Talk:Shah Waliullah Dehlawi

Cherry-picked section

Hello, I have removed some cherry-picked sections from the subject.

On Divine Attributes

There is a new section titled "On Divine Attributes" added by User:Shadowwarrior8 who has been blocked several times by different admins: Diannaa, Cabayi, & Mz7.

This user is only interested in preaching for the Salafi-Wahhabi beliefs and ideas. I wrote to him in the edit summary (here) to rewrite this section again in order to comply with the policy of neutrality, but he came back again and added it in the same way without attributing the words to their source, because it is a controversial opinion that contradicts most sources, including Shah Waliullah Dehlawi himself, and so-called Shadowwarrior8 knows it!

Shah Waliullah considers himself a Hanafi/Shafi'i, Ash'ari, Sufi. He described himself in his own words as: "al-Ash'ari in 'aqida, al-Sufi in tariqa, al-Hanafi by way of practice, al-Hanafi and al-Shafi'i in terms of teaching. The servant of Tafsir, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic, Kalam..." [See: Shah Waliullah Ijazah: Hanafi, Ashari, Sufi] There are other sources found in the article.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but please keep an eye on the contributions of this user Shadowwarrior8 (talk • contribs) Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of "Salafi-Wahhabism" and other dog-whistles isnt in accordance with Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. The sources are well attributed and include quotations of Shah himself from his own book. Maybe you have a different personal opinion, but Wikipedia is not censored. (talk)

- Thank you.

--Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:03 pm, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the whole views section is incomprehensible. It should be deleted and rewritten based on high-level scholarly sources, like textbooks or encyclopedia articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia article on Shah Waliullah Dehlawi is better sourced. Please go there and if you don't speak Arabic, then you can translate the content by Google Translate. I am pretty sure he's fluent in Arabic and will know what I am talking about! Just as I am sure that the content he added here will be deleted sooner or later! Let's wait and see.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree as well. It has just become a pool of quotes. Some of them needs to be re-written and add some enyclopeadic refs. ~~ --Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 2:54 am, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In accordance with the recommendations of TheEagle107 I have attempted to accurately put forth the ideas of Shah Waliullah himself sourcing his own words and not leaving out information, also in respect to the Arabic version of the page. I am 100% open to discussion on how I can improve this section or any recommendations from fellow editors, but I hope that we can remain civil and represent scholars in accordance with their actual opinions rather than anachronistic labels like "salafi" and "wahhabi" which barely existed at the time of Shah Waliullah. I would like someone to update the infobox, however, as it still lists him as being of the "Salafi [and Wahhabi] movement" as well as "Athari" under creed. Thanks -- Probuddho (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

shah waliullah

Father of shah waliullah 43.242.177.49 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Lock this page

Some lying salafi-wahhabis keep trying to make this guy into Athari, which is a fine creed, although not true of Shah Waliullah, but somehow they assume he also was an antropomorphist like Ibn Taymiyyah. They keep on relying on A C Brown's biased wahhabi view and rejecting his widespread acceptance in Ash'ari/Matuiridi circles.

This whole page needs to be remade and more in line with the reliable Arabic page. 213.89.49.142 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I have done my best to do that, I hope it looks satisfactory and still retains a balanced approach. Please check the section again and let me know your thoughts. Probuddho (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Continuation from the talk page here

@Probuddho The sources you inserted were primary, polemical sources; unreliable in wikipedia standards. "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Despite your personal opinion, the sources you inserted are simply not reliable. Furthermore, you deleted secondary, academic, published references of the last, stable version and inserted polemical sites in its place; which constitute nothing other than disruptive editing. Despite receiving a warning about it in the edit summary here, you chose to simply continue the disruptive activity instead of discussing about it in the talk page.

The reversions I did were all about undoing the disruptive edits and/or sourced content removal taking place in this article; by various IPs & newcomers. Such as this, where an IP altered content in the creed column from "Ash'ari" --->"Athari". And in your case, removing reliable references and altering sourced content.

A piece of quote you cited from a primary source means nothing to advance your assertions; since your personal opinion on what that quote suggests is only original research. Even the source itself doesnt suggest that the scholar permitted the view on "ta'wil" because his statements in the preceding paras contradict your claims. Either way, you have no secondary sources backing that the scholar himself believed what you claim; and unless you provide a reliable, secondary reference, these claims are POV or original research. On the other hand, the sourced content here, which states "On the nature of Divine Attributes, Shah Waliullah rejected the Ash'ari view" is clearly backed up by reliable, academic sources. It doesnt say he "rejected Ash'arism" itself as you claimed; it states that he differed with the Ash'ari position on Divine Attributes. This is supported by multiple, reliable sources.

An editor's activity is only to paraphrase contents from secondary, reliable sources. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources I used contained entirely reliable information, and more accurately reflected the Arabic Wikipedia version of the page (as was requested by other user's concerns). I deny that them in and of themselves were problematic when considering the material which they displayed (which was valid). Furthermore, it is clear that Shah Waliullah permitted ta'wil, as obvious from his own statements, which are in the article. Moreover, absolutely the source itself does suggest what the scholar believed in his own words. This is attested not only by his own words, but by a reliable book, of which the source you removed (Mohammad Sharif Khan, Mohammad Anwar Saleem (1994). Muslim Philosophy and Philosophers. Ashish Publishing House. p. 25). As such, the sources are in line with the policies and principles of Wikipedia, as a Secondary source was included to verify this interpretation. These claims were not of "original research" nor were they my own claims, but the claims of many. Furthermore, it is quite odd that if Shah Waliullah was such a staunch "Athari" and entirely opposed to ta'wil, that he would one, permit it in his own book on Aqidah, which you conveniently only left the first section of in, of which I had to add the rest (not accusing you of anything, just observing this), and two, his direct students, (eg., Murtada al-Zabidi) would remain Maturidi and Ash'ari in creed, not at all rejected or condemned by their teacher. But that delves into my own argumentation, regardless, it is clear from the scholar's own quotation, that he did not reject ta'wil, but rejected the idea that ta'wil is qati' (definitive) rather than dhanni (purely speculative), which is in line with the opinion of the Ash'airah and Maturidiyyah (anyone who has a basic knowledge of both is well aware of this). Anyways, I'm not going to edit back and forth with you (I only reverted changes once and will not go past that), and I will leave it to other Wikipedia users to utilize best judgement and seek to uphold the standards of truth herein. The point of this reply was simply to clear myself of any accusations (all of which I deny), and to promote good faith practise and respectful discussion. Good day. -- Probuddho (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The source (Khan, Saleem, 1994) only describes Shah Waliullah Dehlawi as an Ash'ari and doesnt reference anything regarding his stance on Divine Attributes. So you're making up your own opinion of that source. Moreover, the sub-section was not regarding which school of theology the scholar adhered to. The content was regarding his specific beliefs on Divine Attributes.

With regards to his stance on "ta'wil", you still haven't brought reliable, secondary sources to backup your claims. The claims you make by bringing up random quotes from primary sources are simply POV or original research. "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 other hand, there are multiple reliable, secondary sources backing up the longstanding contents in the sub-section, which explains that Shah Waliullah Dehlawi rejected speculative interpetation of Divine Attributes. For example:

Like Ibn Taymiyya, he [Shah Waliullah Dehlawi] rejected the speculative theology of Ash‘ari and advocated the straightforward acceptance of God’s description of Himself.

Removal of this information and insertion of original research amounted to nothing other than disruptive editing and sourced content removal. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The Edit-warring needs to stop, with due respect

Good morning,

I would like to request User:Hightjack and others who have continued to mess with the labelling of Shah Waliullah as "Ash'ari" to cease their meddling with the page's current state. The source is academic and totally suitable and thus there is no need to continuously go back and forth on this matter. It is established. I say this with humility, that when something is so well known and attested to by good sources, it comes off rather childish to continue to try and dispute it.

Thanks,

- Probuddho (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)