Template talk:Hadith collections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Jami al-Tirmidhi is the same as Sunan al-Tirmidhi
2. These books are not Hadith books and they should not be listed here:

Tarikh al-Tabari — 838–923
Sira — 733-768
Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh — 1231
Fara'id al-Simtayn — ? Tarikh Abul Fida — 1315-1329
Fath al-Bari — 1372-1449
Tarikh al-Khulafa — 1445-1490
Al-Khulafah Ar-Rashidun — 1445-1490
Mawaddat al-Qurba — 1800th
Nahj with comments — 1849-1905
Yanabi al-Muwadda — 1900th
--Islamic 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed, they may contain ahadeeth but are not books of hadeeth. here is the ref for the status of al-muwatta [1] ITAQALLAH 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, having reviewed the contents of the "sunni collections" of hadeeth section, it seems that almost all of them mentioned are not primary collections but secondary collections which contain ahadeeth from primary sources. examples include riyaadh as-saaliheen (which cites bukhaari, muslim et al) and kanz ul-'ammaal. bulugh al-maram is a book on shaafi'ee fiqh (which is apparent to anyone who has read it)! yes it contains a lot of ahadeeth, but it is in essence a book of fiqh [2] i intend to correct this mistake (which seems to be a copy/pasted from several online stores) in its original article soon. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great, i really could use some help in this area. --Striver 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That could be a good suggestion to divide them into primary hadith sources and secondary sources. I will start with List of Sunni books. --Islamic 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, it is the first well-researched hadith collection after a hundred years and has recently been translated into English from Arabic by Muhtar Holland and will be published soon Insh'Allah. One you read and understand it then you will see how notable and genuine it is. Ma'sallaamaHasseniqbal192 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not is is well researched is a matter of opinion. As for it being the only one in a hundred years, this is clearly incorrect and I find it odd you would make such a claim, as you seem like a relatively well-read individual. As for it's notability, that is not dependent upon me reading it but rather on the acclaim and reception it has received, which needless to say isn't on the level of traditional books such as the Musnad or Riyadh as-Saaliheen. I understand that you have high respect for Dr. Qadri but you can't allow that to influence your objectivity as an editor. Please review the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability policies. MezzoMezzo 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)