Talk:Identity of the first male Muslim

Start article

Started article because it should be linked to Ali, Abu Bakr, and Zayd. Needs more references, quotes from Tabari. I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari. Zora 11:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

References

The Edwardes version of Ibn Ishaq is a Folio Society edition -- it may just be the Guillaume edition tarted up with fancy binding. I think the Guillaume edition should be cited, especially as it's still being printed and the Edwardes version is not.

If Ibn Ishaq is cited, then Ibn Hisham should NOT be.

The English version of Tabari should be cited. I don't have the relevant volume, alas.

The Rodinson and Armstrong books (both of which I have) just say that Muhammad's household converted first, and then give a list of the members of the household. If Ali comes first in the list, that doesn't necessarily mean that the authors are taking sides as to priority -- especially since they do not mention the issue elsewhere.

I will have to go to the library to check some of the other references.

If you are going to cite a reference, you should have looked at it. Cutting and pasting lists of references without knowing whether they're good or bad is sloppy scholarship. Zora 23:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent copyedit

Striver, you imported your whole list of references. You can't cite BOTH Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, as if they were separate works -- Ibn Hisham merely edited Ibn Ishaq. You can't claim the Armstrong and the Rodinson as supporting the Alid claim -- I have those books, I checked them, and they just say that Muhammad's household converted, and then give a list of the people in the household. There is no claim that the people in the household converted in the order in which their names appear on the list! I also removed the page numbers, which are completely pointless when no edition info is given. I also don't like the way that you divide the references up into Shi'a, Sunni, and non-Muslim. That is argumentative, as if to say, see, everyone agrees with me. That's a legacy of Sunni-Shi'a debates and it's completely beside the point in Wikipedia.

The references you gave are still iffy -- no dates, for one thing.

Also, you keep inserting "non-Muslim" before academics. I think that's related to your claim that the ulema should also be considered academics. They're scholars, but not academics, which as far as I know is used for people with degrees from accredited institutions that follow the European BA-MA-PhD model. Zora 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver:

I have those books too. I guess the only way to put this to an end is to quote straight out of the text. Which I will. Dont worry. She cant do shit (a.k.a. rewrite history) as long as I'm around. I've seen and dealt with much worse bigots than her.--Zereshk 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

1. The term "academic" is not reserved for westerners. That's a highly ethnocentric way of thinking, and it is very sad to see this coming from someone who claims to be a "Fulbright Scholar". Besides, it isn't as you say to begin with anyway: Meriam Webster's definition of an "academic".
2. Please list the sources of western authors whom I listed as supporting the "Alid claim", and who you have questioned. I wish to double check on those.--Zereshk 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Im waiting Zora... My time to visit our library is limited.--Zereshk 00:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Striver,

Since Zora is so uncourteous as not to respond (and just delete and revert without discussion), I assume that she was talking about the Karen Armstrong reference.

File:Karen armstrong muhammad book.jpg

Image of Karen Armstrong's book.

I think it is perfectly OK to add the Karen Armstrong reference as pro-Ali. I have underlined where it says: "and the rest of Muhammad's household followed her: Ali, Zayd, ..."

If Zora gives you trouble about the sentence saying "just because Ali is mentioned first in the sentence doesnt mean he was first", tell her that the word "follow" according to the Collins Dictionary of English implies "order" (and that's how I perceived it). I can give direct quotes for that.--Zereshk 07:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Correct me if I'm wrong: None of the refs I just added are from Shia authors. Maybe that guy Ghulam Malik perhaps? I found those references in our PCL library in Austin. Cant exactly exclude them from Academic then.--Zereshk 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The use of the prase "(Peace and Blessings of God be upon him)" four times in the two short paragrqaphs that make up the Shi'a view section is inappropriate in an encyclopedia and inconsistent in style with the rest of the article.

The ulema are scholars, not academics. This is clear even from the Webster's definition of "academic". The first definition is the relevant one: "a member of an institution of learning". Madrassas are not universities or institutions of learning any more than non-Muslim seminaries are, and no one refers to seminarians as academics.

Chukipil 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Adam, PBUH, was the first Muslim. --Striver 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this should be renamed something like, Identity of first male to Support Muhammad.. or something?

Sounds good enough for me, go ahead and rename it.--Striver 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Improving the presentation of minority views

I'll hopefully work on this article over the course of the next few weeks to improve the presentation of the Shia views. I'll discuss any major changes in this section. Albertatiran (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Much of the content is unsourced! Of the few existing sources, some are just specified by the author's name and publication date. I'll hopefully add new sources and rewrite much of the unsourced material. Albertatiran (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is probably no need for the section Orientalist's Outlook. I've already summarized the long quote in the intro and the word orientalist is itself outdated. Albertatiran (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge

In my opinion, this article should be merged with the Timing of Sahabah becoming Muslims article.M.Nadian (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@M.Nadian: I agree. I'll place the tags for merger.VR _talk 16:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

👍👌 M.Nadian (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support seems plausible, i agree plersonally Ahendra (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Supported because this article is short enough and relevant enough to the topic that a merger seems sensible. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 10:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)