Talk:Al-Insān al-Kāmil

Sources

WilyD looked up this concept on JSTOR (see here) and found nothing conclusive to support the claims being made.

Please cite reliable sources and do not keep reverting the changes. See WP:EL for the criteria of links that can be included and WP:RS on what you can use to source this. Cheers. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the sources included right now? You may not consider, for example, Robert Spencer, a reliable source, simply because he criticizes islam. But he's not alone in this. He's only saying what other muslims are saying about Muhammad. He did not make up the term al-insan al-kamil. Also, it's just an external link to his blog, giving his thoughts on the subject. Robert Spencer is a notable scholar on Islam (though muslims wouldn't like to admit it and usually call him a hater). His opinion on this should be included. And it's not like I'm using Jihad Watch as a reference, it's just in the external links. That's all. The other sources, which I've used as references, are to muslim sites. And really, they only corroborate what the Encyclopedia Britannica is saying. So what's the problem? Look, I understand that this is a touchy subject, but please, don't make a big deal out of it. All right? EliasAlucard|Talk 14:24 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
• "Robert Spencer is a notable scholar on Islam " - no he isn't. he has no academic qualifications related to Islam, and his works do not appear in academic, respected, peer-reviewed publications. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • • How come he gets everything right about Islam then? He's only citing other Islamic sources by prominent Muslims. He never says or writes anything of his own; he's not making stuff up. By the way, I read that Adam part a little hastily, and I got it a little bit wrong; Adam is not referred to as al-insan al-kamil. Anyway, Robert Spencer is more or less an expert on Islam. His books are always well researched, and his opinion on this is of very important note. I'd say he's a scholar in his own right, whether or not he has Academic education on the subject. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:08 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
      • "How come he gets everything right about Islam then?". What a way to present a POV. --- A. L. M. 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not POV. What exactly has Robert Spencer written and/or said about Islam, that was wrong? I understand he's not popular amongst Muslims, but you can't really say he's not in the know. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:16 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
          • you're claiming he's reliable based upon your own opinions and speculation. all of this is subjective. what you should do, is prove that Spencer is verifiably a reliable source, by demontrating that he has the credentials as outlined above. can you disprove the notion i forward here? as you haven't, and as i know that Spencer has no academic training on the topic (unlike real scholars), we can by no means conclude he is reliable. in fact, that his polemic is not published by any real academic press, and his works are not peer reviewed nor assessed by academic scholars, it becomes apparent that he isn't a reliable source.[1] simply asserting "what he says is right!" holds no weight. see WP:RS and WP:V to learn what makes a source reliable. ITAQALLAH 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid I'll have to agree with those who feel the presence of this link is not in accordance with Wiki's standards. It is not a primary resource that defines the meaning of the term. It simply a rebuttal by Spencer to criticism made of his comments. It is not in any way a systematic review of the term that is the topic of this entry. Furthermore, it appears that Spencer only refers to this term insofar as to justify other arguments regarding his interpretations of the imitation of the Prophet within Islamic Culture. He never has provided a cogent description of the concept within Islam in general (unlike many of the people that he refers to), much less the nuances of the definition within Islamic History, and Islamic piety in particular. If your goal is to criticize the concept, or thr tradition surrounding it, the appropriate place is to place it in the entry on Criticism of Islam, or that of Robert Spencer. The imperative is that all articles concerning Islam within Wikipedia define the concepts that are inherent within the religion in and of itself; it is not an imperative to provide criticism of those elements in each and every entry by non-adherents especially simply to display a kind of sectarian bias- if not zealotry- in doing so.Jemiljan (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Elias, to address the claim you made in the history note: "External links does not mean we are citing Robert Spencer, it's an interesting debate regarding this specific topic, and should be kept here for others interested in the topic." Wiki's policy clearly states: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." As a result, you'll have to do better than that to justify inclusion, beyond how "interesting" you feel it may be. Please refer to [[2]] especially items 1,2, 12, 14.

• • • • • • • • • Actually, the link you posted is not a debate at all; Spencer has only responded to elements of criticism made of him, and the quotes are taken out of context. Furthermore, is the person to whom Spencer is responding a scholar of this topic, or just a blogger? As such, this can only be defined as a rebuttal, not a debate. A fair debate would feature two scholars on the subject, who agree to provide full sets of statements, side by side, along with responses by each person. You are, of course, more than welcome to place the link in the categories previously mentioned, such as Criticism of Islam- or devise a new sub-section that criticizes this particular term, or the role that it has played- but be prepared to use primary sources, rather than just Spencer's rebuttal, to cite in that section. Should you choose to do so, I would highly recommend that to best be objective, you would do better than to solely cite Spencer as your source. Daniel Pipes, for example has notably written critiques of Islamic Culture, is someone who has studied the subject in an accredited academic setting, and a number of his articles have been published in journals that are peer-reviewed. That said, you might be surprised to find that he does not always agree with the claims made by Spencer and Fitzgerald. The example of Taqqiya is a perfect case in point, and one that I think you would do well to review before you proceed in order to avoid confirmation bias in your writing. Needless to say, if you do decide to add a critique of the concept, it would only be fair to add a subsection that critiques the nature of the criticism as well. Jemiljan (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

Annihilation in the Messenger of God: The Development of a Sufi Practice Valerie J. Hoffman International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Aug., 1999), pp. 351-369. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7438%28199908%2931%3A3%3C351%3AAITMOG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

This article seems to give a little bit of background. It credits Ibn Arabi as the first Sufi writer to use the term Al-insan al-kamil (does this imply non-sufi writers previously used it? I'm not a scholar of Islam.) It translates it as "Perfect Man" or literally "Complete Human", maybe with a definite article. It is the fullest manifestion of the divine cosmos (quote) and the author claims it's identified with the "Spirit of Muhammad" or the "Muhammadean Reality" (this strikes me as far more nuanced than the representation on the page). There's a lot more in comparison or .... hmm, my understanding here is somewhat muddled - with the Barzakh or Supreme Barzakh, and the role of Muhammad as such in both Ibn Arabi and Al Jili. Ibn Arabi cites "God created Adam upon His own form" to mean that all parts of creation have some aspect of God in them, and the whole cosmos reflects all of God. There's some comparison between a human being and the whole cosmos, and maybe God places all of his attributes in humanity - hmm.

Ibn 'Arabī's Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought Masataka Takeshita Review author[s]: S. Calderini Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 52, No. 1. (1989), pp. 133-134. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X%281989%2952%3A1%3C133%3AI%27TOTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

This doctoral thesis reviewed here makes a much stronger identification of Al-insan al-kamil with Adam - but I've only read the review, not the thesis, so it's unclear exactly how strong the identification is, and I get the impression the reviewer thinks it's too strong (who is right? I have no idea).

The Mystical Theology of Tijānī Sufism and Its Social Significance in West Africa Patrick J. Ryan Journal of Religion in Africa, Vol. 30, Fasc. 2. (May, 2000), pp. 208-224. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4200%28200005%2930%3A2%3C208%3ATMTOTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

This paper notes that Salat al-Fahil doesn't use the term Al-insan al-kamil for Muhammad while exploring his role as a connection between God and earth - does this imply it might be common for others to do so? Or just for Sufi's in this limited context?

The Spiritual Ascension: Ibn ʿArabī and the Miʿrāj Part I James Winston Morris Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 107, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1987), pp. 629-652. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28198710%2F12%29107%3A4%3C629%3ATSAIAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Abstract: The scriptural accounts of the Ascension (miʿrāj) of Muhammad provided a comprehensive symbolic representation of man's spiritual development for later traditions of Islamic thought. The creative adaptation of those materials by the famous mystical thinker Ibn ʿArabī (1165-1240), reflecting the full range of his metaphysical-theological insights and practical spiritual concerns, influenced many subsequent Islamic literary and philosophic movements. This study of his major Miʿraj narratives (focusing on a revealing autobiographical version of his own spiritual journey) should also interest students of comparative mysticism, philosophy and religion from other "Oriental" traditions. Part II of this study will appear in the next issue.

This has some discussion of the issue, corresponding the Perfect Man to the creation of Adam, and/or a reflection of God in Humanity maybe. Also suggested is that Al-insan al-kamil may be something that anyone can aspire to - if their heart fully mirrors the divine reality (God?). In this context, could Muhammad be "a" Al-insan al-kamil, rather than "the" Al-insan al-kamil? (From a Muslim perspective - I'm not sure I should phrase this question this way as a (possibly Godless?) heathen).

Just some initial thoughts - if people feel this is worth pursuing, I'll look into it further. WilyD 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of scholarly sources available. Why aren't we getting down to work? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:21 18 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{editprotected}}

Please see the usage notes on now to use the {{editprotected}} template. Just adding the tag to the page with a comment is not sufficient. An admin needs to know exactly what is to be edited and to see that there is consensus for the edit. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, it isn't hard to find an admin to make the edits, or unlock the page, if a consensus develops or people start editing sensibly. Somehow, I'm sure at least one already has their eye on the page. Cheers, WilyD 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

There seems to be a consensus for merge on Muhammad article. But this article is locked. --Aminz 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No merge is needed. This topic is huge, and there's lots of scholarly sources on this topic. We got a book here which specifically deals with the al-insan al-kamil concept. Another book by Ibn Arabi, deals with it as well [3] And another source here The al-insan al-kamil concept is also derived from the Quran, verse 33:21. Now look, this is not a Muhammad topic, it's a concept, which specifically deals with the perfect man, which Muhammad is considered to be, mainly, in Sufi islam. So this is not a topic that should be merged into the Muhammad article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:11 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Request for a minor edit

{{editprotected}}

I'd like the Islam category to be removed from the bottom of this page; I've just about cleaned up the Category:Islam page and this is the only article that appears there but shouldn't. TIA. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 10:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to unlock?

Two books are written about this concept. [4] [5] I repeat, two books are written about al-insan al-kamil. There's no need to merge this article, because it can be filled with lots of interesting stuff in its own right, and we can expand the article a lot. Question: does anyone object to this article being unlocked, so that we can finally get down to work? A reply would be nice. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:55 04 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Best to discuss the changes you wish to make here and see if there is consensus. → AA ^(talk) — 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Logos/Word of God?

The article contains an unsourced claim that Muhammad is seen in Islam as the Logos or Word of God. My Muslim friends would certainly not agree with this, and the phrase Kalimat Allah in the Qur'an does not refer to Muhammad. Likewise, the claim that Islam identifies Muhammad with the divine intellect had references, but these did not back up the claim. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Uswatun Hasanah

Uswa Hasana redirects here, even though it has it's own distinct meaning and even though it isn't mentioned a single time on the page. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging Al-Insān al-Kāmil with İnsan-ı Kamil

We have old merge tags on the two articles mentioned above. Are these actually about the same topic? Should they be merged? Please comment below. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained revision

Medalrutani, you made an unexplained revision and removed my changes. Why is this? Xtremedood (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)