Content deleted Content added
Line 560: [[User:Saheehinfo|Saheehinfo]]: Once again you have proved you are editing based upon agenda—not facts:<br>1) for some strange reason you removed the sentence about taymiyya comparing Mawlid to Christmas, even though this sentence was never an issue in our consensus debate. Yet in your edit summary you seem to have included it in the debate. Could you please explain yourself?<br>2) you want to cry NPOV and consensus when you are proving to be much less neutral and consensus-seeking. You blatantly lie when you restore your edit that claims taymiyya didn't consider Mawlid haram. The very Katz source that is quoted in the article section explicitly says he considered it sinful innovation. He considers Mawlid itself to be haram, but he conditioned his opposition with regard to one's intention. You have no shame in removing this edit yet retaining the Katz source.<br>While I still strongly disagree with the broader edit I have offered a compromise edit that keeps your information about the "complexity" of taymiyya's ruling and excludes my insistence on differentiating between the learned and unlearned. This is as far as I'm willing to go to accommodate your subjective editing; however, I most certainly won't accept the propagation of blatantly false information—whether you cry consensus or not. [[User:Mawlidman|Mawlidman]] ([[User talk:Mawlidman|talk]]) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC) :{{ping|Mawlidman}}. Per [[WP:BRD]] I reverted the section on Ibn Taymiyya's views to the consensus version. When we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since [[WP:TALKEDABOUTIT|Consensus can change]]. I have explained this a number of times before, yet you keep changing the consensus version without getting agreement from other editors. This will inevitably lead to edit warring. Look, spending a few days getting this right will ensure that the article is accurate and avoid edit warring in the future. Additionally, [[WP:NORUSH|there is no rush]]. :As I mentioned before, there is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mawlid&oldid=640870763 Jan 2015] as follows: :''The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"'' :Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341. :It was added by user {{ping|Thehistorian1984}} over a year ago and explicitly states that Ibn Taymiyya did not consider the Mawlid haram (forbidden). Now, if you think this is a lie you either: * Don't think that this is in the source * Think the source is unreliable :Either way, you need to explain why you think this source is unacceptable. :The source which you have provided uses the term "sinful". Does this equate to haram? Possibly, or possibly not - it could mean makruh (disliked) which actually ties in with the current version. :I have highlighted before that in addition to the source you have provided there are a number of sources dealing with the subject of Ibn Taymiyya's views on the Mawlid such as: *''The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.'' * Mark Woodward, ''Java, Indonesia and Islam,'' Springer Science and Business * Raquel M. Ukeles, ''Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss'', BRILL :We need to use all of these sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. Also, you haven't yet answered my points in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMawlid&type=revision&diff=713745928&oldid=713621800 above discussion]. Does that mean that you agree with me? :Finally, stop making abusive statements such as "You blatantly lie when you restore your edit", "your subjective editing" and "Once again you have proved you are editing based upon agenda" as these are [[WP:PERSONAL|personal attacks]] and I will report you. [[User:Saheehinfo|Saheeh Info]] 07:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) | |||