kalam etymologically, not kalam as scientific discourse of theology. I dont know why you are trying to either misinterpret/lying about the primary source here, but this obviously bad precedent for discussion

To be continued Ahendra (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

7, your claim Al-Shafi'i was not entirely against the science of Kalam. Rather he was against the kalam that didn't align with the Quran and Sunnah.

• Al-Shafi’i said: "Every mutakallim on the Book and Sunnah is the limit that is required"

already addressed by recent additions regarding contradiction in al-Bayhaqi and al-Razi report

Certain Shafi'ite scholars who take the stance to defend the use of kalam was Al-Bayhaqi, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. There is confusion of original al-Shafi'i's stance towards kalam as Modern western orientalist Duncan Black MacDonald reported al-Shafi'i held the view that well-taught scholars should observe kalam to defend and purify Islam, while warn the usage against common peoples. This contradictionary report about al-Shafi'i stance were traced to be the opinions of al-Bayhaqi, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Muhammad ibn Abd al-wahhab al-'Aqil, Islamic theology professor of Islamic University of Madinah and member of Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Dawah, and Guidance; has recorded that both al-Razi and al-Bayhaqi were disturbed to found out the founder of their Madhhab school, al-Shafi'i, has opposed kalam, a field which they studied upon. Thus they interpreted the words of al-Shafi'i in contradictory way.

i have addressed the statements are from the institutionalized research from those with professor titles. of course you can provide the refutation if you have source with similar degree of doctorates, from legal institutions

8. More over al-Shafi'i was a scholar of kalam in his own right who would debate with the opposition. Hafs al-Fard, who was a Mu'tazilite theologian, said about Imam al-Shafi'i after a debate:

Nothing contradicts my recent additions here with his debate against Hafs al-Fard. yet this one sided claim from Hafs al-Fard must be analyzed further, since its subjective. Ahendra (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

9. you accusing me to said Duncan Black MacDonald as non-independent. thats personal attack towards me since i never said such. there is nothing in article which accusing Duncan Black MacDonald making contradictory report. its simply misattribution from al-Bayhaqi's report as per point no. 7 which i stated above. Nothing is against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia for simply correctly attributing the original quotes to the correct author here. Muhammad ibn Abd al-wahhab al-'Aqil not mentioning Duncan Black Macdonald directly, but simply stating the notion that "al-Shafi'i was not against Kalam" are attributed to al-Bayhaqi opinion.

10. your claim from Ahmad bin Hanbal said:" we were ordered to remain silent (from Kalam) but when we were called towards kalam (based on necessity), we engaged in it." (Al-Hanabila wa ikhtilafuhum ma’a al-Salafiyya al-Mu’asira, pp. 182-183, first ed). [23].. i researched its published by https://www.darultahqiq.com/. as far as i reviewed, website anti-salafism website ran by Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed. so by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, his view should not be taken as mainstream either. instead you can state his opinion by attributing his opinion about regarding the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not to hijack and monopolize the view of others by his own lens. Ahendra (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

11. Regarding Saul Silas Fathi's claim

The criticism of Kalam from scholars was specific to the Mu'tazila, going on to claim that other historical Muslim scholars such as al-Ghazali and al-Nawawi saw both good and bad in Kalam and cautioned from the speculative excesses of unorthodox groups such as the Mu'tazila and the Jahmis. What has been forgotten today, however, by critics who would use would of earlier Imams to condemn all Kalam, is these criticism were directed against having become speculative theology at the hands of latter-day authors. Whoever believes they were directed against the aqidah or personal theology of basic tenets of faith, or discursive theology of rational Kalam arguments against heresy is someone who either does not understand critics or else is quoting them disingenuously. The author of this work is a Jewish historian, researcher and author named Saul Silas Fathi who quoted Nuh Ha Mim Keller showcasing his agreement in page 315-16 [24]

speculative, or philosophical study of Islamic theology is the instrument of Kalam, which is why i provided the section about the controversies regarding al-Ghazali and Ash'arite scholars in the view of medieval era. This is not contradict what has been stated by Jeffry R. Halverson , Ph.D., is a professor of religious studies (Islamic studies) in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Coastal Carolina, that many orthodoxy scholars has criticized the methods of Ghazali in his discourse against Mu'talizites, while he himself also using kalam in his arguments.

12. regarding your claim "The polemic website almanhaj is unreliable. All of them are noted to being Ash'aris or supporting Ash'aris". being supporting ash'aris doesnt meant it automatically reliable. bad excuse here

13. Wael Hallaq & Christopher Melchert this good addition for the case of Ibn Suraij view, so again.. why not incorporate them and instead of you self initiatively overhaul the entire article without discussions.

14. Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, lets analyze this. this is the straight words from Abu al-Abbas al-Karji, his contemporary:

Beliau tidak memasukkan mereka ke dalam golongan rekan-rekan Asy Syafi’i. Mereka menolak disamakan dengan Al Asy’ariyah. Dan dalam masalah fiqh, mereka menolak dinisbatkan kepada madzhab Al Asy’ariyah; terlebih lagi dalam masalah ushuluddin.” English: "He did not include them among Asy Syafi'i's colleagues. They refuse to be equated with Al Asy'ariyah. And in matters of fiqh, they refuse to be attributed to the Al Ash'ariyah school of thought; even more so in the matter of Usl al-Din."

So the claim was not unfounded here. Since its quoting directly from At Tis’iniyyah page 238-239 book of Ibn Taymiyya, which researched by M. Ibrahim al-Ajlan from Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University

regarding this words from the horse straightly

❝Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī is the Imām of Ahl al-Sunnah (People of Sunnah), and the masses of al-Shāfiʿī's Aṣḥāb (companions) are upon his doctrine, and his doctrine is the doctrine of the People of Truth.❞

ironically its also covered with the almhanhaj link above the same book of Ibn Taymiyya Tis'iniyyah about Abu al Hasan.. and ironically this is talking about "Abu al Hasan al-Shirazi testified that Abu al Hasan abandon ash'arites and embraching atharism on the end of his life", not about praising "Ash'arism"

if you need evidence:

"We point out here that Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari went through three stages: the stage of Mu'tazila, then following Ibn Kullab, then agreeing with the people of the Sunnah, headed by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal." Original text: وننبه هنا على أن الإمام أبا الحسن الأشعري قد مر بثلاث مراحل: مرحلة الاعتزال، ثم متابعة ابن كلاب، ثم موافقة أهل السنة، وعلى رأسهم الإمام أحمد بن حنبل .

regarding Louis Massignon and A. C. S. Peacock, those are valid secondary sources for dispute the sources from Muhammad Ibrahim al-Ajlan above in almanhaj and the quotation of at-Tis'iniyyah, so i guess it is fair to relocate Shirazi to the Ash'arite paradox section. Regarding the Mohammad Suhail E.M al-Hudawi(which i found from Hydebarad university) research which you mention above. his research hold the similar weight with Abdurrazzaq al-Badr's research above regarding the quote of al-Shirazi whether he supported Ash'arite or Atharism, by considering his two books, Al Luma’ and At Tabshirah. so i suggest it should included in the paragraph about al-Shirazi.

regarding al-Ghazali and suyuti. brb Ahendra (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

15. Regarding al-Ghazali and Suyuti, there is nothing wrong with bringing in polemical opinion as long as it is not WP:OR, and backed up by the source from third opinion which brought on by third opinion, which is Muhammad ibn Ismail Al-Amir as-San'ani. Furthermore, Tafsir al-Jalalayn work of al-Suyuti also criticized by 21th century Salafi scholar Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. in the case of al-Suyuti. Meanwhile, al-Ghazali i have covered before

16. Regarding Nawawi. dont you see Iman bint Ibrahim Al Rashid is a secondary source here?

Ahendra (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ayaltimo, what i provided from Salafi writers are point of view with their portion.. instead, you not only deleting them without considering to discuss first. but you also deleting this

Mulla Sadra, 17th AD Twelver Shia philosopher and mystic; has felt that he owed to the greek philosophy, for the development of kalam as Islamic discourse. Modern philosopher Federico Campagna has suspected the similarity between the unique cosmological kalam philosophy taught by Mulla Sadra with Hindu Vedic Upanishads philosophy. In retrospect, Muhammad Kamal from Islamic studies at the Melbourne institute has stated Mulla Sadra philosophy was influenced by Avicenna and Ibn Arabi.

Morteza Motahhari, Iranian Twelver Shia scholar and philosopher; stated that kalam science could beneficial for speech and discourse. He also proposed reason is that the name originated from the habit of its scholars of starting the discussions in their books with "al-kalamu fi kadha". Yet another reason is that people who were involved in this discipline discussed issues (and as such were involved in kalam about these issues) in which Ahl al-Hadith remained silent. Other reason of Morteza support of kalam is because its important for a mihna resulted from the discussion in this discipline of whether the Quran, which is regarded as the kalam of Allah, is created (makhluq) or not. Morteza also claimed that kalam has pre-eminent importance to the study of Hadith in Shiism.

Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian Islamic revolutionary, politician, religious leader who served as the first Supreme Leader of Iran, founder of modern day Islamic Republic of Iran and the main leader of the Iranian Revolution; has used kalam to facilitate his socio-religious revival of moral spirit of the masses. As he formulate the revolutionary system on his states building, Khomeini's political thoughts was closely linked with kalam discourse.

This is even from third non Salafi view and yet you omit the Shia perspectives too... this is what we call disruptive edits brb. Ahendra (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ahendra, our discussion wasn't about that and I have also clarified. There is no need for support section for kalam when the article is about kalam and those references you published. I have mentioned some of them in different references explaining what kalam is. I have taken historical and linguistic views from the mu'tazilla and shia prospectives on kalam. Those sources you published. I do not have an issue with them. I will re-add them in better settings but this is not what our dispute is about. Please read my concerns and evidences I put forward (below). I want our dispute resolved. Adding bias-polemics is one thing but if the content is disputed with secondary neutral sources. It shouldn't be published and I've told you the critics should be minimal. You have made the entire article about the critics and their views about kalam. This isn't neutral. Ayaltimo (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahendra You are not working with editors. Your sources are bias from Salafi writers and primary sources. I have removed them because they are disputed content. Until the matter is resolved, they cannot be reintroduced. You are pushing your own view on kalam article. This article is not yours alone to edit. I've already made neutral edits and restored deleted content you have removed without contacting other editors. You are ignoring the main part how articles are meant to be and I gave you an example. Look at Salafism, it doesn't have an Ash'ari point of view pushing in every section like you have done that with this article. I have already made a criticism section but you have made this entire article about critics and left no room about discussing kalam, it's linguistics, its origin, its definition, it's background etc. I have done that. You can have a look. Yours is only about critics. This is POV by definition and disruptive editing at best.

As for the the founders of four madhabs. You have hardly addressed anything. You have included primary sources which I have stated "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." On the disputed content, you have included Salafi writers but I have given you a primary source give you an example why it doesn't work and gave you a secondary source from the neutral historians. All you have done is played wording games. If this does not work out. I will take this to the arbitrary. You have already been warned in the past for edit warring and pushing POV. I will showcase the same mistakes you have been committing in the past.

fair point, but surely you does not differentiate between primary sources and secondary sources here regarding the matter

1. The fact that you don't even know kalam sums up our dispute. I've already explained them on kalam article. It is neither philosophy or logic. It is a distinct rational science.

"kalam which Josef van Ess spoke here is etymological Kalam as dialectical discussion, not Kalam as philosophy of theology"

what you brought out here about Josef van Ess are different contradict what Morteza Motahhari and al-shahrarashtani. it is etymological.. not the field of science in theology. you are pushing one misunderstood lines secondary source here which does not gave anything

Ahendra (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Definition of dialectical discussion:

A dialectical discussion is a reasoned exchange of ideas between people with different perspectives, where the goal is to reach the truth through logical argumentation.

This is quite literally kalam. I don't know what your attempt is but it seems like you are contributing an article you barely know about and this is quite worrying. Your here for a different purpose. To push a certain view and not stay neutral.

Which does not matched Josef van Ess's definition here, since he talked about Discourse in literal meaning, not kalam as field of science which Mutakallim studied upon regarding philosophical approach Islamic theology, just like Ibn Khaldum, al-Shahrashtani, and Morteza Motahhari's described..

Ahendra (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

2. The same issue going back to number one. You have already answered yourself. Fiqh al-Akbar is largely a refutation against Mu'tazila but it also refutes the Mujassimah. The point here it's a polemic book and Syafiq Hakim called it kalam (theology) in refutation against the Qadariyya. I don't know what you're getting at here? Both secondary source are against you and you have added unrelated content in the end.

Another western research secondary source confirming Abu Hanifa as a Mutakallim (scholar in kalam) and his surviving polemic books being scholastic theology which is the definition of kalam.

Gregory C. Kozlowski, his biography [25] states:

Abu Hanifa was a theologian (mutakalim) and his only surviving books deal with scholastic theology (kalām), not shariah.

3. Yazid bin Abdul Qadir Jawas is a Salafi and pushing a bias view. Content must be neutral because figures like Abu Hanifa and other founders of the madhab are heavily disputed. They cannot be included in the criticism section. Anyone can bring a group of scholars representing different groups to push their point of view but because the content is disputed. It's better we bring neutral references.

I will answer this two points in single sentence. like i said, this does not contradict at all that Abu Hanifah once a Mutakallimin before which mentioned by Yazid ibn Abd al-Qadir Jawas. first, Yazid Abdul Qadir Jawas only provide the quotation from Ibn Abi al-Izz's here, a medieval contemporary views regarding this matter regarding Hanafite. second, that is why we provide the point of view provided by Yazid ibn Abd al Qadir in separated section (before you revamping into "criticism"), just like how you provided Mohammad Suhail E.M al-Hudawi from Hydebarad, we can definitely say say he also biased for his Maturidi view, after i read them, brb

anyway, you also removing the neutral observer like Jeffry Halverson regarding the report about the evidence of the classical era oppositions from atharism. and also gave uncited line that the opposition only came from modern Salafi and Wahhabi, this seems like double standard of editing.

Ahendra (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We find a similar narration in the Manāqib of Al-Makkī Page 54 in which he relates that he was sitting in the circle of Hammād bin Abī Sulaymān when a woman came and asked him about issues in Fiqh, and the Imām was not able to answer as he was yet to learn Fiqh. This then became the beginning of his journey in Fiqh.

Qabīsah/Qubaysah bin ‘Uqbah states:

“Imām Abū Hanīfah may Allāh have mercy on him would first argue against the people of desire until he became a head in it (meaning in argumentation) and he would be looked at, then he left argumentation and returned to Fiqh and Sunnah where he also became an Imam.”

Note that many people like using this narration to support their claim that the Imām was opposed to Kalām. This is a desperate attempt as it does not prove anything except that the Imām left argumentation, leaving argumentation does not mean he opposed argumentation or thought it was incorrect, he simply retired from the rhetoric.

This is not solely the reason why Abu Hanifah opposed kalam scholars, like i said before

However, even after Abu Hanifa left this rhetoric, he still would return to it occasionally as has been narrated in Kashf al-Āthār as-Sharīfah and Manāqib Abī Hanīfah of Az-Zaranjarī: [26]

Hammād bin Abī Hanīfah said, “A person of Ghīlān came to Kūfah from Shām and we debated him, and we could not bring down his statements so the companions of Abū Hanīfah gathered up together and entered upon him (Abū Hanīfah) so Abū Hanīfah said:

“I have left ‘Ilm al-Kalām”

Regarding Abu Yusuf. Abū Hanīfah also said in his Wasiyyah to Qādhī Abū Yūsuf on point 26: “It is upon you to speak/debate the masses about the religion with Kalām.”

source? Ahendra (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all primary sources. However, I'm showing you different sides so it's better to understand them inclusively instead of making assumptions and using bias critics. What matters is I have given you secondary sources from neutral historians and they mention otherwise.

It is not unintuitive to provide secondary sources while providing the context explained by said source regarding the primary source meaning. Ahendra (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

4. "debate people on theological issues does not equalize one as Mutakallim... then for the subjective claim of Murtada al-Zabidi that Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad al-Hanafi as Imams of the science (of theological, address the his view as personal view, since there is no contemporary evidence which support his proclaim"

This is quite literally your view and this is violating original research. Murtada al-Zabidi referred to him as a leader in theological discourse. This makes him an Imam of the Mutakallimin but I've already brought a neutral reference that states the obvious. He was a Mutakallim.

5. The part you're quoting about al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. I cut it out and even mentioned [....]. Did it fly over your heard? Scroll further down. It mentions Ibn Hurmuz a tabi'in, was knowledgeable in kalam and would refute people of desires.

You obviously contradict your own link here. by pushing your meaning of the quote meaning Ibn Hurmuz as "Kalam scholar", while your link didnt said it, only saying "Ibn Hurmuz was a man with few words" Ahendra (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I quoted a secondary source from Gibril Haddad and I do not wish to publish him on the article. I'm giving you a different view why the content is disputed and needs to be removed.

Then why not incorporate his views like other here? if he has title of at least doctorate peerage then it would be good to addition for this article. th

6. Addressing number seven. You accused of al-Razi and al-Bayhaqi of being shocked to see the statements of al-Shafi'i criticizing kalam. According to a bias source from a specific group with anti-Kalam tendencies? You cannot make a section that is pro-kalam because this article is about kalam but nevertheless, that section did not show any pro. You still put bias sources and put down the pro view. This is literally disruptive editing. This is not neutral at all and you have deleted a section and moved these sources around. I have restored the original content. Seek consensus before you make such changes.

like i said Im not accusing al-Razi and al-Bayhaqi, but its Muhammad ibn Abd al-wahhab al-'Aqil, Abu al-Yazid al-'Ajami, and Ahmad Farid's. The sources is checkable and clear, about the pages too, along with their quotation of al-Bayhaqi and al-Razi. if there is link to dispute them, i dont mind to add them. if im pushing biased view like you said, surely i will remove Duncan Macdonald. Instead im just addressing the confusion and updating and reimproving Duncan Macdonald's statement before adding the contradicting opinions. what are you doing is Wikipedia censorship here Ahendra (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already given you a primary source suggest whenever al-Shafi'i criticized kalam. He was referring to deviants and this is according to Zakariyya al-Saji, the student of al-Muzani, al-Buwayti and Abu Thawr. I also brought a direct student of al-Shafi'i. I will quote myself again.

Similarly Ibn Asakir narrates in his Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī, Zakariyyā al-Sājī (d. 307), the narrator of al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204) criticizing “Kalām”, explained that what he meant was the Qadariyyah, and not Sunnī Kalām. [27]

Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā (al-Shāfiʿī's student) narrated al-Shāfiʿī speaking against Kalām. Yūnus then said that by “Kalām”, al-Shāfiʿī meant Kalām of the people of desires.” [28]

This is why secondary sources mention differently to what you're misquoting:

Al-Shafi'i's attitude towards tasawwuf was as strict as with kalam, and he both praised it and denigrated its abuse at the hands of corrupters. [29]

An additional secondary source. This work's author, Saul Silas Fathi, is a Jewish historian, researcher, and writer. On page, he quotes Nuh Ha Mim Keller, demonstrating his agreement.

The criticism of Kalam from scholars was specific to the Mu'tazila, going on to claim that other historical Muslim scholars such as al-Ghazali and al-Nawawi saw both good and bad in Kalam and cautioned from the speculative excesses of unorthodox groups such as the Mu'tazila and the Jahmis. What has been forgotten today, however, by critics who would use would of earlier Imams to condemn all Kalam, is these criticism were directed against having become speculative theology at the hands of latter-day authors. Whoever believes they were directed against the aqidah or personal theology of basic tenets of faith, or discursive theology of rational Kalam arguments against heresy is someone who either does not understand critics or else is quoting them disingenuously. [30]

The above sums up perfectly on the founders and scholars of the Salaf negative views on kalam. They were not against the science itself. They were against the hand of corrupters who they deem to be innovators. You're using bias-polemic sources and primary sources to push one view and that's not how it works. So for the sake of neutrality, the disputed content shall not be re-added and the criticism section must be reduced regardless. It's way too long and covers most of the page on kalam. This article is about kalam, not about their critics. I hope you get that.

As your claim for Imam Ahmad. The website don't matter, it's the book Al-Hanabila wa ikhtilafuhum ma’a al-Salafiyya al-Mu’asira authored by a Hanbali scholar. I only showed its primary but why did you ignore the secondary western reference that states the samething? I will quote myself again.

Similarly a secondary source reports this. Duncan Black MacDonald states the Hanbali school and followers of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal would generally avoid kalam and philosophical talk all together, seeing it as an innovation, and only address it out of necessity.

I do not want to incorporate Wael Hallaq & Christopher Melchert. This is to correct your unreliable websites. I have explained to you through reputable sources that al-Ash'ari was unanimously accepted by Shafi'is and Malikis and so the Ash'arite paradox section must be removed. I will add a general neutral historic period about kalam. Not everything is about their opponents. You can do that somewhere else. So far everything you have done is described as disruptive editing. Please look how I set up the article. You are not following the neutral guidelines. If you persist, I will take it up with arbitrary. You have been warned in the past for similar issues. Continuing this behaviour could lead to your ban so first seek consensus and do not edit war. Ayaltimo (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References