| Revision as of 02:04, 26 July 2008 editOgress (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers51,288 edits →Unprotect: Thank you for putting this poll up.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:10, 26 July 2008 edit undoOgress (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers51,288 edits →Request for Unblock Denied, No Consensus: Already in action.Next edit → | ||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
| :Well, considering I'm not remotely an expert in Druze studies, all I can think of at the moment is...think about this, rhetorically: What were their arguments? Did they have references to back up what they said? It may be somewhat difficult, but it might be possible to document the different positions based on what's already been discussed, despite the fact that the users who discussed the rebuttal have been banned. In addition to that, the article could be listed to request experts on the subject. Credible editors. When an editor unethically circumvents the Misplaced Pages processes through acts such as sock puppetry, it seems to me that they have forfeited their active involvement. Still, you must consider whether their arguments are notable and important to any major area of thought. If necessary, there could be an article or section like ] or something like that where these things can be neatly organized in argument and counterargument. Also, articles and sections like ], ], ], etc. may help shed light on individual contexts to address. Afterall, it's important to understand these things in their proper context—Druze belief, Druze attitudes of neighboring cultures towards Druze, Druze attitudes of cultures that neighbor them. An introduction to the beliefs that Druze keep for themselves should give voice to the believers, and a section devoted to criticisms should give the critics voice, and the rebuttals should give voice to the apologists. If you mix them all randomly (with "but", "although", "others criticize", etc.), you get a jumble that may be difficult to understand. And...that's all I can think of at the moment. - ] (]) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | :Well, considering I'm not remotely an expert in Druze studies, all I can think of at the moment is...think about this, rhetorically: What were their arguments? Did they have references to back up what they said? It may be somewhat difficult, but it might be possible to document the different positions based on what's already been discussed, despite the fact that the users who discussed the rebuttal have been banned. In addition to that, the article could be listed to request experts on the subject. Credible editors. When an editor unethically circumvents the Misplaced Pages processes through acts such as sock puppetry, it seems to me that they have forfeited their active involvement. Still, you must consider whether their arguments are notable and important to any major area of thought. If necessary, there could be an article or section like ] or something like that where these things can be neatly organized in argument and counterargument. Also, articles and sections like ], ], ], etc. may help shed light on individual contexts to address. Afterall, it's important to understand these things in their proper context—Druze belief, Druze attitudes of neighboring cultures towards Druze, Druze attitudes of cultures that neighbor them. An introduction to the beliefs that Druze keep for themselves should give voice to the believers, and a section devoted to criticisms should give the critics voice, and the rebuttals should give voice to the apologists. If you mix them all randomly (with "but", "although", "others criticize", etc.), you get a jumble that may be difficult to understand. And...that's all I can think of at the moment. - ] (]) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I '''included''' the edits of banned user ] (now, I believe called ]) in the parallel section on ] even ''after'' he was banned... I think we can safely assume that the same form can be used on this page. I have requested a combinatory format given that there is no consensus of scholars or of editors, and just because GreenEcho was banned for sockpuppetry doesn't mean I'm going to take advantage of the situation. I might have disagreed with his attitude but I agree his arguments should not be put aside. ''' ] '''</font><sup><small>]</sup></small> 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Unprotection == | == Unprotection == | ||
Revision as of 02:10, 26 July 2008
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives
Article growth
The article has grown substantially, with a gigantic history section. Seems a bit suspicious, is it copyrighted material? Funkynusayri (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Abrahamic religion?
Assuming that the vast majority of Muslims don't consider Druze from their own flock, I think it's reasonable to give the Abrahamic label to this sect. In spite of its secrecy, one can see that the most of its precepts are incardinated in Judeo-Christian, and, of course, Islamic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.192.247 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty much self-explanatory. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"officially classified as muslims"
what does this even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.46.177 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- well Because some Sunni and Shiite Shiekhs label the Druze and other sects (like Ismailis, Alawites, some Sufis) as non-muslims like the Wahabis and the Hanbali school does. But according to governments and the Azhar mosque they are... so I dont think we can dismiss the fact that some Islamic sheikhs dont consider druze as muslims but officially and according to governments and official authorities they are considered so.Hiram111 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Darazi the Heretic
Please do not add unsourced edits. The Druze emphatically reject the heresy of ad-Darazi, "the first heretic", who was executed by Hakim with the support of the early Druze community for claiming Hakim was divine. em zilch (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I added sources that show otherwise. 77.42.178.249 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree with emily and I'll add a section in the beliefs part about the subject. About the references you supplied, well I can reference the info concerning other islamic groups concerning divinity but that doesn't make it true or encyclopedic material... and you added the info to the intro in an unorganized way and it seemed out of context Hiram111 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't remove sourced material. And what I added in the introduction is not out of context but I'm sure you are aware of that because you reverted all my other addition that seem to trouble you. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree with emily and I'll add a section in the beliefs part about the subject. About the references you supplied, well I can reference the info concerning other islamic groups concerning divinity but that doesn't make it true or encyclopedic material... and you added the info to the intro in an unorganized way and it seemed out of context Hiram111 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya
The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, an eccentric who prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating, is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God. He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation.
- well some "Mulukhiyya" enthusiasts are "from my point of view" sabotaging the druze page and yes its referenced but not introduction material second I clarified the Hakim part in the beliefs section... So I hope no offense is taken but for the anonymous user you can put your point of view but at least don't delete the other... best regards Hiram111 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is introduction material. And please don't lie about clarifying the Hakim part in the belief system. You removed sourced passages that reflect the core beliefs of these people and replaced them with Neglecting this warning, individual seekers, scholars, and other spectators have considered al-Hakim and other figures divine in the end of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.113.124 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your cited material needs to be discussed. Modern Druze specialists and the Druze themselves - Samy Swayd, for example, CITED IN THE TEXT, state clearly that Darazi was a heretic and that Hakim, while an Imam, was most emphatically not "God"; that is shirk in Druze eyes, as they are hardcore Unists. One of your sources is a travel guide and doesn't even say what you claim it does (listing two uncited myths about a great fire), another is an Orientalist work published in 1936 whose contents are strongly opposed to what you are claiming. Finally, you changed Hakim's disappearance - which all sources agree is a mystery but likely he was assassinated - to stated fact that he was "killed by his servants".
- You come in thumping your gavel and throwing your weight around on this page and think no one will disagree? Discuss and come to consensus is the cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. em zilch (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't attempt to misrepresent what's written in the sources. Nissim Dana says: The religion is termed a monotheistic religion, its believers are called "those who proclaim oneness", and the last embodiment of the divine spirit was in al-Hakim. Then he says Hamza ibn Ali, one of the propagandists involved in propagating the belief that al-Hakim was a divine manifestation, claimed that al-Hakim disappeared.... Mordechai Nisan says al-Hakim became the God of he Druze religion. Zeidan Atashi says He is accordingly considered by the Druze to have been a reincarnation of God. John Esposito says The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God. Think twice before vandalizing the page and removing sources to impose your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.113.124 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. or Mrs. 63.216.113.124 let me explain something, not every “referenced” or “cited” information gets to be placed on the page .
- For example I have an absurd book about the history of Islam in which the writer translates the first sentence said in the Islamic prayer which is “Allah W Akbar” (Allah is Great) laterally from Arabic which makes it (Allah and Akbar) and this “renowned” scholar goes to explain in a whole chapter that ‘’Akbar’’ was a pagan God and that the Prophet told the Muslims to worship Allah but to revere Akbar…. Because Arabs refused to stop worshiping the “Akbar”.
- So, If a wikipedian referenced such book, his/her edits would be reverted because they contradict with the Islamic theology and are absurd ... so even though such info can be referenced by a couple of sources It doesn’t mean that someone has the right to create a page titled “Akbar” or placing the info on the page concerning Islamic History or Islam and saying that Muslims revere him as the second Deity who is the second after Allah in the Islamic “pantheon” ,even though several references (published books and articles) can be found to reference such absurd info.
- And about the “lying part” well that was Dr. Sami Swayd , and why would I care to tell lies to an “IP address” or any user on a Misplaced Pages page concerning such topic.
- Second, if the Druze believed in the concept of “Incarnation” of God and NOT reincarnation as you are writing (since yes they Do believe in reincarnation). I don’t think they would be embarrassed to state that…specially Dr. Sami Makarem or Dr. Samy Swayd.
- The Incarnation of God is not a weird idea or something to be embarrassed of, the biggest religion in the world (Christianity) believes in Incarnation, with several other large religious groups so why are you making such a big deal of the issue… and why, if the Druze believe in this concept, we are reverting your edits????
- Anyway I’ve been working hard to expand the page for a couple of weeks now, that I actually added several sections to the beliefs part because I’m assuming “good will” when it comes to your edits.
- I hope you will be more constructive and to stop vandalizing the page or at least discuss the points before editing ….Hiram111 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Attempt to Resolve Conflicts
Okay, let's try to fix this issue now. If others might then weigh in on this issue we could come to a speedy conclusion.
Issue: IP man claims I and others are removing cited sources. My response: citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. For example, a citation given on for burning of the city by Hakim is actually from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and not only that it lists two separate stories about what happened to cause a great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it. This is not what was written on Misplaced Pages: it is misrepresented material from an inappropriate source and therefore should not stay on this page. A second example is that the posted material by IP man originally stated "Hakim was murdered by his servants"; this isn't what the cited source says, nor does any source of which I am aware claim to know what happened to Hakim. He disappeared; it is likely he was assassinated, but no one knows. The current version has added "the Druze believe he went into occultation", which is better but still claims he was killed. We simply don't know what happened, and the page should say that.
A lot of weight is being put on works by orientalists when citations are available by the Druze themselves. Statements that "Hakim is God" directly contradict works by Druze authors discussing their faith and previously existing on this page. Like all other Shi'a groups, the Druze believe in the Imamate, and in the case of the Druze, their Imam (like that of many other Shi'a groups) went into Occultation. Citations are all over the Druze article stating this.
Another note: a sect is a subgrouping of a religion. You can't have a non-Muslim sect of Islam; either they are a separate religion or they are a sect of (Shi'a) Islam. The Druze claim the latter and do not contradict any basic Muslim teachings; they are merely heavy on the gnostic side of Ismaili practices.
I notice the Druze get a lot of flack because many have chosen to become Israeli citizens and fight for Israel; this is not true of all Druze, many of which live elsewhere, including Palestine, but it ends up that people slam Druze as mushrikuun and "influenced by pagan", as "apostates", and the Druze historically did not bother to address these issues. The use of the word "Druze" is a perfect example: it was a slander that they were students of Darazi, who did declare Hakim divine, but he was executed by Hakim with the full support of the early Unist community.
So: any comments on how to resolve this issue? em zilch (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- No one has commentary? em zilch (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Other than the strong points you presented Emily…
- I think the main problem is that the information inserted into the introduction (by the IP) contradicts with the whole article which makes it unsuitable for an introduction or the early History section.
- I’m new to the "resolving conflicts" Business but if all “point of views should be presented”.
As a compromise the “IP User” currently User:GreenEcho can create a section to give the view of Islamists and Orientalists and there is a lot of Islamist references he can use to say his point of view while creating a separate section rather than messing up the whole article with inserted text. So let him say why some Muslim scholars don’t consider the Druze Muslims such as the fatwa of Ibn Taymiya ,he can also include Sunni, twelver Shiite or Orientalist references.
- and for Anti-Druze websites and references he can use (www.allaahuakbar.net/druze/index.htm).
- The only point that does have “sources” is the accusation that the Druze consider Al-Hakim divine It was first presented by the orientalist Sylvester de Sacy in 1838 ( he also stated that they attribute divinity to al-Qa'im , al-Mansur , al-Moiz , and al-Aziz ) and it was referenced in tens of Druze related books. And also many Muslims accuse many Shiite sects of attributing divinity to their Imams. So the article (before his edit) referenced mostly Druze and modern scholars so let him present his sources in the section explaining why the Druze aren’t considered Muslims, by many Sunnis, twelvers and Orientalists.Hiram111 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Emilyzilch, you say that the citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. Well, it isn't up to you to decide whether or not books by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and Nissim Dana should be considered reliable on Misplaced Pages, and it is clear when I copied the citations on this talk page that they the books say exactly what I claim they do. As for the weight being put on works by orientalists when citations are available by the Druze themselves, I think these scholars are competent and established enough to be quoted and used as references on the issue, and the Druze, of whose history taqiyya is an essential part and who are most likely to be secretive and misleading concerning own belief system, are not as authoritative on the issue as the scholars I quoted. This is to say that if Mordechai Nisan and John Esposito, as well as hundreds of other scholars of Islam and the Middle East, consider al-Hakim to be the God of the Druze faith, we cannot use the works of Druze authors, whose beliefs and scriptures are known by a select number of hermits and are hidden from the overwhelming majority of its adepts, as an excuse to remove citations and claim otherwise. As for the Druze considering themselves as Muslims, Nissim Dana in his book The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status states on page 17, "the Druze do not see themselves as Muslims, despite the fact that most of the Druze believers are apparently of Muslim origin . Thus there are those who suggest that they be considered as Muslims though it is clear that this view is cultivated by people of certain political inclinations, but for which there is no genuine religious substance." So when I say in the introduction that some Druze consider themselves as Muslims, I'm being flexible.
To Hiram111, I shouldn't bother replying. Most of your edits have been disruptive, and you make a very weak case. But I will reply in a few words. The scholars of Islam and of the region, as opposed to the Druze who are most likely to 'misrepresent' what they believe in, are those who must be referred to and cited on this subject. Maybe you should read WP:RS before equating books by scholars with anti-Druze websites. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, the overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider al-Hakim to be a divine figure in the Druze religion and consider the Druze to be non-Muslims. So assume good faith, and don't disrupt Misplaced Pages by removing reliable sources and pushing your point of view. GreenEcho (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are God, so anything controversial without proper sources should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree with FunkMonk that reliable sources are God, as an example to the other user... flooding Islam related pages with Daniel Pipes references and Citations can be considered pretty much adequate and reliable or referencing the late Theo van Gogh at the introduction of the Islam page.And all the critics of Islam say that muslims practice Taqiyya and are misleading when it comes to their own understanding of their religion So what about banning "Muslim Scholars references" when it comes to Islam.And I have the largest collection of conspiracy theories related to religions, so why don't i impose my references by placing them as introductions but anyway It seems User:GreenEcho misunderstood my point I presented above and it seems he partially read the WP:RS.
User:GreenEcho "I have no personal problem with you" and maybe you got on my nerves with your attitude, So I was aggressive in my reply, but let us put this aside and let us be more mature.
What I was proposing is to place the information you added to a new section created by you about anti-Druze or "references which disagree with the article", Its actually a good compromise so that we can solve the dispute... and I gave you an additional references the "URL" so that the section would be richer than just saying the Druze are pagans so If you want I will create the section for you but my only problem with you is that you started inserting text without caring about the content of the page Hiram111 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have to place the information I added in an anti-Druze section because it is not anti-Druze, they couldn't care less about the Druze to be anti-Druze. It is referenced information by leading scholars about what the Druze believe in, because the Druze themselves tend to 'mislead' us concerning their beliefs and scriptures. Almost none of your edits are well referenced, so it is your edits that conflict with what the article should contain. And think a little before comparing these scholars with Daniel Pipes. Nissim Dana and Mordechai Nisan are Israeli scholars who actually sympathize with the Druze and John Esposito is the main authority on Ismailism and the Druze, but I don't have to explain any of my edits to you. Let it go and stop disrupting. Until you get references from leading scholars that state the contrary of what I added, the facts I added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze. GreenEcho (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Im not saying Nissim Dana and Mordechai Nisan are Anti-Druze I'm saying you have an Anti-Druze attitude when Dr. Samy Swayd the Professor in Religious Studies and the Director of the Institute of Druze Studies at the San Diego State University writes something you are not the right authority to have a saying if he should or shouldn't be cited and you are not qualified to force your views and you are not the one to say if the most renowned Professor Sami Makarem should be cited or not or if any scholar is eligible to be trusted by you.
- Misplaced Pages is not a forum I have my radical views about a lot of religious groups and I do consider them evil,pagans, satanic or crazy and the same for many religious personalities (and I do have a lot of citations and references to support my claims ) but as "you" or any other wikipedian, I don't have the right to do this.
- you said :but I don't have to explain any of my edits to you Mr. GreenEcho let us respect each other and when you own the[REDACTED] site then you can say this to me. Hiram111 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Answering the controversial edits
User:GreenEcho formerly IP Address 63.216.113.124 and 77.42.178.249 actually created an account because he considered the Misplaced Pages Admins as being Biased against IP addresses for not Block me and other users for disagreeing with his latest edits concerning the Druze page. He reported me two times and flooded my talk page with vandalism warnings for removing cited and referenced information after a couple of days of this dispute and him requesting to protect the page from us “vandals” I chose to check his references, to find out that that the content of these books contradict with his edits.
So, I chose to use his own references to answer the controversial edits he added claiming they were taken and cited from these three books:
- Nissim Dana, The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status
- Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-expression'
- M. Th. Houtsma, E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936
Since quoting the whole paragraphs will make this post really extensive, I will place a link to the book’s page for convenience, and I will be waiting for his reply.
- He wrote that the Druze were influenced by pagan philosophy
Answer: Mordechai Nisan page96 the Druze adherents practice radical Unitarianism (Tawhid).
And there is no reference or scholar who ever claimed such a thing.
- The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God
Answer : Mordechai Nisan book contradicts with his edits and are compatible with the Old version… in page 95 the author says that "After talking about (Shiite extremists who deified their Imams he then states that: “The Druzes according to --one version-- did the same with Hakim(considered him divine) Alternatively they may argue that he was an image of God... page 95(first paragraph) while the User presented the information as the only version. And I will clarify this in the last part.
- He wrote that Al-Hakim was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintains that he disappeared and went into occultation.
Answer: the disappearance of Al-Hakim its addressed by Nissim Dana at page 3of the book and its clear that the user’s edit was fabricated while pasting references for credibility. Since Nassim Dana makes it crystal clear that his disappearance wasn’t solved and that many theories exist while stating many but nothing about servants. Including the users other references.
- He wrote: Most scholars label the Druze as a non-Muslim sect, even though some Druze identify themselves as Muslims.
Answer: Nissim Dana’s book is compatible with the other version which he changed in the introduction , that stated that the Druze are officially classified as Muslims (the Azhar Fatwa and governments) while some Islamic scholars labeled them as non-Muslims. page 40 page 39
- He wrote :According to Mordechai Nisan, al-Hakim, who opposed the Ramadan fast and prohibited the hajj to Mecca, is the God of the Druze religion.
Answer: Mordechai Nisan mentioned this in his book as a sequence of historical events related to each other while such claims are not credible because of the Abbasid propagandists during that time and even if it was it’s inserted by the user to be misleading.
- He wrote: The Druze faith began as a movement that deified Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, considering him a manifestation of God. They still await his second coming
Answer: Also the (M. Th. Houtsma, E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936') page 921 confirms the Talk Page section titled Darazi the Heretic in which the user refused to listen to User EmilyZilch when she told him that Darazi was a heretic and that he preached that Al-Hakim was the reincarnation of God and was killed for it ((this reference that he actually provided claims that Al-Hakim and Hamza ordered his assassination because of his heresy.))
- He wrote :In 1020, the news that al-Hakim was about to proclaim that he was a manifestation of God provoked serious riots to which he responded by sending his Sudanese troops to burn down the city where they clashed not only with the civilians, but also the Turkish and Berber soldiers
Answer: It had been addressed by an another user in which “its from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and lists two separate stories about what happened to cause the great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it”
- But still the main dispute is about the (the Incarnation or reincarnation of God) in Al-Hakim and even though I already clarified it above and in the Article with a section titled “God in the Druze Faith” that cited Dr. Phillip Hittie, Dr. Sami Makarem and Dr. Samy Swayd but still the user replied with :
The Druze, of whose history taqiyya is an essential part and who are most likely to be secretive and misleading concerning own belief system, are not as authoritative on the issue as the scholars I quoted. And he refused to engage in any compromise to remove the information from the introduction and early History But stated that “the facts he added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze”
So the main problem is that the Druze believe in theophony(tajalli) (which totally contradicts with the concept of incarnation or reincarnation of God which is in Arabic called (Hullul') while the User insists to say they believe that God incarnated in Al-Hakim. And stated that “the facts he added will stay and the rest of the article with be fixed so as to match what the overwhelming majority of scholars say about the Druze”
Such two concepts are explained in an article about the Bahai’s that discusses this topic and is titled The Concept of Manifestation in the Bahai Writings by Juan R.I. Cole Department of History (University of Michigan) this article references the first Orientalist (Sylvester de Sacy ) concerning the Druze faith :
About the concept of Hulul(incarnation) for Users who don’t understand Arabic:
Baha'allah preached the doctrine of "General Revelation," which teaches that God is revealed in his creation by virtue of his effulgence (tajalli) therein.
Baha'allah further denies the possibility that God could become incarnate (hulul) and that the worlds of God could descend into the grades of the creatures.
And then the Article Discusses the Druze ideology of Tajali similar to that of the Bahaiis:
The Druze movement in Egypt, which centered on the Fatimid ruler al-Hakim (r. 996-1021), was very much influenced by Neoplatonism and used the term "manifestation of God" as a technical term in its prophetology. The concept of manifestation was also used by the Persian Isma'ilis of Alamut in the twelfth century.
Another heterodox Imami figure, Fadlu'll�h Astarabadi al-Hurufi (1340-1394 AD) wrote in one of his poems. "The countenance of Adam is the manifestation of the essence of God / This true statement is the religion of the prophets." However, like the Druze and the Isma'ilis of Alamut, al-Hurufi speaks in an unqualified fashion of the manifestation of the very essence of the Deity, an approach to theophany which implies that God could become immanent. Most Muslims, and even most Shi'is, rejected this approach as heretical.
*And the Users references do confirm that for the Druze Al-Hakim was NOT considered as God but as a manifestation of the Divine through theophany and uses the same terminology used in the God in the Druze faith section :
Nissim Dana states that the Druze believe that God revealed himself several times before the eleven century page 3
The Belief in the revelation of God (kashf) in the form of a human being is considered the most important….
second paragraph... (Al-Lahut bi Surat Al Nasut) (the Divine as the image of the material)
So for that stating that the Druze believe that God is Al-Hakim comes from , ignorance when it come to the difference between the concept of Tajalli(theophany) and Hullul(Incarnation)Hiram111 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hiram111, you have replied as I have earlier in this conversation, by showing up how the sources do not say what Green claims they do even further. I would also note again that - as I have cited and already exists in the article with citation - the notion of an incarnate divinity is abhorrent to Islam in general and to the Druze themselves, that they identify themselves as true monotheist Muslims, and their Imaam was occulted. Here again the misleading notion of taqiyya appears as a claim that "Muslims can just lie"... in fact, the Druze secrecy of teachings is not taqiyya, it is common to faiths around the world, and taqiyya is a permissible lie used to avoid being persecuted and murdered. It is not simply a free card to lie (as extremist anti-Muslims claim). Druze publications on their faith fall neither under the rubric of the secrecy of advanced teachings nor under the permissibility of taqiyya... to discount their very own words on their faith is ridiculous and insulting. em zilch (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Request to Edit the Page
{{editprotected}} The page was protected because of the controversial edits by ip address 63.216.113.124 and 77.42.187.118 currently User:GreenEcho almost 2 weeks ago. Numerous discussions happened between many editors and this user, but he refused to compromise claiming that they are well referenced and cited.
The Discussions between us and him were:
- Darazi “was” the Heretic
- prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya
- Attempt to Resolve Conflicts
- Answering the controversial edits
In the last discussion titled “answering the controversial Edits” I used his own references to prove that his edits were not taken from the references he supplied and that he twisted some of the information found in these books. After, a period of three days in which he was pretty much active on Misplaced Pages. He didn’t answer my last post about what his own references actually says.
So I hope that the controversial edits would be reverted to the emilyZilch edit. Since not answering my last post implies consensus and if he is not consent then the Administrators should take a decision concerning the subject since his edits are libelous and erroneous and shouldn’t be featured on the current version. Hiram111 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
N Not done. Consensus for the requested edit must be apparent before making an {{editprotected}} request. Sandstein 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus
Can we please vote on some kind of consensus for this page? It needs to be resolved. em zilch (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The sources are clear on the issue. The sources and the opinion of scholars precedes yours and that of Hiram111. GreenEcho (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus regarding what? ← George 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- About whether GreenEcho's edits should be reverted or not I said why it should be in the Answering the controversial Edits section while other points had been presented by me and other users, on several talk sections but still GreenEcho refuses to answer our remarks. « Hiram111 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- GreenEcho, you misrepresent the sources: there are more writers than just Esposito and Nissan. They are scholars, but they are certainly not the only ones. You argue... what, exactly? Druze scholar Samy Swayd's work The Druzes: An Annotated Bibliography cannot be trusted because he's a Druze and lying about his faith when he says (with primary and secondary sourcing) that Darazi's teachings about al-Hakim as divine lead to his execution, that he is called "the first apostate" and "greatest heretic" (p.4) because this belief violates the fundamental principle of Islamic monotheism? Swayd also notes that the Hakim "is regarded within the Druze manuscripts as the founding father of Druzism and the source of its strict unism" (19) and that he was understood as Imaam and Khaliifah to the Ismaili community. See also Attempt to Resolve Conflicts above... em zilch (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- About whether GreenEcho's edits should be reverted or not I said why it should be in the Answering the controversial Edits section while other points had been presented by me and other users, on several talk sections but still GreenEcho refuses to answer our remarks. « Hiram111 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Quickly looking over earlier discussion, it looks like there a large number of differences of opinion on this article. Can you guys pick out one statement to start with, the one you feel is the most agregious I guess, and discuss that? I don't initially have any opinions on a lot of these issues, so if you guys can discuss a single statement at a time, I think it will make things much easier for myself (and other editors) to understand. When we resolve the first issue (and hopefully achieve some consensus), we can move on to the next statement, and the next, etc. ← George 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The most crucial issue is the alleged deification of Hakim. These issues have been discussed above... cf. Swayd's notes. Also about Hakim are as I wrote above: Issue: IP man (now GG) claims I and others are removing cited sources. My response: citations are inappropriate, out of date, and frankly do not say what he claims they do. For example, a citation given on for burning of the city by Hakim is actually from an uncited travel guide to Egypt, and not only that it lists two separate stories about what happened to cause a great fire, one of which is that Hakim caused it. This is not what was written on Misplaced Pages: it is misrepresented material from an inappropriate source and therefore should not stay on this page. A second example is that the posted material by IP man originally stated "Hakim was murdered by his servants"; this isn't what the cited source says, nor does any source of which I am aware claim to know what happened to Hakim. He disappeared; it is likely he was assassinated, but no one knows. The current version has added "the Druze believe he went into occultation", which is better but still claims he was killed. We simply don't know what happened, and the page should say that.
The issue therefore seems heavily to be strong bias against Hakim. I have no positive opinion on Hakim - I think he was a loon, actually - but the Druze openly state they do not deify Hakim and the cites he gives don't say what he claims they do. em zilch (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- To start with, I'd like to discuss the statement: The Druze faith began as a movement that deified Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, considering him a manifestation of God. First, is this a disputed statement? Second, it lacks an inline ctiation in the current version, so if GreenEcho (or anyone else) can provide a source that specifically states this, it would be much appreciated. If others would like to provide counter-sources that state that he is not deified by the Druze, that would be helpful too. Remember, go for quality sources, not quantities, and explicitly quote a statement from your source that supports your claim. ← George 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, George, Nissim Dana, in his book The Druze in the Middle East on page 3 describes al-Hakim as "the central figure in the Druze faith". He says: "According to Druze belief, God revealed himself several times before the eleventh century, when al-Hakim lived. The religion is termed "a monotheistic religion", its believers are called "those who proclaim oneness", and the last embodiment of the divine spirit was in al-Hakim." Then he says: "Hamza ibn Ali, one of the propagandists involved in propagating the belief that al-Hakim was a divine manifestation, claimed that al-Hakim disappeared from human sight as a sign of protest and to put believers to the test.".
- Mordechai Nisan in his book Minorities in the Middle East writes on page 95: "The abrogation of the shari'a opened the floodgates to articulating a new religion which al-Hakim was personifying in a wild idiosyncratic fashion. At root was the idea that God had appeared in a physical form in this last human manifestation of divinity. Referred to as without parents of children, without proof of his death or murder, al-Hakim became the God of the Druze religion."
- Phillip Hitti in his book The Origins of the Druze people and religion writes on pages 44-45: "The guiding thought of Druze theogony, as it was with the Isma'iliyyah, is the belief in a succession of divine manifestations through a progressive series. Hence with the Druzes, al-Hakim is not only the incarnation of God but the final and most perfect manifestation."
- John Esposito in Islam, the Straight Path writes on page 47: "The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God."
- I think the sources are clear enough on this matter, and I don't want to waste anymore of my time making it more clear. GreenEcho (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- These sources look pretty good to me. Based on them, I would rewrite the sentence as: The origins of the Druze faith are vague, but its central personage is Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, whom the Druze view as having the last embodiment of divinity in him. These sources have a very specific, odd wording that I think we should follow - that is, they say the last emobdiment (implying there are multiple) of divinity was in him (not him, but in him). What are thoughts on my suggested wording? Or what other versions can editors come up with, and what other sources? Or are there reasons to discredit any of these sources? ← George 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The wording is perfect as it is, and I think the sources make it clear. GreenEcho (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hakim is not God. The wording "divinity is in him" is acceptable (although their origins are actually well understood), as it accords with the sources and the idea as delineated by the Druze. It is clear from the sources that those who proclaimed his specific divinity - "Hakim is God" - were executed and expelled from the community. Maybe the distinction is lost on you, GreenEcho, but it's crystal clear in the sources. em zilch (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well the issue is complicated because it’s related to the complex Ismaili missionary movement, but I support to place the John Esposito reference at the introduction rather than his old edits this reference says that :The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, followers of al-Hakim who embodied and revealed the one true God.
- Since it summarizes what he was trying to say and is suitable for an introduction furthermore it states that (without using incarnation or the reincarnation of God since that was the ideology of the Darazy and the Ghullat movement) and I would like to explain to GreenEcho that according to orthodox Muslims both the Tajalli and Hulul are considered a heresy but the Druze believe that the concept of Hullul will make God limited to a human but the Caliph is the divine representation of God and Hakim took the nickname of the “ruler in the name of God” but both theories leads to persecution so the Taqiyya thing is not present concerning this issue.
- “The historical reason for this belief is that some of the Muslim Gnostics (some times called Ghullat or batinids and are similar to the cathars) used to believe that the material world was created by the devil or the demiurge and that the spirit should free itself from this evil realm but the Druze used Neo-Platonism and mainly Plotinus to answer such claims (most of the Kitab al-Hikma debates this issue) and stated that there is a unity between opposites rather than discord and that extreme transcendence of God will make the belief in him impossible and the extreme immanence (incarnation into human beings) will make him limited and for that people can see God through pure individuals who manifested the divine wisdom(one of them was Al-Hakim). About the concept of the unity of opposites you can review this site that says : the idea that Blake had, that there is no separation between opposites, but rather a unity, was new and hadn’t really been uttered in millennia outside of a Druze meditating on the Kitab al-Hikma.” « Hiram111 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- To George ,I've explained how some of GreenEcho's references were misrepresented in the Answering the controversial edits section but for more references there is the book titled The Olive and the Tree: The Secret Strength of the Druze By Dr Ruth Westheimer and Gil Sedanthat states :
- An inherently modest man al-Hakim did not believe that he was God, and felt Ad-Darazi in his sly manners, was trying to depict himself as a new prophet, Al-Hakim preferred another preacher Hamza Bin Ali over him and Ad-Darazi was executed, Hamza was now the sole leader of the new faith
- Also the pages 127 and 128 says what we are saying about the dispute between Hamza and Ad-Darazi Also E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936 By M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel says the same thing « Hiram111 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hakim is not God. The wording "divinity is in him" is acceptable (although their origins are actually well understood), as it accords with the sources and the idea as delineated by the Druze. It is clear from the sources that those who proclaimed his specific divinity - "Hakim is God" - were executed and expelled from the community. Maybe the distinction is lost on you, GreenEcho, but it's crystal clear in the sources. em zilch (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The wording is perfect as it is, and I think the sources make it clear. GreenEcho (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- These sources look pretty good to me. Based on them, I would rewrite the sentence as: The origins of the Druze faith are vague, but its central personage is Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, whom the Druze view as having the last embodiment of divinity in him. These sources have a very specific, odd wording that I think we should follow - that is, they say the last emobdiment (implying there are multiple) of divinity was in him (not him, but in him). What are thoughts on my suggested wording? Or what other versions can editors come up with, and what other sources? Or are there reasons to discredit any of these sources? ← George 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- (de-indenting). Ok, let's try to merge some of these together: 'The Druze call themselves the Unitarians, but the origins of their faith are vague. Its central personage is Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, whom the Druze view as having the last embodiment of divinity in him, and having revealed the one true God. However, Al-Hakim did not believe that he was God, and felt that Ad-Darazi was trying to depict himself as a new prophet. Ad-Darazi was executed, and Hamza Bin Ali, Al-Hakim's preferred preacher, became the sole leader of the new faith. What do editors think about that? I'm not too familiar with these people, so it might need some more information on who they were, especially this Ad-Darazi, who should be described more when he is first mentioned, perhaps by his title, or his relation to Al-Hakim. ← George 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your help George, but my wording corresponds exactly to what the sources say. Hamza, according to these books, was the one who propagated the belief that al-Hakim was a manifestation of God, regardless of what Hiram111 likes to convince himself. The sources also show that this was done with Hakim's consent and support. Farhad Daftary's in his book The Ismailis: their history and doctrines writes on page 196: "The Druze movement was indeed the cause of much of the unrest that occurred during the closing years of al-Hakim's caliphate. It was also in relation to this movement that al-Hakim, at the end of 410 A.H, ordered his black troops to plunder and burn Fustat where, following the proclamation of the divinity of al-Hakim, certain circles has accused the Fatimid caliph of having abandoned Islam." This hardly corresponds with al-Hakim being an inherently modest man, which itself is an unscholarly expression that I failed to find in the book. GreenEcho (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- GreenEcho please don't take the issue personal and its pretty easy to search for keywords on books.google.com but again I’m sorry to inform you that I do have excellent knowledge concerning the Druze and I read hundreds of books concerning this issue, So you’re actually providing what I already know... about your last reply.
- This is taken from the historian Yehya Bin Saeed Al Antaki who was a Christian historian who lived during the times of Al-Hakim about the paragraph you posted just for your information and if you actually read my last post year 410 A.H is actually year 1019 A.D in which AD-Darazi proclaimed that Al-Hakim is divine at the end of the year 1018 as the two references I provided above say here and here .He had hundreds of supporters who apposed Hamza bin Ali( the leader of the modern Druze the Unitarians who were given the name Druze by their Muslim rivals) and the Darazites claimed that Al-Hakim was divine and other stuff mentioned by the Antaki which led to riots in Egypt and caused the persecution of the Darazites by Al-Hakim whether he actually ordered his black troops to plunder the Fustat that’s disputed but what is known that he and Hamza Bin Ali supported the persecution of the followers of the Darazi and about that "certain circles has accused the Fatimid caliph of having abandoned Islam." well that was known by the Baghdad Manifesto and was created by the Abbasids during al-Hakims reign (who was also taunted for being the son of a Christian women) and when the Fatimid empire was abolished they transformed the books of Dar Al-Hikma (which was constructed by Al-Hakim) and was one of the largest Libraries during medieval time, into slippers for their concubines ,anyway I hope that the historical incidents are clarified to you by now.
- About the inherently modest man part its at page 127, 3rd paragraph, eleventh line. « Hiram111 01:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your help George, but my wording corresponds exactly to what the sources say. Hamza, according to these books, was the one who propagated the belief that al-Hakim was a manifestation of God, regardless of what Hiram111 likes to convince himself. The sources also show that this was done with Hakim's consent and support. Farhad Daftary's in his book The Ismailis: their history and doctrines writes on page 196: "The Druze movement was indeed the cause of much of the unrest that occurred during the closing years of al-Hakim's caliphate. It was also in relation to this movement that al-Hakim, at the end of 410 A.H, ordered his black troops to plunder and burn Fustat where, following the proclamation of the divinity of al-Hakim, certain circles has accused the Fatimid caliph of having abandoned Islam." This hardly corresponds with al-Hakim being an inherently modest man, which itself is an unscholarly expression that I failed to find in the book. GreenEcho (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is an encyclopedia. Books by scholars are used as sources, not your interpretation. All of the sources say that Hamza propagated the belief that al-Hakim was the manifestation and incarnation of God, and this was done with Hakim's consent. Books by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other specialists usually take precedence over a book by a sex therapist, especially when the book contradicts works by renowned and and far more reliable scholars who actually know the about subject. Also, concerning your claim that al-Hakim's mother was Christian, I find this highly improbable, seeing that al-Hakim was the one who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and seeing that he, of all Muslims caliphs, was the most intolerant towards Christians and Jews. GreenEcho (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like you guys are still pretty far apart on this issue, and unfortunately without a willingness to compromise on the wording from editors, I'm really not able to help much. I think you should consider filing a request for comments, and possible a request for mediation to escalate the issue a bit. You could try to reach a consensus via voting, but without getting other editors' eyes on this article (via WP:3O or WP:RFC), I don't think you'll have enough voters to build any kind of consensus. Cheers. ← George 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help George and your proposal is the best thing to do, since yes the issue is complicated.
- And for GreenEcho, I can't actually understand the motives behind your edits but it seems that you have minimal information about this issue and no I'm not interpreting anything and you are the one refusing to read and its a known fact that Al-Hakim's uncles were Greek Orthodox bishops and that his mother was a Christian some sources say that she was a Coptic Christian and it would have taken a small query on Google to get that info but it seems you don't actually care about information.And about the persecution of non-Muslims that was a response for the Baghdad Manifesto in 1011 that accused the Fatimids of having a Jewish ancestry and Al-Hakim as being loyal to the Christians which led to a civil war in Egypt and the Caliphate had to prove its Islam by forcing dhimmi laws but the Fatimids like the Ismailis are known for their tolerance and for that few of them survived in the middle east.Anyway it seems that you are taking this debate to the Ad-Darazi page and that is actually neat. « Hiram111 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's right. Me, John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and all the others have minimal information about the Druze, and you are the all-knowledgeable. GreenEcho (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- While extremist shiites elevated Ali,Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, to the status of an incarnation of divinity, the Druzes -according to one version-did the same with Al-Hakim.Alternatively they might argue that no human being is a god, but rather an image of God.Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-expression By Mordechai Nisan page 95
- That's right. Me, John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and all the others have minimal information about the Druze, and you are the all-knowledgeable. GreenEcho (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And for GreenEcho, I can't actually understand the motives behind your edits but it seems that you have minimal information about this issue and no I'm not interpreting anything and you are the one refusing to read and its a known fact that Al-Hakim's uncles were Greek Orthodox bishops and that his mother was a Christian some sources say that she was a Coptic Christian and it would have taken a small query on Google to get that info but it seems you don't actually care about information.And about the persecution of non-Muslims that was a response for the Baghdad Manifesto in 1011 that accused the Fatimids of having a Jewish ancestry and Al-Hakim as being loyal to the Christians which led to a civil war in Egypt and the Caliphate had to prove its Islam by forcing dhimmi laws but the Fatimids like the Ismailis are known for their tolerance and for that few of them survived in the middle east.Anyway it seems that you are taking this debate to the Ad-Darazi page and that is actually neat. « Hiram111 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't preview the John Esposito book on Google but Melville's Clarel and the Intersympathy of Creeds By William Potter page 156references his book by saying according to Islam: The straight path by John Esposito.... Al-Hakim "progressively came to believe that he was not only the divinely appointed religiopolitical leader but also the cosmic intellect, linking God with creation.
- According to Bezanson, the central doctrine of the Druze code was "the incomprehensible, indefinable, and passionless nature of God, whose only sure attribute was existence.(the same reference).
- Anyway a request for comments would be a good idea. « Hiram111 11:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Comments are apparently necessary. I also would like to add another citation from the Institute of International Studies at UCLA (SoCal is home to the largest population of Druzes outside the Middle East):
UCLA International Institute, Who Are the Druzes?Darazi began to falsify the doctrine of Tawhid by altering a number of Hamza’s writings. Darazi was ultimately executed by Hakim in 1019. Nonetheless, some of Darazi’s teachings were attributed to the Druzes by his followers, referred to as “Darazis.” Ironically, a few medieval chroniclers of the time not only failed to make the distinction between Druzes and Darazis but attributed Darazi’s doctrine to the followers of Hamza and argued that Hakim supported Darazi’s ideas. Other historians have reported that it was Hamza who was subordinate to Darazi, and still others have referred to Hamza and Darazi as the same person: Hamza al-Darazi. As a consequence, the name “Druze” became synonymous with the reform movement. Despite the ironic and misleading origins of the sect’s name, the title “Druze” never occurs in the Druze manuscripts of the 11th century. After the execution of Darazi and his collaborators, Hamza continued his preaching activities for two more years. Among Druzes today, Darazi is known as a heretic and the uttering of his name constitutes the use of profanity.
I hope we get some feedback so we can figure this page out soon. Naahid بنت الغلان 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- How does this relate to Hamza preaching al-Hakim's divinity? No one is arguing over the etymology of the word Druze. GreenEcho (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Um... because it specifies the difference between the followers of Darazi, who deified Hakim, and the Hamzite Muwahhidun (modern Druze), who did not. Cf. the other cites discussing the issue of hulūl and the hierarchy of the cyclical appearance of exoteric prophets, their esoteric helpers, and the "esoteric of the esoteric" luminaries. Hakim was a luminary, not God! Naahid بنت الغلان 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The sources speak for themselves. GreenEcho (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is wrong with you GreenEcho ????? read the RFC guidelines you dont have the right to take the discussion to the template and I wrote what the dispute is about in a neutral tone so the other users will know what the issue is about so try to be more mature. « Hiram111 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The sources speak for themselves. GreenEcho (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Um... because it specifies the difference between the followers of Darazi, who deified Hakim, and the Hamzite Muwahhidun (modern Druze), who did not. Cf. the other cites discussing the issue of hulūl and the hierarchy of the cyclical appearance of exoteric prophets, their esoteric helpers, and the "esoteric of the esoteric" luminaries. Hakim was a luminary, not God! Naahid بنت الغلان 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
| “ | On May 1017 Al-Hakim granted Hamza the freedom to preach his reform doctrine openly. Public resistance to Hamza's teachings increased as he spoke against corruption ,the practice of polygamy, the remarriage of one's divorcee, and other social customs.
During this external resistance, an internal rivalry arose between Hamza and one of his subordinates, Al-Darazi. Darazi deviated from the essence of the movement’s message and falsified the writings of Hamza to present Al-Hakim as Divine. He had hoped that Al-Hakim would favor him over Hamza, but instead public opposition to Darazi's teachings increased. Darazi then redirected the public’s resistance by declaring that he had acted on Hamza's instructions. Consequently, instead of attacking Darazi, the crowd turned against Hamza and his associates who were at Ridan mosque at the time. Although Darazi was eventually killed and his teachings repudiated, many years later observers ironically, attribute the Druze doctrine to Al-Darazi and do not mention Hamza at all. Druze manuscripts consider Darazi the most heretical apostate. |
” |
The reference is:Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach.published by Routledge(2006),ISBN 0415966906
- And since the renowned scholars Josef W. Meri and Jere L. Bacharach say exactly what we have been saying for weeks, i think the dispute should be over by now. « Hiram111 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's funny, and quite sad. The same book, on page 311, reads: "By 1017 or possibly even earlier, others turned more enthusiastic, declaring that al-Hakim was in fact divine, a god whose actions were not to be judged by human standards. That same year, Hamza ibn 'Ali, the eventual founder of the Druze, and al-Darazi, the man whose name provided the word Druze itself, both began to preach openly that al-Hakim was God Himself, appearing in human form." GreenEcho (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I quoted the Encyclopedic section about the Druze and its crystal clear, I don't care about the other sections because the misconception had been explained, in the Druze section of the encyclopedia.AND IT'S FUNNY AND QUITE SAD THAT YOU DELETED MY TALK PAGE CONTRIBUTION HERE « Hiram111 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not you care is of absolutely no importance. And it is also "crystal clear" that the "renowned" authors of the book are inconsistent and have absolutely no authority on the subject. Also, I didn't delete your comments intentionally. I was reverting to a previous version of the Request for Comment. GreenEcho (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I quoted the Encyclopedic section about the Druze and its crystal clear, I don't care about the other sections because the misconception had been explained, in the Druze section of the encyclopedia.AND IT'S FUNNY AND QUITE SAD THAT YOU DELETED MY TALK PAGE CONTRIBUTION HERE « Hiram111 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RFC:Content Dispute
Duplicate
Please replace Image:Jumblat1t.jpg with Image:Jumblatt.jpg. -- CecilK (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}
Done. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A month?
Please don't tell me this page has been protected for practically a month... Why is this the case? I tried reading the discussions above, but found it difficult to glean the central issue of the page's protection. I mean, I know it's mainly my OCD, but there's punctuation to fix and links to wikify. I understand the threat of anonymous vandalism in any article, but that's why there's partial protection so that established users can still edit. Hmm...let me see... - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've been trying to establish consensus, but we are not reaching one. And yes, it's been really frustrating to have the page locked down for a month. Naahid بنت الغلان 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's got to be a better way than locking the page for a month. If there's no clear concensus on certain issues, why not document multiple positions? With references of course. There's nothing that says that an article cannot address how something is controversial, so long as a controversy is notable and clearly referenced. When it comes to articles about religious and social groups, this is not difficult to do. If this stalemate remains intractable for too long, it might even become a lamest edit war. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I keep trying to reach out to Green Echo, but getting nowhere to date. He's also started working with the page Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah and doing the same. I've tried asking him on his page as well regarding using both kinds of citation and leaving the arguments out of the intro at minimum. Maybe he thinks I am hostile; someone else want to give a crack at it? Naahid بنت الغلان 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Druze isn't really an area of expertise for me. It's primarily a topic of study for me. If this page has more or less been frozen for a month, it just doesn't seem acceptable. Protection is for short-term, isn't it? You don't protect a page forever from all edits, even by established users, just because there could be an edit war. You can't freeze the article indefinately just because of the personality of an editor or two. That's a fundamental breakdown of how this system is supposed to work. It would seem prudent if everyone edited leaving personal egos at the door, and approaching topics from a completely dispassionate academic viewpoint. And if they can't do that, it's a problem on an editor's end, not on an article's end. It's just not appropriate to edit with passions on Misplaced Pages. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I keep trying to reach out to Green Echo, but getting nowhere to date. He's also started working with the page Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah and doing the same. I've tried asking him on his page as well regarding using both kinds of citation and leaving the arguments out of the intro at minimum. Maybe he thinks I am hostile; someone else want to give a crack at it? Naahid بنت الغلان 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's got to be a better way than locking the page for a month. If there's no clear concensus on certain issues, why not document multiple positions? With references of course. There's nothing that says that an article cannot address how something is controversial, so long as a controversy is notable and clearly referenced. When it comes to articles about religious and social groups, this is not difficult to do. If this stalemate remains intractable for too long, it might even become a lamest edit war. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Why the Issue of Hakim is Important
For those inquiring about the issue that got this page locked (I actually asked for anon-prot at the time to force discussion and consensus), here it is in a nutshell:
The Druze self-identify as hardcore monotheists. It's their autonym: Muwahhidun "Unists". As Ismai'ilis, they follow a complex theory of how God reveals truth: in every age, prophets teach the exoteric (ending with Muhammad), assistants teach the esoteric, and finally there are teachers of the "esoteric of the esoteric" (a Druze term). The last person in this age was Hakim, who therefore is hulul "emanation". It does not identify him as God, although for centuries other Muslims have excoriated the Druze for being like Christians and believing that God was flesh.
However, this is equivalent to insisting that Christians are polytheists because they believe God is three beings. Christians are emphatic about their monotheism, and the Druze even more so. To characterise them against their own writings as polytheists is equally as offensive - and ironic, given that they don't think of Hakim like Christians do Christ.
Discussion of Hakim's alleged divinity must be written with a sensitivity to both the views of insiders (Druze authors and scholars) as well as those of outsiders. This is the crux of the issue at hand: GreenEcho, we must come to a compromise since there is no agreement, and that compromise is to write in both views. I know you really think you are right, but so do I (and, presumably H111) and there must be a compromise.
I would appreciate it as well if you could bother to reply to any of the concerns that have been raised since you keep acting out and not participating other than to revert and cause more conflict by expanding your opinions onto other pages as well as this one. Naahid بنت الغلان 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've witnessed and been through many an "I am right"—"no, I am right" discussion. Though people have strong personal convictions, the problem here is that when editing becomes a personal matter, objectivity is lost, and productivity often ceases over a very personal battle of academic egos. I'm keenly aware of how this can happen in debates over articles of religious topic, since one person's orthodoxy is another person's insult/blasphemy and vice versa. Instead (and I've used this analogy before), perhaps you should try editing as if you were an alien from another world who has no personal involvement in our world, culture or society, and is observing with complete impartiality. Then, there is no orthodoxy or blasphemy, just mere observation and documentation. If it's notable and organic to the topic, it goes in. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for Unblock Denied, No Consensus
A request for unblocking made by me was declined despite the fact that GreenEcho and Hiram111 has been banned. I'm not sure where to go from here. Naahid بنت الغلان 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, considering I'm not remotely an expert in Druze studies, all I can think of at the moment is...think about this, rhetorically: What were their arguments? Did they have references to back up what they said? It may be somewhat difficult, but it might be possible to document the different positions based on what's already been discussed, despite the fact that the users who discussed the rebuttal have been banned. In addition to that, the article could be listed to request experts on the subject. Credible editors. When an editor unethically circumvents the Misplaced Pages processes through acts such as sock puppetry, it seems to me that they have forfeited their active involvement. Still, you must consider whether their arguments are notable and important to any major area of thought. If necessary, there could be an article or section like Criticism of Druze or something like that where these things can be neatly organized in argument and counterargument. Also, articles and sections like Druze and Islam, Druze and Christianity, Druze and Judaism, etc. may help shed light on individual contexts to address. Afterall, it's important to understand these things in their proper context—Druze belief, Druze attitudes of neighboring cultures towards Druze, Druze attitudes of cultures that neighbor them. An introduction to the beliefs that Druze keep for themselves should give voice to the believers, and a section devoted to criticisms should give the critics voice, and the rebuttals should give voice to the apologists. If you mix them all randomly (with "but", "although", "others criticize", etc.), you get a jumble that may be difficult to understand. And...that's all I can think of at the moment. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I included the edits of banned user User:GreenEcho (now, I believe called User:NAuthor) in the parallel section on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah even after he was banned... I think we can safely assume that the same form can be used on this page. I have requested a combinatory format given that there is no consensus of scholars or of editors, and just because GreenEcho was banned for sockpuppetry doesn't mean I'm going to take advantage of the situation. I might have disagreed with his attitude but I agree his arguments should not be put aside. Naahid بنت الغلان 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Unprotection
I would like to make a non-binding straw poll to help test whether there may be a consensus whether this article should be unprotected. Please sign in one section. Add comments in the Comments section. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect
Don't unprotect
Comments
- "The Druzes: One Thousand Years of Tradition and Reform", Intercom: Newsletter of the International Studies and Overseas Programes of UCLA, vol. 21, no. 1, Los Angeles CA: UCLA, 1998-10
{{citation}}: Check date values in:|publication-date=(help); line feed character in|periodical=at position 63 (help)
- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Lebanon articles
- Mid-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- Mid-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Unassessed Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Unassessed Arab world articles
- Unknown-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles