Talk:Al-Milal wa al-Nihal

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is true that the book is not about Sunni Islam, but it is written from a Sunni pov, and those are the articles in those categories. peace. --Striver 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it's written from a Sunni POV? --Bluerain ^talk 09:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is writen by

Muhammad al-Shahrastani. --Striver 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

So he could not have written from a neutral POV? --Bluerain ^talk 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that his article presents him as an Islamic scholar. --Striver 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, does that rule out the fact that he could write from a neutral POV? Alternatively, consider that his article also says the book is 'non-polemical'. --Bluerain ^talk 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its, not impossible, but its probable. The book is under the "Islamic literature" category and List of Sunni books is simply a list. How big is the probability that a 12th century religious book will be NPOV? 0?--Striver 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason why this book is renowned is because its written from a NPOV; it presents a historical and philosophical study of religions without critically analysing them. That's why its taken to be one of the earliest books written on comparative religion. Why else do you think the UNESCO would sponsor its translation, were it just a 12th century religious book? Besides, I don't know where you're getting the "Sunni POV" from? Whether Shahrastani was a Sunni or not is disputed in the first place. --Bluerain ^talk 16:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he most definitely was not Shi'a. With NPOV i mean that i presume that the book states that God exists, that Muhammad was the prophet of God and avoided statements that would cause his contemporaries to accuse him of apostasy. --Striver 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He most definitely was not Shia"? I guess then, that you haven't read much on Shahrastani. The rest of your comment, I don't know what you're talking about. This book gives a general account of all religions that existed upto his time. Like, say, an encyclopedia does. Where does the question of denying God's existence and apostasy come from? --Bluerain ^talk 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the whole point of NPOV. You don't see wikipedia state the existence of God as factual. If it would, it would be religious literature. Same with other issues, a encyclopedia that accepts basic tenets of Islam is a Islamic literature. --Striver 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias do not have to accept or deny anything. They are just a collection of all existing knowledge. This book was, in the same vein, a collection of the "doctrinal opinions of all the world's people". It does not accept or deny basic tenets of any religion. It just states what they are. --Bluerain ^talk 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, the burden of proof is on you if you want something to be included in the article, so till this issue is settled, I'm removing your additions. --Bluerain ^talk 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the "islam-book-stub" and "List of Sunni Books" and "Category of Islamic Books". All these are relevant here to jump start this stub and expand it. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Sunni book on Islamic studies and its wrong to categorise it strictly under Islamic literature. You don't put tags that are irrelevant just to jumpstart a stub. --Bluerain ^talk 08:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]