Talk:Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.--KGV (Talk) 06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At some time, he went mad and tyranized his people, forcing them to live by night and other illogical practices. Try to write that neutrally. --Error 00:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the opinions of the Druze should be voiced also, but dont leave out information, just present both sides. Does anyone know what da'wa refers to, specifically, in entry?

translation of name

"hakim" does not mean 'ruler'. although the word has been used as a title of position, it is best translated as 'wise' or 'judge'.

read some manuscripts of dai syedna ahmed hamidudin kiramani,he has given all explanations about the righteousnous of hakim, the lineage,the claim of the druze,and his acts,... this article is pretty bias ,

"Ḥakīm is also known for his persecution of Christians and Jews and other typical Muslim behavior."

Now if that's not biased, I don't know what is.

---

There's an article on Hakim (title)... AnonMoos 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I added some information about Al-Hakim eccentric behavior, his death and a picture of his mosque. There no need for his religious section because it doesn’t contribute anything to the subject. Al-Hakim was an unstable man and he prosecuted Muslims as well as other religions. --ThutmoseIII 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Huge NPOV Issues; No sources/original research

Not only is calling his behavior "eccentric" without citation completely biased and full of POV, this name-calling that ThutmoseIII insists on without any scholarly research or evidence seems entirely offensive. Use documentation, please. Otherwise name-calling an historical figure just becomes the garbage that hard-working Wikipedians must work to overcome. His influence on the Druze as well as their reverence and worship of him is also completely and critically relevant to what needs to be included in his page. To not mention it I think would be reprehensible. -- 23 June 2007 129.170.168.43

Whatever -- he's widely known as the "Mad Caliph", and his destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem played a very important role in preparing the way for the Crusades. He's been a controversial figure for centuries, and the "name-calling" started long long ago... AnonMoos 23:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think certain users should have some self-respect and respect other people's beliefs. Also cite sources that the public can access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRC27 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- your Ismaili and/or Druze and/or other religious beliefs may lead you to revere him as a flawless figure without significant sin, but the consensus of historical scholarship in the field is that it's reasonably clear that his decrees and actions resulted in many negative effects on many individuals, and therefore it's pointless for you to expect that Wikipedia will defer to the hagiography of your religious tradition (whatever that might be) in opposition to established historical facts. If Hakim had shown more respect for my religion (instead of ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D), then it would now be easier for historical scholars to discuss the facts in a way that would respect your religion (whatever that might be).

However, I'll go to the University library sometime in the next few days (hopefully a week from now at most) and look up what the Encyclopaedia of Islam says on the subject, and will incorporate the factual substance of whatever I find to be relevant there into this article in an impeccably-sourced manner... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The "Journal of Near Eastern Studies" is available in many large University libraries, and in on-line form to students and staff at many participating academic institutions through JSTOR, so it's hardly "inaccessible" in any very meaningful sense. There's no requirement whatever that sources of Wikipedia articles must be available publicly on-line... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to claim that my suggestions for improving the quality of this article is influenced by what you perceive to be my religious tradition; that is very insulting. Furthermore you seem biased in your posts as shown by: "if Hakim had shown more respect for my religion (instead of ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D)…" Someone in such a biased position as you is not even remotely qualified to claim authority over a subject such as this. I am in contact with professors who are experts in the fields of Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Islamic studies. My grandfather for example, being one of those aforementioned professors, received his PhD in Islamic/Near Eastern studies from the University of Michigan with a specialization in Ismaili thought (and since you are so quick to accuse others of biases, which I suspect is a projection of your own flaws, I want to make it clear that neither he nor I are Muslims). I do not need to qualify myself to someone such as yourself seeing as I am more of an authority on the subject anyways. And since u seem to be so interested in this subject, I have been told that a lot of information concerning Al-Hakim has been found in the Genizah documents. The information present there has contradicted a lot of the so called “facts” about Al-Hakim that you mentioned. Since history is not all fact, and contains a lot of speculation and conjecture, I suggest you choose what to believe carefully and avoid forming hasty biased opinions based on shady testimonia. The journal of near eastern studies as well as the encyclopedia of islam, even though reputable in their own right, rely on whatever information is available. With hardly any information available on certain subjects it is not wise to blindly accept certain questionable information, even though it may suit your own personal and sometimes biased purposes. I’m planning an edit of this article to make it more scholarly and less biased. I’m sure you wont mind. --DRC27 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

DRC27, Virtually any reputable source on middle eastern history will talk of Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah's ecentric behavior. Do not delete source material that follows wikipedia policies or you will be blocked. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, i do not deny al-hakim's eccentric behavior so do not put words in my mouth again. however, part of being an academic is the ability to sort through primary sources. i suggest you read primary sources. finally i do not take kindly to being threatened. if you cant respectfully have a conversation then you should keep your mouth shut and mind your own business. --DRC27 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Given that the sources are conflicted, do not place the information in the entry section. I have listed the conflicts inside of the page itself.

When returning information to a page, don't revert other than your issue. You just reverted all my other edits as well. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho, please discuss this issue. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been established by now what the scholars say about al-Hakim and the Druze. The minority, less scholarly view you provided has already been mentioned. Don't remove sourced content and don't start another edit war. GreenEcho (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves. I'm not pretentious enough to consider myself more knowledgeable than renowned scholars, so neither should you. GreenEcho (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading. I have also cited scholars - ones who are Druze as well as being scholars. You are also misrepresenting the meaning of the scholarly works you cite as I noted above. The power of the "esoteric of the esoteric" Imam, who according to the Druze has entered Occultation, is not the same as being God.

I have requested we keep this situation neutral by posting the beliefs of the different scholars, but you keep reverting in a way that is aggressive: putting it in the lead-in paragraph? Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 23:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Without reverting, I have made a compromise version of the page. It contains all your cites and statements and places the Druze scholars and their opinions and cites in opposition. I hope this will end any fitna, as it includes everyone's positions. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring categories and bottom of article

I couldn't figure out what was wrong so I simply reverted to restore the bottom of the article which was lost. Compare the revisions.--71.118.42.80 (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reverting back and it appears in the text of the edits but not on the page. I'm not sure what is going on... it's bizarre. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 05:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the formatting, it's okay now. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The bottom portion of your revision contains duplicates of certain sections like the External links. I will let you fix it yourself.--71.118.42.80 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Man, what a mess. Every time I thought it was cleaned up, it replicated again.

Even more of a mess... I think a simultaneous edit by you and I somehow messed up the page, because half the edits are undone with no record of how. *sigh* Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Coinage

Coin of Caliph Al Hakim, Sicily, 1005.

Coin of Caliph Al Hakim, Sicily, 1010.

Feel free to introduce this coin in the article. PHG (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Perspective

Many believe that Hakim was not actually mad, but that everything he did served a specific purpose. The fact that the article percieves him as mad shows a lot of bias. Many believe that his actions were to turn people back to God and away from other objects of worship. More should be looked into this matter. Also anything said about the beliefs of the Druze should not be taken literally since the religion is so secretive. The Druze did not worship Hakim, they worshipped God. Furthermore, when Hakim disappeared he did not reappear in Lebanon as the article claims. There is very little evidence concerning Al-Hakim and the sources that this page uses are also full of speculation. I have not really found any consistent information concerning Al-Hakim.

I agree with what the other gentleman said in "another perspective" about the Eccentricities heading. It seems that Al Hakim made laws to make people more religious: to not eat grapes is because of the possibility of alcohol when people are lenient. Fish without scales are not kosher/halal. In regards to chess, many Islamic scholars (like Christian and Jewish scholars like Maimonides) considered it a waste of time. Al-Hakim was not so crazy, some of these rulings had points.

35.11.56.20 (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Lawneldin

Another Perspective 2

I agree with what the other gentleman said in "another perspective" about the Eccentricities heading. It seems that Al Hakim made laws to make people more religious: to not eat grapes is because of the possibility of alcohol when people are lenient. Fish without scales are not kosher/halal. In regards to chess, many Islamic scholars (like Christian and Jewish scholars like Maimonides) considered it a waste of time. Al-Hakim was not so crazy, some of these rulings had points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)