Talk:Ismah

The Fourteen Infallibles

Somebody has suggested that The Fourteen Infallibles is merge into Ismah. It's like to merge Twelve Imams into Imamat. Ismah is a concept and The Fourteen Infallibles is not. So it's not acceptable.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles and Ismah are inseperable, but because of the position of Ismah in Shia theology, and existence of many doubts about it, we must investigate Ismah in detail and precisely in a different article.

• Now what is your suggestion about the structure of this article?
• Meaning And Description of Ismah
• Rational Reasons for Ismah
• Quranic Proofs of Ismah
• The Idea of scholers about Ismah
  • Shi'a
  • Sunni Salman mahdi (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I just delete the second paragraph about Abu Bakr? This article is under the Shia view banner so it's not at all relevant!Shabaniyya (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Shia Islam

Why no mention of the Ismailis and their Imam here?The Lesser Merlin (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

request of partner

Donaldson mentioned in his book namely" the Shiite religion; the history of Islam in Persia and Irak" some reasons on inerrancy of prophets both by designation and by reason in page 321. who would like to complete it?m,sharaf 13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)(talk)

new suggestion

I want to add these sections to the page Ismah. they are as follow:

1. Ismah in narrations
2. Imam's Ismah
3. Angel's Ismah
4. ismah in philosophy
5. Ismah in theology
6. ismah in jurisprudence
7. Ismah's prophets
   1. Ismah in revelation
8. rejecting Ismah
9. ismah and volition(free will)
10. Ismah and retraction

maybe the place of them changed.--m,sharaf 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mhhossein, User:Faizhaider and Mehdi ghaed ;this is my suggestion:

1. Terminology: Meaning of the word.
2. Concept of Ismah: Description interpretations of the term from technical view point and its translations and interpretations.
   1. Ismah of Prophets
   2. Ismah of Imams
   3. Ismah of Angels
3. Arguments: Explanation of the term from different view point.
   1. Quran and Hadith
   2. Philosophical arguments
   3. Theological arguments
4. Historical analysis: How the concept has emerged, formed and changed during the Shia history.

What is your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 04:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: That's good. By the way, what do you mean by "translations" in the second section? Isn't it a matter to be inserted under the first section (Terminology)? Mhhossein (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We can add it in the first section.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

we have also rational reasons for ismah.I have prepared its content. Can I add it or I must delay until ur last suggestion on its organization?Salman mahdi (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The argument section is for rational justification of the concept. I think it is better to wait until we can reach to consensus about the structure.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Salman mahdi, and Mhhossein: I support the breakup/structure provided by Seyyed, it is in accordance with most of the structure(s) we find in literature. Although we can refine the structure but it is good to start with. Regarding rational justification (i.e. Aqli or logical) we can add it too, once added it can be reviewed. I'm sorry that I'm not able to contribute much to this effort as I am busy elsewhere but I'm looking into few books (some major ones e.g. Hayat al Quloob and some minor one too like booklets, etc) and will add if I find something which is in addition to the great work you guys are doing on both articles. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Faizhaider:; Salam Alaykum and thank for your contribution. Can you invite the other users who can help us with improving this article and contribute in making a Featured one.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Walekum Salam, I'll try to contact few users who have collaborated with us before, but it seems most of the people from old team are no mor active. But lets try.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agreement with the above mentioned structure by userSeyyed...--m,sharaf (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein: I think it's better we bring the section "Quranic Proofs of Ismah" under the section of " The concept of Ismah"; because we describe the concept & then we bring a Quranic proof for it.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: I believe that "Concept" is sth and "proof" is another. In the first one we discuss what a subject is, while we try to prove the subject in the second one (proof). So, don't mix them together. Mhhossein (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I mean to bring it as a subtitle to the cocept not to mix them. Salman mahdi (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: Although it is more rational now, I think we should bring all of the proofs and arguments under a unit section. Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein: I guess the place of the "Shia Islam" is not suitable;because Shia ideas is expressed before this section tooSalman mahdi (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Salman mahdi, and Mhhossein: I would like to add a new section namely "Only (specific) Members of the Prophet's Family" to this paper which would an answer to the following question: Did you know why Shitte believes that Ismah / Imamah has not been passed to a family different from that of the Messenger of God? It includes three reasons by Imam al Ridha which I found it in UYUN AKHBAR AL-REZA.hadi.anani (talk)

Concerning this section I think it is more related to succession to Muhammad rather than Ismah.Salman mahdi (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi and Hadi.anani: I Agree . We'd better move it to another article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Salman mahdi, and Mhhossein: we could move the following paragraph from the lead to the other sections (or even "notes" section) so that it won't be so messy any longer. Moreover the readers won't need to be refereed to al sheikh al saduq's book( which is a primary source). Mentioning the dictionary "Taj al Arus" would be good enough.

"Taj al-Arus[a] explains the technical meaning of Ismah as Allah's preservation of the infallible, first, by endowment of pure constitution; then by blessing great excellences; then by firm will against opponents, then by sending down upon them tranquility (as-Sakina), and the preservation of their hearts and minds, and adaptation to the truth,[1] a miraculous gift of Allah which is specific to Imams.[2]" hadi.anani

@Hadi.anani: Agree Mhhossein (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hadi.anani:  Disagree But I think the most important parts are the two first sections and Taj al-arus is a dictionary & as for the place of Ismah in Shia doctrine, I think a more explanation is needed as considering the miscellaneous readers with different religions and ambiguities.We must not consider ourseleve as criteria (that is sth which is clear for us, it is clear for all) on the other hand if the concept be not described fairly, it would be thought that Allah is not just(Adil) or this is not an especial power on the Ma'sum.(Salman mahdi.talk) 07:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: It does not hurt the clarification. We mean to reduce the materials of the lead as much as possible. The miscellaneous readers will (should) follow the context of the article. The lead is devised to help the readers have an overall idea of the subject. Mhhossein (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Uhum, now I get, to remove from the head paragraph; maybe it be good.Salman mahdi (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: You may summarize the materials for the aim of making the lead section. So you don't have to remove all of them. Mhhossein (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

argument by reason

Most of the arguments in this section are theological rather than rational. when we want to speak by reason, any one with any religion must accept it, while we narrate of some of Shi'a scholars that Imam must be ma'asum without bringing any logical(aqli)reasons for it.Salman mahdi (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: could you please mention some of the logical reasons? Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

• If somebody commit a sin then people have not trust on him, so the prophetic mission will be nullified.
• people like to obey a perfect and sinless person rather than a faulty one.This is clear.
• When the prophet is not the most perfect one, perhaps somebody be better than him,so how can a superior follow an inferior one?.......

@Salman mahdi: OK, Any references for them? Mhhossein (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi:, here are two points.. first point is that if we find out some points in religious context, it doesn't mean that argument is not rational. maybe a rational argument mentioned in theological contexts.. second point is that from of this argument is important.. the form of sentences are conditional and logical...--m,sharaf (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Please add the above arguments if you have reliable source which support them.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Concept of Ismah

I think this section is not coherent and it needes some changes such as deleting the repeatitions and changing the place of material and also formal edition...--Salman mahdi (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

[As for Fatimah, her infallibility derives from her being a link between prophethood and imamah, the two institutions characterized by infallibility, as well as by her association with the imams and their attributes in numerous Hadiths. ].I didn't get what does it mean & what is its relevance to the context. Salman mahdi (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi:This is trying to prove the infallibility of Fatimah (a.s). Right? Mhhossein (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

[According to the Sunnis, neither the term nor the concept of ismah is in the Qur'an or in canonical Sunni hadith. It was apparently first used by the Imamiyyah, perhaps about the beginning of the second/ eighth century, maintained that the Imam must be immune from sin (ma'sum).[17] Among non-Shia Muslims, the doctrine of ismah has been rejected by some, such as the Kharijites, who point to the verse 48:2 of Quran in which Allah says to Moḥammad (English translation): "That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow".[18][19]] These sentences are not related to this section. Perhaps the article must have another section named Different Opinions about Ismah --Salman mahdi (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: I Agree with you. This paragraph is about opinions of other Muslims about Ismah. Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Concept of Ismah [A Ma'sum preserves from the sins because of his highest level of righteousness and consciousness and love for God and his thorough knowledge about the concequences of committing the sins.[10] An infallible is immune from error in pragmatism, in propagating religion and in perception on the realm of cognizance]

[Thus just they are the most pure ones, who are immune to all impurities.[29] It does not mean that supernatural powers prevent them from committing a sin, but it is due to the fact that they have an absolute submission to God that they do not sin. ]

Shia Islam [Thus they act without fault in religious matters.]

[Ragarding it, Majlesi, a Shiite theologian, says that: "They are free from all sins , great or small . NO sort of sin can be attributed to them, no oversight or forgetfulness, and no mistakes in interpretation. Neither are they to be thought of having sinned before the time of their being appointed to prophethood etc".[30]] These are repeated in two sections.Salman mahdi (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi:  Disagree they are not the same. The materials which are quoted from "Concept of Ismah" are reasoning why the infallible does not perform any sins. It is a clarification! but the second one is just saying that they don't perform sins. In fact, it is trying to quote the idea of shia texts and scholars. Mhhossein (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:so the opinions must be narrated in its own section.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

[Ibn Babuyah states, Shi'a believes that the prophets (anbiya'), apostles (rasuls), Imams and angels are infallible (ma'sum); purified from all defilements (dhanbs), and that they do not commit any sin, capital or minor.[35] Al-Mufid defines ismah in his Tashih al-ietiqad as follows: Ismah is a grace and favour(lutf)of Allah to his Hujjats(Imams), by which they are secured against faults (dhunub) and errors. Ismah is the grace(tafaddul) of God to those who has the ability of being ma'sum. It does not enforce people to do good or to prevent wrong. But God knows to whom give this power, the one who never chooses to disobey him] again repeated Salman mahdi (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ismah of prophets

@Sa.vakilian and Salman mahdi: This section needs to be modified. It contains Qur'anic arguments rather than a concept of Ismah of prophets. In this section, I think, we should try to explain what the Ismah of prophets is! Mhhossein (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Khomeini's theory

There is Dabashi's description about khomeini's theory in the last paragraph which is one POV and we should add the other POV which is explained by Algar. [1]--Seyyed(t-c) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Mhhossein, and Mehdi ghaed: I think this description is not related to this article and should be deleted.Hum?--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you. We can even make a section to explain different ideas on the expansion of the infallibility to Faqih which completely relates to the theory of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. As you may know some Shia scholars agree with this theory while some other disagree with it and there is controversy over it in Iran.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: I also think that we refer to all views in any way.. different ideas cause us to explain them to put away any adherently situation.--m,sharaf (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Reason of Deletion

Dear @Bapehu:, With thanks for your copy editing, why you have deleted the note after Murtada al-Zabidi (Tāj al-ʿArūs (Arabic: تاج العروس) is the second most frequently cited dictionary of Classical Arabic by Murtada al-Zabidi (after Lisān al-ʿArab by Ibn Manẓūr). please before deleting the material, you ask them in the talk page.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because (1) it's an inappropriate detail for the article (i.e. if one wants to know more about Zabidi or Taj al=Arus, one can just click on the wikilink; and (2) the sentence was not english=and did not make sense. What are you trying to say? That it is the second most cited dictionary of classical Arabic whose author is Zabidi? Or that Taj al-Arus is the second most cited dictionary of classical arabic of all the dictionaries cited by Zabidi? I think it's the former. Regardless, to my mind, this isn't the type of edit that needs a talk page discussion before making it per WP:Bold. Bapehu (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Error in Copy Editing

Dear @Bapehu:, In copy editing you have mad an error and have changed this sentence (Zayn al-Abidin regards Ismah as "a quality which enables a man to seize firmly the strong lifeline from God that is Quran" and both of them are not separated until the Judgment Day) to this one ( He states that each of the Fourteen Infallibles are not separated from each other until the Day of Judgment). Quran and the Fourteen Infallibles are not seperable.--Salman mahdi (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Fix nonsense

I've removed the following sentence because it is WP:NONSENSE as it stands. Don't revert until you've fixed it or I will need to seek dispute resolution:

Tabatabaei says Ismah has two forms with regards to revelation: first, it stipulates that the prophets must be free from sin in the reception of revelation, in its preservation and in its propagation, which are three principles of ontological guidance, so error by Allah in existence is meaningless; second, in the addition the previous, the Ismah implies protection from sin, on the basis of the prophets' own will and knowledge.

Specifically, parts (1) "it stipulates that the prophets must be free from sin in the reception of revelation, in its preservation and in its propagation", (2) "which are three principles of ontological guidance", and (3) "so error by Allah in existence is meaningless."

Part (2) claims that part (1) are "principles of ontological guidance". If that is the case, then what is it about part (1) that qualifies it to be "principles of ontological guidance"? Secondly, "ontological guidance" is nonsense; explain it in other words or link to an appropriate article. Thirdly, part (3) claims to be a consequence of part (2), but it isn't; it is a non-sequitur. Fill in the missing logic or drop part (3) from the sentence.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. When God desires to guide the people to the right path or belief, He does not err in His will as He has enough knowledge and power; so, to guide the people, there should not be any thing wrong with getting and understanding the revelation and propagating it by the prophet because He has desired so. This is called ontological guidance.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ismah is concerned regarding to God and the Infallible. God by His eternal knowledge knows that these 14 people do not disobey him, so by endowing them tawfiq (a divine help) preserves them from committing error and sin. But ,on the other hand, the infallibles because of their knowledge about the consequences of the sins and because of their love towards God, they never even think about the sins. It means that if every other one had the potential of not committing the sins, God would bless him/her the attribute of ismah. At last, it is a tawfiq by God which the infallibles deserve and the infallibles own endeavors. Is it clear? Salman mahdi (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salman mahdi: So, "ontological guidance" is the principle that God does not err in guiding those he desires to guide, because of his omnipotence and omniscience? Is that correct?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[2] What is the original Arabic term for "ontological guidance"?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Ontological= Takweeni; Guidance= Hedayah;(Arabic: الهدایة التکوینیة).Salman mahdi (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

assignment

Assignment has been used in this article at least in three different meaning.

• they could not be Kafir before or after their assignment and also they do not commit other sins intentionally Assignment does not mean Be'sat (بعثت).
• Allah must assign someone similar to prophet in his attributes and Ismah as his successor to guide the people and to interpret the Quran I prefer designate in this sentence.
• He said: The meaning of “stern and strong” is that the angels are committed to the assignment given to them by Allah. Here obligation looks better.

This term looks wrong at least in some cases, however I am not a native speaker.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: According to Quranic translations and Lane, (Arabic: بَعَثَ) is translated to ″send″; But I don't think we could use the word here; but by adding the prophecy to the assignment (their assignment to the prophecy), perhaps it would be clear; but designation is not used for this meaning as I saw in Corbin's book.

• I agree with the third.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, responding to a query by @Seyyed. I'm not sure I have proper context for the discussion yet - is this about modifying existing wording in the article or about providing an original translation by editors? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

bonjour, I think that we could rely on the translation of some authors like Nasr , Izutsu and the like..any view?--m,sharaf (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:MezzoMezzo, Unfortunately, the readers can not understand these technical phrase easily. In this case, we've used assignment in three different meanings?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with your sugestions, Seyyed; there are plenty of possible terms in English. Plus, you know my position: not everything needs to be translated literally, word-for-word; sometimes phrases can be used for a concept instead. However, by leaving the first instance as assign, and then using designate and obligate, it seems that the problem would be averted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You two are experienced so please do as it is better.Salman mahdi (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo and Salman mahdi: can we use "divinely ordained" as well as Be'sat (Islam).--Seyyed(t-c) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

• The material of footnote N. 1 in the source is as follows: Please help to clarify the tag: The word `isma, translated by Wensinck in MC as impeccability, by Miller in BHA as "immunity to sin" and by W. Ivanow as "infallibility", needs further explanation in view of its doctrinal importance in Shi`itic literature. The root `asama, ya'simu, `asman, means according to Lane, prevented, hindered, protected, defended, preserved, withheld, etc. And `isma is prevention, hindrance, defence, protection; its primary significance being trying or binding. عصمة الانبیاء is explained in Taju 'l-Arus as God's preservation of the prophets, first, by peculiar endowment of them with essential purity of constitution; then by the conferring of large and highly-esteemed excellences; then by aid against opponents, and rendering their feet firm, then by sending down upon them tranquility (as-Sakina, Qur'an 9, 26, etc.) and the preservation of their hearts or minds, and adaptation to that which is right. Whence we have "a defence from the state of perdition" and finally, "a faculty of avoiding acts of disobedience, with possession of power to commit them". Salman mahdi (talk) 08: 41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Salman mahdi In my view, you can clarify the terminology by adding more information from the above text. I suggest to check the other sources as well. For example, please add Nasr, Algar and the others translations to this section.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• The material of the footnote-26 in the source: The basic factor from which al-‘ismah emanates is a sort of knowledge which prevents the knower from indulging in sin and mistake. In other words, knowledge prevents one from going astray. Likewise, all good characteristics, like bravery chastity and generosity are the forms of knowledge which are deep rooted in psyche and create their effects and at the same time prevent one from indulging in their opposites like cowardice or rashness, lack of desire or greed, miserliness or extravagance. Although beneficial knowledge and perfect sagacity keep one clean and prevent his falling in quagmire of depravity or being soiled with filth of sins, (as we see in the people who have knowledge and wisdom, and steeped in piety and religion). However, it is such a cause as brings its effects most of the times but not always. The same is the case with all material and natural causes which are found in the universe. Look at anyone who is perfect in any field; you will find that his perfection does not protect him from mistake always and without any fail. It is a common trait of all causes which we see and observe. It is a common trait of all causes which we see and observe. The reason is that man possesses various powers of consciousness and at times some of them push the others to the back of the mind and man becomes oblivious of those factors. A man with faculty of piety will not be inclined to follow base desires as long as he is conscious of the virtue of his piety; but a time may come when the fire of desire is inflamed and he being tempted by that desire becomes oblivious of the virtue of piety or his consciousness of piety becomes weak, and he commits what piety would never tolerate and indulges in base desires. The same is the case with all conscious causes found in man. Otherwise, man will never deviate from the effects of any of these causes as long as the cause remains intact. In short, whenever man goes against the dictates of virtue, it happens because some causes overpower the others and man forgets dictates of virtue. But as for this faculty which is called the power of al-‘ismah it is a conscious cause emanating from knowledge which can never be overpowered. Had it been like other consciousness and comprehensions, it could have sometimes failed and deviated from the right path. This knowledge is not like other knowledge and comprehensions which we are familiar with and which can be acquired and learned from teachers.

• The material of the footnote-27 in the source:It is because the power of ‘ismah (sinlessness) does not nullify the free will and choice, nor does it repeal the laws based on that will and choice. Ismah is in fact an academic and intellectual aptitude; knowledge and perception do not deprive practical powers and faculties from their middle position between doing and not doing. It is these faculties, which move the limbs and organs of a man and cause his activities. For example, a sure knowledge that a certain food is poisoned prevents man from taking that food. But the organs used in eating, like hand, mouth, tongue, and teeth may perform their activities in this eating, or they may remain inert although they could possibly become

active; so the action is within power, although it has become like impossible to do because of that knowledge. Salman mahdi (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Split

@Al-Andalusi: Salam Alaykum, Can you please explain about your suggestion.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What Miller?

There was a sentence, added last October by User:Salman mahdi [3], saying that "Ismah is translated by Wensinck as impeccability, by Miller as immunity to sin, and by W. Ivanow as infallibility", sourced to "al-Shaykh al-Saduq (1982). A Shiite Creed. Fyzee (3rd ed.)". The ultimate sources (Wensinck, Miller and Ivanow) weren't further specified. In July 2015 User:Dhtwiki [4] expanded these names, turning "Miller" into "Frederic P. Miller", but still without further specification of the precise sources and without explanation. Today, User:MaxBrowne removed the reference to Miller, saying in his edit summary that "Frederic P Miller" from VDM Publishing is not a proper source for anything" [5]. Indeed, one "Frederic P. Miller" occurs as an alleged "editor" in one of those serial rip-off schemes that sell collections of Wikipedia articles as print-on-demand "books" on Amazon. Could Dhtwiki please clarify here why (s)he thought the Miller mentioned by al-Saduq was "Frederic P. Miller"? In fact, the original source in al-Saduq says "[translated...] by Miller in BHA" [6]. This, in the context of this book, apparently refers to an edition of a text called al-Babu'l-Hadi 'Ashar, translated by one William McElwee Miller in 1928. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

William McElwee Miller looks like the one. Don't know anything about the topic myself, I was just looking for and removing mentions of Frederic P. Miller from various articles, since we obviously can't use wikipedia dumps as a source. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As for my part, I think that, when I was copy-editing, I searched Google similarly as I just did now, with the search string "al-Shaykh al-Saduq miller" and came up with this Google book as the second hit. So, eager to have the text give more than just a common last name, I inserted Frederic P. Miller, without actually having read that book to confirm that it contained the purported translation of Ismah. So, I guess I was a bit sloppy. Of course, I wasn't cognizant of Frederic Miller's low standing with Wikipedians. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note. Ismah concept existed long before in christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2193:33A3:E31B:D73C (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)