Talk:Muhammad Abduh

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

"I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." — Muhammad Abduh

The source for this quote is just a link to a different article using the quote un-sourced, does anyone know of a better source for this quote? It gets attributed to Abduh frequently but I've never seen it in any of his writings and all resources I've dug up with some preliminary googling just attribute it to Abduh without a source as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.123.26.42 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Should explain how he was seen as being a modernizing reformer of Islam in his day, but now the Muslim Brotherhood lays claim to be the heirs of Abduh... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

204.191.130.148 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

There is something odd in the similarity between this sentence, at the bottom of the political views section:

>>It is a surprising information that Hanna Abi Rashid, then chief of the masonic lodge in Beirut, wrote in the book "Da’irat al-ma’arif al-Masoniyya" that "Jamal ad-Din Afghani was the chief of the masonic lodge in Egypt, which had about three hundred members, mostly scholars and state officials." [25]

and this sentence in the page on Mohammed Abduh, at the end of the biography section:

>>It is a surprising information that Hanna Abi Rashid, then chief of the masonic lodge in Beirut, wrote in the book "Da’irat al-ma’arif al-Masoniyya" that "Muhammad Abduh was one of the leading names of the masonic lodge in Egypt, which had about three hundred members, mostly scholars and state officials." [9]

I don't have access to the book (and can't read Arabic), but it seems odd to me that the author would write almost the exact same thing about Afghani and Abduh in almost identical words. The only difference in wording is that Afghani is said to have been chief of the Masonic lodge and Abduh is said to have been a leading member. Is the reference accurate? Is the book reliable? That is, should we trust that Afghani and Abduh were Masons?

I recommend that the lines on the Masonic lodge be deleted in both articles unless the source can be verified and someone can explain why this "surprising information" is relevant.

I also posted this comment on the page for Afghani.

Update: Ok, no reply in 24 hours, so I'll take out that line. 204.191.130.148 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Kno Inres[reply ]

@User:CheckDigit1 and @DA1, the issue with freemasonry is simple. We have some sources which attribute the subject of this article to freemasonry. Thus, the most neutral wording is indeed "According to some sources" because that's a statement of fact.
Now, did Abduh ever attribute himself positively to freemasonry? I don't know. If a reliable source can be found in which he states that himself, then it can be written as a simple fact here on the encyclopedia. If he didn't openly declare himself a member, then we revert to the factual statement "According to some sources." That's the simplist way to deal with this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The minor changes I made to this article have been repeatedly reverted for no good reason. I was accused of "obvious POV pushing" by @User:MezzoMezzo despite making my changes in good faith.

The only amendment I made was to change the denomination and movement of Abduh from "Islam" to "Salafism". This I believe is a more accurate reflection of Abduh's personal views. I base this on 2 points:

Firstly, there is ample evidence from neutral sources that Abduh referred to himself and his movement as Salafi. For example, we have the following:

"Muhammad Abduh referred to his movement as Salafi, with an agenda of confronting Western imperialism and reforming Islamic Society at once. Abduh argued that the early generations of Muslims (al-salaf al-salihin) had produced a vibrant civilization" Chris Heffelfinger, Radical Islam in America: Salafism's Journey from Arabia to the West, Chapter 2, p.3

"Muhammad Abduh as the key figure of the modernist Salafiya movement" and "Like other reformers of his time, 'Abduh argues for a return to the "simple" and "pristine" Islam of the salaf" The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics, p 33

"A thorough report into the historical development of these factions would necessarily begin with a careful analysis of the links between the indigenous Egyptian Salafi movement of Abduh and Rida" Richard Gauvain, Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God, p 33

Secondly, as mentioned in my original edit, The wikipedia article on Salafism also states that Abduh was a salafi. There needs to be consistency between articles.

As a final point, Salafism (like most movements) is not a monolithic blob. I have no doubt that Abduh's brand of Salafism is rather different to somebody like Bin Baz. This does not however diminish the fact that he is Salafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.245.13 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't accuse you of POV pushing for noting that Abduh's movement was Salafism; I made no issue of Abduh being added to the Salafism template, for example. I accused you of doing so for describing Salafism as a denomination when no major scholarly sources consider it a denomination separate from Sunni, and you have been pushing a number of contentious edits across related articles. Furthermore, it is known that Abduh was also a major thinker within the Islamic modernism movement.

While it is still apparent to me that your behavior across multiple articles IS a form of subtle POV pushing, I can concede that Salafism should be in the infobox but not as a denomination, because it isn't one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, but you made the allegation of POV pushing in the Abduh article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Abduh&diff=prev&oldid=581579510. I do not appreciate you making claims like this against me. As I mentioned previously, my edits were made in good faith.

Further, I have never stated that the salafi group is separate from Sunni Islam. This is another false claim you have made against me. I consider the salafi group to be a branch of Sunni Islam.

If I were to describe an individual as being a part of the "Church of England" it does not diminish the fact that the individual is still "Protestant".

Likewise, the fact that I listed Abduh as a Salafi does not mean that I consider him a non-Sunni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.52.147 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I saw this coming.

1. I know I accused you of POV pushing at that article. I didn't deny that I did, I was simply correcting you on the reason.

2. I never accused you of stating that the Salfi group was outside of Islam, my issue - as I stated very clearly - was that you listed it as a denomination in your first edit, which you didn't do in your second. I know that you're trying to play games here to paint me as the one making false accusations but the time stamps of the various edits - which I am ready to bring up - show otherwise.

Look, I know what you're doing and I'm not going to go through all the motions of using kiddie gloves. You're an obvious POV pusher using dishonest tactics and language in order to malign your interlocutor and it isn't going to work. It's one thing to be new and unfamiliar with site policy, but you're manipulating. You don't have to admit it, but I've dealt with it enough times for the past seven years to smell it from a mile away.

I'm watching the related articles as well as your IP address, and I will be looking out for any other IP addresses or new accounts which pop up here. You want to do things this way, be my guest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I take issue with you accusing me of being a POV pusher.

You made the following statement above:

"I accused you of doing so for describing Salafism as a denomination when no major scholarly sources consider it a denomination separate from Sunni"

I stated that I do not consider Salafism to be seperate from Sunni Islam. I consider Salafism to be part of Sunni Islam. How can that possibly be POV?

As mentioned, I don't appreciate the fact that you keep calling me a POV pusher or using "dishonest tactics". I made my edits in good faith and am hoping to add value to Wikipedia. 86.163.52.147 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

In this edit at 20:48, 13 November 2013, you categorized Salafi as a denomination, creed and movement. That alone isn't much; it's all your edits across several articles as well as your behavior. Sorry, but I don't take the "in good faith" thing seriously, especially by someone dodging a block by using multiple IP addresses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I have nothing more to say on the issue. I am not a POV pusher. If you think otherwise then that is entirely up to you.86.163.52.147 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I see no reason for the Salafism template thing, since nothing in the article mentions salafism, so it looks out of place. He might have used "salafi" in a dictionary sense, but his thought and teachings have nothing to do with anything known as salafist. Mercster (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

According to Juan R. I. Cole in A Dialogue on the Baha'i Faith, p. 8 (http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/articles/A-E/cole/abduh/abduh2.gif) we read that "Abduh's admiration for Abdul Baha'i and the Baha'i movement was very great, at least as of 1897, and it is difficult to believe that he was uninformed about the nature of the Baha'i faith"

I have reverted changes to the opening text to reflect this. RookTaker (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

As far as I can tell, Islamic modernism grew out of the early Salafi movement, which later became more conservative in nature. In any case, Abduh's connection with both movements is well-documented and both should therefore be mentioned. (If anything, by the standards of WP:RS the sourcing for Salafi is of better quality.) HGilbert (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. — iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 02:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]