Talk:Hanif

Musaylimah as Hanif (?)

Please provide a source for the idea that Musaylimah was known as a "Hanif". This page is in the category of Islamic pages (see subtitle for page: Islamic belief) and will give the Islamic meaning as the primary one. The information added by Bulgarios (talk) has been relegated to a second paragraph.

there is no source. The source given don't support that. I have added this page to my watchlist. I will try improving the article in the meantime.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Banu Hanifa tribe and Hanif are totally different things. LOL.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Heavy POV Bias

Apart from the current lead sentence, this article is heavily biased from the Islamic POV. A more neutral approach would be to construct the article around the Banu Hanifa movement mentioning prominent Hanifs and references to narrations about them while expressing the Islamic point of view by comparing and contrasting. Bulgarios (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please do not remove the POV tag until consensus has been achieved.Bulgarios (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarios There is no argument here. Bring reliable sources to support your claim. I feel you are confusing the tribe of Bani Hanifa with the Hanif religion.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove the POV tag again. Bulgarios (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarios you need to put a valid reason for the POV. That's according to the policy.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Heavy Islamist/Muhammedan Bias is a valid reason to raise an objection.Bulgarios (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason and not what the policy says. You didn't provide an example of heavy bias.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Bulgarios (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Censoring [1] all mention of Maslamah bib Habib (derogatorily referred to as Musaylimah) and the Banu Hanifa is a perfect example of POV Bias. Bulgarios (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Show me one source that gives any relationship between Musaylimah and Hanifism.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I did by highlighting the sources that you censored. Bulgarios (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Non of the sources support your claim. Musylimah has nothing to do with Hanif except that his tribe has similar name(which is a common name in the Arab word like "Abu Hanifa"). I am done.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Abu Hanifa, other Hanafists and Hanafism have nothing to do with Hanifs and Hanifism. Fare well. Bulgarios (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Per: Eric Orlinq, Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions, Routledge, 2015. ISBN 1134625596. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging Jingiby, I used the term "Pagan Monotheist" as a summary of the paragraph at the top of page 386 of the source you provided.Bulgarios (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Bulgarios Could you bring me one source that says that Musylimah was Hanif? let me simplify confusing things for you.

1. Hanifa is a common name among Arabs.
2. Banu Hanifa tribe is descended from someone called Hanifa Ibn Lujim Ibn Sa'ab Ibn Bakr Ibn Wail Ibn Qasit Ibn Hanab Ibn Afsa Ibn Judilah Ibn Assad Ibn Rabia Ibn Nizar Ibn Ma'ad Ibn Adnan.
3. Musylimah is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa
4. Hanif is a term that is mentioned in the Quran and has nothing to do with the aforementioned tribe and was to describe the religion of Abraham/Ibrahim.
5. Musylimah has nothing to do with Hanif religion he is just from the tribe of Banu Hanifa.
6. The Banu Hanifa tribe has nothing to do with Hanif religion.

Jingiby what do you want to say here? What that reference suppose to say?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think, this description is enough neutral for usual readers. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That information is already in the "Etymology and history of the term" section. The problem here is Musylimah and linking him to Hanif religion because "if I googled Hanif and Musylimah I find sources" but these sources don't say he is a Hanif but he is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa which literally has nothing to do with Hanif religion.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, do you have any objection to the source [2] concerning Musaylimah which Sharabs removed from the article? Bulgarios (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The publisher is not Academic one. Jingiby (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG, how can someone say that?!!!! I am shocked that there is a source that says that. Wait it's a self-published source? Even if it's a self-published source I can't believe someone would say something obviously not true like that. Maybe the author used Wikipedia as a source. I don't know.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As much as I can understand, this issue is complicated. More info here on pp. 68-69. Jingiby (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really complicated but it is complicated. In any case it has nothing to do with Musylimah.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Jingiby but we were to remove every non academic source from Wikipedia we would be in trouble. Let's keep looking. There is no smoke without fire. I like the new ref you found although i don't like the confusion in spelling since Hanafism is usually the spelling used for the Hanafi Madhab. Of course there is room for a little sloppiness here and there but it would be good to try and find out which is the majority spelling usage and which is the minority spelling usage. Bulgarios (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarios, Bulgarios. Why are you ignoring me? I told you it's not just non-acadamic it's a self-publishing company see their website https://www.balboapress.com/en . It's like Facebook post or Twitter or any self-publishing source. It absolutely weight nothing in wikipedia. There is no such relationship between Musylimah and Hanif. Musylimah is from the tribe of Banu Hanifa and that has nothing to do with Hanif religion. The source that Jingiby gave doesn't add another to your argument. It's about how Hanif turned into Christianity or Judaism and when. Which is something undisputed.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your recent edit here [3] demonstrates very well indeed that you are way to emotiinally involved with protecting the heavy Islamist/Muhammedan POV bias for me to feel it is worth my time to even try to respond efficiently. My fundamental position is that the Islamist POV bias is a problem. Yours is thag it isn't. We are never going to agree on that until you either abandon your religion or convert me to it. Take care. Bulgarios (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarios What?? That wasn't even a point of view I was trying to respose to that source. In any case I have removed it!! Lol, this is actually funny. You failed to bring any source to support your claim except a self-publishing source so there is no POV therefore there is no reason for the tag and by the way please stop these personal attacks. Comment on the topic not the editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)