Talk:Muwatta Imam Malik

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Hadith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hadith task force. defunct .Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

	Books

Hi, I edited this page due to mistakes on it (e.g. identifing the Muwatta as a collection of hadiths, which it is not). The changes I made were factual. MezzoMezzo, may I ask why it was reverted? I also added "Prophet" in front of Muhammad (saw), and added "alongside the Qur'an", because the article was quite deceptively written to support the claim of Schacht and co, that the Quran was not important in early Muslim law. Before you revert it back, can you please tell me what your disagreement is? Imam Malik (ra) did not compile the Muwatta as a hadith collection, but as a statement of the law of Medinah, that is the important point that I am making. - Ibn al Hakim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al Hakim (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added information with referencing and tidied up what other people had written (e.g. capital letters, proper english grammar), added references section. --Ibn al Hakim (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muwatta is not a collection of hadith? In al-Risalah al-Mustatrafah, al-Kattani, the author, discusses whether or not it is more authentic then Bukhari and Muslim, hence referring to it in the same category as two books which are clearly collections of hadith. If you think it contains too many fiqh ruling to be considered a collection of hadith look at any of the Six Books for comparison. Supertouch (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaad Iko recently added a lot of material praising the book as the BEST collection of hadith. I'm worried that this might be read as endorsing the Maliki school of shari'a. I'd appreciate it if other users could look over the additions and perhaps tone them down a little. Zora (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I couldn't find any sentence where I have written that Muwatta is the BEST collection of hadith. Please point out the same. If you do a ctrl+F there are only two uses of the word BEST in the article, and none of them says it is the best (one edit done by someone before me says that it is Malik's best work, not best across Hadith collections). Shaad lko (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our (hanafi) teachers inform us the muwatta is the best book upon the land after the Quran. There is nothing pro-maliki by saying such. Malik’s superiority in Hadith is a demonstrated one. 216.165.209.246 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still only praise for the Muwatta and none of the criticism that I believe other schools leveled at it. I would have to review my scholarly books on hadith, but I believe that the other schools saw the Muwatta as having defective isnads. I recall dimly one of the academic sources as saying that Western academics do not regard this as a defect ... the whole apparatus of the isnad was developed later, and is no guarantee of authenticity. A scholar who was fabricating a hadith would make sure that it had an impeccable isnad.

A balanced view of the Muwatta would require excerpts of criticism of the text, from other schools, as well as comments from Western academics. At present, the article is one-sided. I would like to correct it, but I am short on time right now, AND I haven't read the latest material from the Western academic tradition. I hope someone else can correct the bias, at least until I can make time for researching and editing. Zora (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a criticism section - hopefully someone more knowledgable can come across and put it right. I will also try to improve it over the next few days. Also, the criticism section is not there in Sahih Bukhari either. Shaad lko (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC

Yes, it would be a good idea to make sure that ALL the major hadith collections had criticism sections. I wish I had time.

The rivalry between various schools still exists today, but it is weaker than it was in the past. I remember reading with horror an account in which one Iranian Muslim opened the gates of his city to the Mongols because he was angry at a rival school of jurists that had won the support of the local ruler. (Sorry, this was a long time ago, can't dig up citation.) Zora (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point, but still these are articles on the Books, maybe we can have greater criticism in the articles on the schools themselves:

Hanbali or a comparison between those four..Shaad lko (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I left the first link because it's the complete text. There was one link that was merely one page of fulsome praise for the text. An anon recently added two pages that were simply search pages for the text. Pointless, because you can easily search the full text online at the first link. I suspect the two new links were added simply to drive traffic to the site. Zora (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Matn Ibn Ashir المرشد المعين على الضروري من علوم الدين - متن ابن عاشر.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]