Talk:Ibn al-Rawandi

Sources

This article has been tagged for sources for more than a year (since June 2006). If the content remains unsourced, it will, unfortunately, have to be removed.Bless sins (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to add this, but the source, if not the plagiarism, is of "The Blinding Emerald: Ibn Al-Rawandi's 'Kitab Al-Zumurrud.' Journal article by Sarah Stroumsa; The Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 114, 1994." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.27 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Information should be added from Sarah Stroumsa's Freethinkers of Islam which discusses Ibn al-Rawandi in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:480D:501:AD2A:18CF:5167:281A (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

More accuracy Needed

We need some more accuracy here. It should be mentioned that they style of the Zumurrud is in a specific form of Arabic kalam, Qala and Yuqal Lahu ("he said" and "it should be said to him"). Various scholars have said that Abu Issa al-Warraq is the voice "Qala" which is anti-prophecy and thus the heretic amd "Yuqal lahu" is Ibn al-Rawandi who defends Islam and prophecy. There is no surviving copy of the Zumurrud and it is only relayed in various pieces in the Majalis al-Muayyadiyya, the Kitab al-Tawhid of Maturidi and the Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (Establishment of the Error of Prophecy) by Abd al-Jabbar al Hamdhani. This should at least be mentioned, because it is no longer clear, at least to me, that Ibn al-Rawandi is, in fact, a heretic. The dispute really is whether al_Rawandi collaberated in his heresy with al-Warraq, was setting up al-Warraq in this "conversation" for refutation, or whether Ibn al-Rawandi was in fact a heretic and simply weakly argued the case for Islam under his name while using a known heretic (al-Warraq) to advance the heretical position. Finally the debate about prophecy surrounds the issue of the Mubahala, and Muhammad asking the Jews to ask for death from God if Muhammad was not a prophet. Any thoughts from anyone else?

-Altrafton.

If you can find sources, it can be added. Darimoma (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)