Talk:Ali/Archive 1

Picture
Do NOT put picture please.

Why?--Zereshk 20:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Anon editor didn't explain, or sign, but I'm guessing that he/she feels that it's wrong to put up images as if they're to be worshipped. Is this another difference between Sunni and Shi'a? I know that many Muslims feel that ANY realistic art is wrong, but I didn't think that there were sectarian differences in the matter. Zora 11:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll butt in here again, if I may. I suspect that there might be some Shi'as as well that may feel uncomfortable with images of Ali or Mohammad or what have you. But the majority of the Shi'a have no problem with it. In fact, you can find typical paintings of Ali (like the one on our page) posing with his sword Zolfaqar while sitting next to a Lion, in almost every traditional home in Iran and Pakistan (if Shi'a). The Sunni however hold a different view on the matter. As you may have noticed and wondered, Mohammad, in fact has no tomb or shrine like we see for Ali or Husayn. He has that green domed mosque named after him in Medina. But that's not where he's buried. His grave is almost anonymous, whereas in Iran, you run into a highly adorned truquoise domed "Imam-zadeh" (son/daugther or grandson/granddaghter of one of the 12 Imams) almost every other mile. Sectarian differences I'd say. But then again, cultural aspects have an influence too.--Zereshk 13:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Is Islam iconoclastic, and is there hadith that forbids or discourages pictures of imams? I have seen paintings of Hussein, though not in the context of an article. --Jake Land 19:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I recommend moving the picture down to the legacy section since... that is a modern rendition and definitely reflects how he is seen recently... I think it's fine to have the image... and I'm not sure we need to go to the extent not to offend as they did on Bahá'u'lláh... I think it's more unencyclopedic to not show an image because of some objections... gren 21:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say that I feel the comment about "almost every traditional home in Iran and Pakistan (if Shi'a)" has a painting of Ali in it is an incorrect generalization. I have never seen a painting or representation of Ali in any of the shia Pakistani or shia Iranian homes I've visited. I think it would be advisable to remove the picture or atleast move it doen to the legacy section. I don't think though that it should be included as many people feel it is disrespectful to show representations of Ali which may be historically inaccurate.--Zee 16:06 15 Jul 2005

Some people believe that showing pictures of Islamic figures is not right. So the picture might be offending those peoples and therefore it should be removed. For the same reason the holy Prophet Mohammad and Imam Ali were not shown by an actor in the film: 'The Message'. And like Zee said i my self have never seen a picture of any Imam or Prophet in a Shia home (except the ones in which the face is covered or light ('noor') is coming out of the face). --Khalid! 19:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Name change
I moved the page to Ali ibn Abu Talib simply because I feel Ali Ben Abu Talib is an outdated way to write the name of this individual.

DigiBullet 06:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The correct name is Ali ibn Abi Talib. --Wik 20:45, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thought Abu Bakr was first male to embrace Islam?
Other than the Prophet, of course. Or is this (as might be expected) a controversial point?

Nop, ther is no controversy, it was Ali. --Striver 01:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no controversy. Al Sideeq (Abu Bakr) was the first male convert, it's quite famous. Also, Muawiyah I is the universally accepted fifth Caliph of Islam, not Hassan (by any stretch of the imagination). Rival claimants, like anti-popes, are not universally accepted. Such is the case of Hassan, who did not even seek the office, but is termed Caliph or Imaam by some Shi'a devotees. Similarly, from 929 onwards, the Umayyad Caliphs of Cordoba were not as accepted as the Abbasids of Baghdad, though claiming the title. --A. S. A. 19:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt this claim that Abu Bakr was first or second male convert to Islam. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Bakr was around 20th person to accept Islam. Were all previous 20 converts women? I suggest we remove that claim of being first convert. It's clearly disputed in some sources OneGuy 19:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A valid suggestion. Speaking for myself, I will research the subject further and introduce findings in Talk and article edits hopefully on Feb 13 or 14.--A. S. A. 19:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

First Converts to Islam (consensus knowledge among both Sunni & Shia scholars): 1) First women convert = Khadija w/o Prophet. Then the only wife of Prophet. 2) First child convert = Ali ibn Abi Talib. He lived under Prophet's guardianship. 3) First male adult convert = Abu Bakr Al Sideeq. Prophet's closest friend. These converts were also in the order as mentioned above. I am not sure if these were the first 3 converts.

--Atif.Hussain

Just deleted an absolutely absurd and illogical comment which was posted without reference or signature. --Ishq Ali 14:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The Sayyed debate
That sentence doesnt belong here. Based on the following reasons:


 * 1) Irrelevancy. Just because the word "Sunni" is mentioned in the article doesnt make Sunni opinions about Shias relevant inthis article. This page is about the Biography of Ali. Your claim should go on the "Sunni vs. Shia differences" page.
 * 2) It is baised: The sentence is clearly promoting Sunnism by its "Not so in Sunni Islam" reference. If you insist it belongs here, then you must change its pro-Sunni tone.
 * 3) It is inaccurate: If you still insist on keeping that, then you must also add the Shi'a answer to your claim. In the Shi'a view, as far as ordinary people, the "Sayyed" is only a nominal designation. Very similar to the British title of "Knighthood": It is only a title. Shias do not "enjoy special privileges" as you say, in their societies. It is only a designation for respect.--Zereshk 23:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may well also apply to the Sunni Vs Shiaa page, but it is also an important distinction here. The readers will see that Shiaas use the Sayyed title, and they will wonder why not Sunnis, since the article states that Ali is a revered figure in both traditions. Nevertheless possible concern for promoting one way or the other is valid, and I rephrased accordingly. The nominal nature of the title is already evident, as I clearly used the wording an honorary designation form the outset. --AladdinSE 04:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Major revision
This page has been through some severe upheavals -- I haven't even tracked them all, and I suspect that some useful material has been lost. In any case, I deleted a long duplicate para, broke huge swathes of text into more readable short paras, and re-organized into sections.

Someone added "info" that Sunnis don't honor descendents of Muhammad and don't recognize sayeds/sayyids. I suspect that this is wrong, but I'll hold judgement until I hear from the Muslim editors. Zora 20:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is correct. I have been in several Sunni Muslim countries; they do not recognize sayeds. The only exception, or sort of exception, it the Sharif title used by the Hashemite kings, as described in the article..
 * I just did a small revision, and I wanted to mention in Talk that I deleted the following sentence about caliph Uthman: "Most historical accounts agree that the aging and ailing Uthman had placed a great deal of trust in his kin and that they had used their positions of power to enrich themselves." I have never come across anything like this, but if I am wrong, please cite these several "historical accounts," and then return the sentence. It sounds very intruiging. Thanks. --AladdinSE 20:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The word "Sayyed" is however used in Sunni countries as well to address dignitaries and royalties. For example, I remember seeing a mural in Damascus which read:

Gha'idina ilal abad, Sayyidina Hafez Asad.

--Zereshk 20:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The word Sayyed was around before it was applied to the descendants of Ali. It means means Sir, Master, Lord, etc. So use for dignitaries is perfectly normal and completely unrelated to the Shiite title. --AladdinSE 04:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I said that Shi'as consider no "special privilidges" for Sayyeds like you claim. It is only a normal honorary title.--Zereshk 17:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Sayyid as an adjective is very different from the Honorific title, which may not entail tangible privileges, still is a distinction above other people. My point was that the word was available in the Arabic language before Islam, as an adjective. --AladdinSE 10:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sayyed though just an Honorific title before Muhammad, henceforth, has invariably been used to refer to the lineage. The amount of reverence given to Sayyeds varies among Sunnis (i donot have any first hand knowledge about Shias), according to their cultures, from using names of Hasan & Hussain in the Friday sermons, to celebrating birthdays of their progeny. --Syed.Atif.Hussain

Respect due sharifs/sayyids
After a great deal of fruitless googling, I found a source that stated that sharif and sayyid were simply two words for the same thing, in Arabic and Farsi respectively. Because Shiism is strongest in Iran, Shi'a naturally tend to use the Farsi word. Given that many Arabic rulers boast of being sharifs, I really can't agree that Sunni Muslims reject distinctions based on descent. The section on Muhammad's descendents in the Muhammad article conflates sharifs and sayyids, and no one has objected. Therefore I changed this section of the article. Zora 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm certainly open to correction on this, as an ignorant foreigner . However, I think I can recognize sectarian wrangling when I see it. I didn't want to keep anything that overstated differences between Sunni and Shi'a. Zora 01:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the one lone link is testament enough that this is not reliable information. While Sharrif are somewhat of synonyms, they are not the same. Also, Sayyed is an Arabic word which made its way into Farsi and Urdu due to Quranic influence. --AladdinSE 04:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)and Sayeed

I would like to correct Zora, Shiism is not strongest in Iran, correct it is around the area, but I need not remind you that Shiism is even stronger in Iraq, a arabic speaking nation. Secondly a Sayyed according to shia terminology if you will, is a title that implies direct relation to one of the 12 imams and consequently Ali ibn Abe Talib. You people need to wake up, with all due respect, many Sunnies to this day have issues with someone saying they're a sayyid, its like wow oh my no way, while they have no problem with calling King Hussein and his Son Sayyeeds... hmm I think we need to open our eyes a little wider, as far as AladdinSE, I'd like to ask you are you a linguest? Because you seem to like to talk as though you are, the pharasee word for sayyid is Agha.

Given that:


 * the statement that sayyid and sharif are synonyms has been included in the Muhammad article for months
 * ditto, statements re Muslims as a whole respecting descendents of Muhammad (which is not to say that they all share Shi'a beliefs)

and that none of the Sunni editors have complained, I'm not sure that I understand your objections. Exactly HOW are sharif and sayyed different? I'm not an Arabic speaker -- are you? Is there anyone else here who is?

As for all your other reverts -- you seem to be really really attached to your prose, Aladdin, even when it's not the best English. For example -- your insistence on using the word "convoy" for the pilgrims. Convoy is usually used for vehicles, like trucks or ships travelling together, or for the physical act of protecting a gaggle of travellers and their vehicles ("We convoyed the trucks across the pass."). Using it for a party or band of pilgrims on foot, camels, or horses just plain gives the wrong image. Ditto for other constructions you've used -- they're verbose, circuitous, or misleading. Am I going to have to fight to modify each one, as you defend your ego and your prose to the death?

I don't think my prose is always perfect, and I've often been corrected by other editors. Usually I look at it and recognize that they've made the original wording clearer, simpler, or more precise. That's what we want in Wikipedia. Clear, simple, and precise. You don't get that by blindly reverting to your own version when anyone else makes an edit. Zora 05:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not the Muhammad article, it's the Ali article.
 * Sunis respect respect Hasan and Huseyn, but I would not go so far as to say they respect all Sayyids to this day, certainly not in a religious sense. Sunni Sharifs on the other hand are not nearly as widespread as shia Sayyids, and are almost exclusively limited to royal dynasties. The respect they command is mostly political and regal. Also, you are mistaken in supposing there to be only Sunni and Shia editors. Some of us actually do strive for neutrality, and for all you know are not even Muslims. It's safer, not to mention much less presumptuous, not to make assumptions.

This is the second time where you have suspected that I am reverting some text because of some childish attachment to my own prose. Your example about the Pilgrim's convoy was not even mine, it was someone else's either in this article or copy-pasted from another Islam article, I forget. I simply judged it to be less cumbersome then its replacement. And no, convoy is not just for vehicles and trucks, you're thinking of motorcade. Convoy is any procession of traveling modes of transportation, be it camels or Benzes.

I have already responded some weeks or months ago to this rather condescending lecture about what is wanted in Wikipedia. If I was anything like you described, you many edits to my work would not have survived. I read it carefully, and some of your formulations were really cumbersome and confusing. Most importantly, I have not made any blind revert, that's a bit insulting. Please check the edit history. Several of your changes which I considered either superior or was ambivalent about, remain. --AladdinSE 06:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

A new version of descendents section
I rewrote the descendents section again. I hope this one will do. As to sharif/sayyid:

An official website for the kingdom of Jordon says:

Ali and Fatima had two sons: Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein. The direct descendants of their eldest son, Hassan, are known as “Sharifs” (nobles), while the descendants of Hussein are called “Sayyids” (lords). The royal family of Jordan, the Hashemites, is descended through the Sharifian branch of lineage.

Also that:

King Hussein’s branch of the Hashemite family ruled the holy city of Mecca from 1201 CE until 1925 CE.

The purpose here seems to be rank sharifs over sayyids. The Shi'a websites I've seen use sayyid or sayyed exclusively, not sharif. Did only the Sunni descendents use sharif?

It seems that there's some conflict over usage within the Muslim world, which is making it difficult to write a coherent account in this section. Zora 20:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Saudi royal family is Sunni, but they discourage the use of Sharifs because it is the title claimed by the Hashemits, the family the House of Saud displaced in Najd and Hejaz. The version stated by the Jordanian website is technichally true though presented in a way most likely to enhance their claim to the old "Sherif of Mecaa" title that chagrins the Saudis so much. Also, in Sunni Arab countries, non-royal members of the population who claim some decent from Muhammad or Ali rarely go around inserting either of the honorific titles into their family names. Unlike Iran where notoriously many do, far more than is genealogically feasible, especially since Iranian stock is predominantly Indo-Aryan while Muhammad and Ali came from Semitic Arab stock. In any case I made some slight modifications, mostly about Arabic meanings. --AladdinSE 05:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. AlladinSE, I find it very intriguing that not only are you a linguist but apparently a geneticist. I need not remind AlladinSE that Islam has found its way to the FAR EAST primarily through marriage by Arab-Muslim Merchants. Food for thought my obviously hungry friend.

I'd like to say also that it's not only Royal families of the east who can claim descent from the family from Muhammad. Many average muslims, both Shia and Sunni, are descendents of Muhammad. Last names like Rizvi, Jaffary, Abedi, Mehdi, etc... indicate Seyyeds/descent from the Muhammed. --Zee 16:24, 16 Jul 2005

Removed a section added by Zereshk
While I've felt that the Islamic sections were sometimes too Sunni in emphasis, I don't think that going into the details of Sunni-Shi'a polemics in a biographical article is the right way to get this information into Wikipedia.

Zereshk (I hope that I've remembered your username correctly), how about we start an article called Creation of the caliphate -- or some such title, if you can think of a better one that is NPOV, do -- that is specifically focussed on the events surrounding the death of Muhammad and the elevation of the first caliph. That will give us space to really lay out all the arguments, for all sides. Zora 20:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont think one paragraph would cause such an overflow. But if you insist on this, then you must take out other un-necessary details as well. The article is pro-Sunni as it is. Perhaps we should have a History of Shia vs. Sunni article as a title, and take everything there? Ive seen this topic on several pages, all with half-way and incomplete discussions. None of them, as you, are willing to give a full 50-50 treatment of the subject.--Zereshk 21:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article is pro-Sunni (speaking as someone who is neither Sunni nor Shi'a). It seems to me that for every Sunni argument, there's a Shi'a one as well. Could you expand on why you think the article is biased?

As for the other articles -- yes, I agree, there is a whole constellation of biographical articles re well-known figures of early Islamic history in which the Shi'a point of view is represented only fitfully. The problem is that we are visiting the same events, over and over, and not doing so consistently. That is why it makes sense to have one article on the subject of the succession to the caliphate, which can then be linked to all the articles.

I'm not sure that it would make sense to have an article devoted entirely to Shi'a versus Sunni -- it would range widely and be extremely contentious -- but if you want to start it, we could see what happens. Perhaps it could then be broken up into separate articles, re separate points of disagreement. Zora 21:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The way this article is structured now, it first gives a Shi'a perspective, then gives a Sunni view in reply to that Shi'a view, and then moves on to something else. That's not very balanced, because it gives the impression of Sunni beliefs having an upperhand. An example was the recent Sayyed thing that Aladdin had going on. I had to step in to make him change the word "...Not so in Sunni Islam...", which is clearly promotionary. If youre going to mention the history at all, then you should do it in a fair satisfactory manner to both sides. Otherwise, I dont think the history of how the Caliphate was created should be mentioned at all. I'm not happy about this matter, considering that I provided solid documentation for the paragraph I put in.


 * I agree we should create a specific page about this, but the title Creation of the caliphate seems a bit lacking. The viewer will be asking: "...which Caliphate?...Buwayhid?...Abbasid?....The Caliphate of Adam on Earth?...The Caliphate as Man as vice-regent of God?" The word "Caliphate" is just too general a thing. A more specific title would be suiting perhaps? --Zereshk 22:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the old "last word" problem. If we give one para to the Sunni and one to the Shi'a, someone has to come first. Zereshk thinks that the Shi'a have too many firsts. That may be so. Perhaps we need to go over the article and make sure that the firsts are evenly split between Sunni and Shi'a.

It was solid documentation, but it unbalanced the article, making it somewhat pro-Shi'a and putting the emphasis less on Ali, the subject of the article, than on later disputes. That's why I think it deserves its own space.

For an article title, how about Succession to Muhammad? That's a steal, actually, from a book by the scholar Wilferd Madelung. I just ordered the book and I'm looking forward to reading it; it's supposed to be a well-documented work that gives more space to Shi'a views than is usual in Western scholarship (which has relied heavily on Sunni sources). Zora 22:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV
Zora,

The title Succession to Muhammad is a good one. However, before we can transfer the discussion to there, this article has biases in favor of Sunnism, and therefore needs to be addressed.

I put the POV sign up to address the following specifics of the article. This list is in response to your request from me to point out the Sunni biases. They are:

1. The article keeps objectively using the word "Shura" to describe the decision of first caliphate. The Shi'as use the word "ijma" instead. The article makes no mention of this. There's a slight difference. Shura is a Quranic word. It therefore brings favoritism to the Sunni view, if used without its Shi'a counter equivalent.

2. The existence of a section on "Election of the Caliph" is problematic. It is written in a Sunni promotional way. Its treatment of the subject is inadequate. The Sunni argument has the upper hand, the way it is written: it apprears after the Shi'a argument, and in reply to it, and then moves on to something else, without any counter argument. If this is a biographical page, this section shouldnt even be here.

3. The article claims Qadir i Khumm as the only event Shi'as use to back themselves with. This is not true. Nothing is mentioned about Shi'a fundamental claims such as Hadith-i Thaqalayn or other similar hadith and events.

4. The statement "These caliphs were elected by the elders of the Muslim community, some of the closest companions of the Prophet" is portraying a Sunni perspective as fact. Shia's dont exactly believe the view presented by this statement. "elders"? Says who? "closest companions"? By whos standards? Many of the closest companions in fact were not there. "election"? Shi'as believe this "election" was not free and fair, even it was to be the basis of designating the Caliph.

5. The statement: "All the surviving historical accounts were written long after the event, when the divisions between Sunni and Shi'a were already well-developed." is cleverly POV, if not ambiguous and confusing in intention. There are entire schools of people devoted to studying the authenticity of hadiths. The timing of them is not an issue as long as the chain of transmission is illustared as sufficiently authentic.


 * I don't think it's POV -- it's the Western academic consensus. Hadith are not reliable as history. See Herbert Berg's The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam and Fred Donner's Narratives of Islamic Origins.


 * The statement is confusing because there is no clear conclusion drawn from it. e.g. Are you (in the article) implying that these sources were devoid of accuracy because of their timing? And if so, what would that matter, since it would apply to both Sunnis and Shia historians. What's the point?--Zereshk 15:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not that hadith are totally inaccurate, it's that they have to be used with extreme caution. They were fabricated for purposes of argumentation and isnads were inflated. Muslim and Bukhari cleaned out the worst, but Western historians don't even trust the sahih ones. Also, hadith, even when relatively sound, are an accumulation of the POVs of everyone through whom they passed. At least when you have a dated manuscript, or an archaelogical dig, you have evidence that someone, at a certain date, wrote X, or did Y, or made Z. X may be biased, but you DO know that X was believed by someone at that time. That's a fact. Something solid to hold onto. Whereas when you have A reporting that B said that C said that D said that X, you don't REALLY know that D said X.


 * The Berg book is interesting because he did an experiment. He assembled all the hadith supposed to come from Muhammad's uncle mumble-mumble-Abbas, the progenitor of the Abbasids, to see if they presented a clear picture of what Abbas knew and believed. Nope. The hadith were all over the place. Berg concluded that controversialists of the time when the hadith were first written down had manufactured hadith to support their positions, and had sourced them to Abbas because as the "founder" of the new line of caliphs, he was considered an exceptionally reliable source. From a historical POV, hadith evidence is suspect until it's written down, in a manuscript we can date, at which point there's something firm.


 * As for saying it doesn't matter, since Sunni and Shi'a are arguing from the same unreliable sources -- well, it matters to those who want to know what happened, even if it doesn't support either Shi'a or Sunni. Zora 18:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your point is duly noted. However:
 * We are not here to judge what people believe in. We are only here to report them. Whether or not you think Ahadith are fabrications is irrelevant.
 * Like I said, there are entire schools and universities and thousands of scholars and historians that spend their entire resources on verifying the authenticity of Ahadith. It's an entire field of Islamic study. You and I are absolutely in no position to call Ahadith "fabrication"s.
 * Besides, the way you have that sentence in the text going, it works in favor of Sunnis, because it implies that Hadiths like Qadir Khumm (central to Shi'a belief) are questionable. Which is why I put it on my POV list in the first place.
 * My solution to item 5: Clarify that statement. But make sure it stays impartial, by clearly mentioning your intention of making that statement.--Zereshk 18:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a polemicists in fact rely extensively on numerous Sunni documentation in their arguments. Tabari may have lived long after these events, but he was a Sunni. Ghadir i Khumm, for example, has been transmitted by more than 100 of the companions of the prophet, and has been recounted by numerous chains of transmission, both Sunni and Shia.

6. The statement: "They agree in saying that...there was much debate as to the proper way to proceed". In fact, Shi'as contend that there was no real debate at all, and that the elections were in fact fait accompli.

7. The statement: "Hasan is said to have renounced any claim to the caliphate to prevent further bloodshed among Muslims. Muawiyah I thus became the undisputed caliph and established the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs." Not exactly the Shi'a version.

I hope these POV statements are addressed. Thank You.--Zereshk 23:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, bit by bit we can work through them, though not all at once. Zora 23:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to let the two of you know that I am playing catch up with all the Talk here. I am currently traveling and unable to devote the time I would like to Wikipedia. There have been some very important points made here and I hope to reply to them at length after April 21, 2005. If I can, I will try to do so earlier. --AladdinSE 07:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, things are hotting up nicely!
Zereshk, I just noticed and deleted your "sources used" section. It is completely useless to 99.99% of the Wikipedia users, who speak English and not Arabic. I agree that the article could use some links to solid academic web pages (not Shi'a or Sunni proselytizing sites, I should hope) and a list of books to read. The Wilferd Madelung book I mentioned above would probably be one of those books. These sections should lead the interested reader onwards, into further exploration of the subject. Zora 23:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the sources I mentioned there were in reference to the parts you deleted. No use for them now anymore obviously.--Zereshk 00:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, why do u think "things are hotting up"? Unless you hold fixed views and feel uncomfortable with my challenge to your article's POVness.--Zereshk 02:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, they're hotting up because we're arguing about things -- but so far it's good, because we're making progress. And we haven't started calling each other names yet. You have to heat the pot to make the soup. BTW, I started the Succession to Muhammad article. Just an introduction and outline, so far. Zora 02:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can only contribute partially to that article, the way youve set it up. My knowledge is limited.


 * Mine is even more limited than yours. Just do the parts you feel that you know well (perhaps the Qur'an, Hadith, and Twelver Shi'a sections?). I've been trying to make sure that Shi'as get fair play in various Islamic articles, but I'm somewhat handicapped by the fact that I'm not Shi'a.


 * The outline is not set in stone. I think it's a start, and allows people to fill in the things that they know. But things may develop in a very different direction. Zora 07:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And we'll be fine as long as we attack eachother's argument, instead of eachother. That is if you think you must refute my additions. --Zereshk 06:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hadith - ahadith
Zereshk, the accepted English transliteration for (whatever the Arabic is) is hadith. That's the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject, that's the word that English-speaking scholars use. I don't see that there's any sense in trying to change it.


 * Ahadith is simply the plural form of hadith. Similar to saying feet instead of foots.--Zereshk 01:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've seen the word Ahadith used in English text as well, and it is used in the academia as well. But it really doesnt matter, because it too will be adopted into popular English sooner or later as more people come to study this field. For now, I will respect your insistence on the usage of "Hadiths" instead of "Ahadith".--Zereshk 20:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hadith has now been adopted into English as a noun that is both singular and plural, and insisting on the Arabic plural is um, idiosyncratic. If you want to do it in your own, personal writing, you can, but I think you should adopt the accepted English usage here. Zora 04:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Ahadith" is also used on other pages on Wikipedia (which I didnt author). Example. Hadith is an Arabic word, not an English word. Therefore the proper usage is Hadith (singular) and Ahadith (plural). Case closed.--Zereshk 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your example doesn't prove what you think it proves. Ahadith is there at the start, along with the Arabic, and then the rest of the article uses hadith for singular and sometimes for plural, sometimes hadiths for plural. In the academic works I read, hadith is usually singular plus plural. Ahadith is never used. You really can't lay down the law and insist that English follow Arabic rules. English has, I believe, the largest vocabulary of any language and much of that vocabulary is pilfered from other languages. Once pilfered, it generally follows English grammatical rules. Note that I wasn't the one who decided the way it would work in this case -- it's the general English usage.


 * My friend James Nicoll is famous for this quote: "English pure? English is as pure as a cribhouse whore. She follows other languages down dark alleys, coshes them, and riffles their pockets for vocabulary." Zora 01:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, as to questioning the hadith being directed at Shi'a -- I don't think so. It affects the Sunni case as much as it does the Shi'a. Speaking as an outsider, I don't think any of the Qur'an verses cited by either side decide the matter. It's a matter of interpretation, or a tradition about the occasion of the revelation, which have the same problems as the hadith. I believe that reliably dated documents from the very early Islamic period are few and far between, and don't touch on these issues. So it really comes down to a question of weighing oral traditions.


 * 1) Zora, please understand. YOU are not in a position to arbitrate or decide whether or not Shi'as or Sunnis are correct in using what Quranic verses they use. You dont even know what they mean, the stories behind them, and why are they used: As you said yourself, you are an outsider. I, on the other hand, am merely reporting on what Shi'as declare to believe. Not on what I believe what they should believe. Judging the fidelity and veracity of their documents is not my concern.
 * 2) You say: "I believe that reliably dated documents from the very early Islamic period are few and far between, and don't touch on these issues." I can confidently inform you that both Sunnis and Shi'as would strongly disagree, in fact ignore you on this matter. Hadith is a fundamental pillar used in Islam. That you think it isnt academic or not worthy of using is your personal opinion (right or wrong) that doesnt matter here. It's like me telling someone to ignore The Gospels in writing about Christianity, because it was probably largely fabricated. Now how silly is that? I hope you see that you are clearly trying to impose your views here. You are totally ignoring what Shia's believe, and instead referring to some western research and author to discuss Shi'as top Imam.--Zereshk 01:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Donner talks about this in his book. I need to look at the book again, but if I recall correctly, Donner points out that historians can use even biased, polemic, conflicting oral traditions if they ask themselves "How would I go about fabricating a tradition that people would believe?" You make it convincing by mixing "what everyone knows" with the point you want to make. Then the historian can look at the conflicting traditions and try to figure out what they have in common, and that will be the "what everyone knows" that is the start of the argument. This may not be what REALLY happened (what we could see if we could use a time machine to go back and observe and tape events), but it might move historians closer to it. If everyone, Sunni and Shi'a, agrees that Muhammad had a wife named Aisha, whatever else they say about Aisha, it is indeed very likely that he had a wife named Aisha.


 * OK. Heres a solution. In different sections:


 * 1) Report what Shia's say (impartially and despite YOUR and Donner's beliefs).
 * 2) Report what Sunnis say (impartially and despite YOUR and Donner's beliefs).
 * 3) Report what some westerner like Donner thinks about Ali without making any judgements on the beliefs of Shias and Sunnis.--Zereshk 01:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I'm not saying that hadith can't be used, I'm saying that they have to be used with caution. Myself, I don't know who they support, Sunni or Shi'a. Perhaps I'll have a better idea when I get and read Madelung's book. At the moment, I'm sympathetic with both sides . Zora 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, until now so far, seems to me you have made attempts to minimize the usage of Hadith in a subject that both Sunni and Shi'a scholars heavily use it in.


 * Like I said, there are literally thousands of people whose jobs is to investigate the authenticity of all ahadith. Examples:


 * http://www.hadith.net/ (notice the central emphasis on "hadith" (or "tradition") on this website. Note the top of the page where it says: We believe that a true and comprehensive understanding of Islam would not be possible without careful recognition of the Prophetic Tradition (i.e. hadith)and the Prophet's Household.)
 * http://www.hawzeh.com/index2.asp
 * http://www.qabas.net/
 * http://www.noorsoft.org/eng/index.asp
 * http://www.balagh.net/


 * (btw, this is all in just one city)--Zereshk 01:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're moving far afield, but ... the fact that people have invested lots of time and effort in something doesn't mean that it's true. Vide alchemy, or phrenology. Simply saying, "You aren't Muslim, you wouldn't understand", isn't a sufficient refutation. Complete infidels ought to be able to look at the "evidence" and draw the same historical conclusions. Scientists have to be able to demonstrate cold fusion outside one laboratory. The proponents didn't get to say, "You don't believe in cold fusion, that's why your experiments failed".


 * When you write an article on Alchemy in an encyclopedia, you dont write about whether you think Alchemy is acceptable or dismissable. You write about what it was about, what were its goals, and who studied it and when. You simply report it. Now u can also say that it isnt practiced as a science anymore. But you cannot judge it subjectively. And there is good reason for that.


 * Look, it seems I am unable to get through to you. You seem unable to accept what muslims say about their own religion Islam. (!)


 * Let me re-iterate on more time: In studying Islam, the history of Islam, the philosophy of Islam, and its protagonists,,, studying Hadith is an extremely well established method. Ignoring hadith in an article like this only academically discredits it, because many of the fundamentals of Shi'a and Sunni thought are derived from Hadith.


 * There is no room for debate here. There are literally hundreds of books that rank hadiths according to strength of chains of transmission. And when I mention Hadith-i Thaqalayn or Hadith-i Qadir-i Khumm or some other Hadith, it is accepted beyond doubt, by both communities. You are not in a position to declare whether Tabari or Al-Jahiz or whoever else is an accredited historian or not.


 * It is like writing about Jesus Christ based on archeological evidence, instead of the gospels.--Zereshk 18:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, I'm NOT saying that I've got the final word on whether or not a certain hadith is trustworthy -- I'm saying that you can't just trot one out and I'll agree that that's what happened. I've read some hadith, I've read lots of books about hadith, and I regard them as slippery material. Perhaps part of the problem is that you're used to a particularily Muslim style of argumentation, in which you heap hadith on the head of an opponent; both you and the opponent are operating with certain shared assumptions about the value of the hadith, which hadith are better than others, etc. Like fundamentalist Christians arguing about something by hurling Bible quotations at each other. But if you're talking to someone who doesn't share the same assumptions -- a non-Muslim, or a non-Christian -- an appeal to hadith, Qur'an, the Bible, whatever, is a failed argumentative ploy. The response is "so what?"


 * The problem is even greater in that I can't judge the value of the references you're using.


 * Youre not supposed to. The reader is.--Zereshk 20:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I probably know more about Islam than most Western non-Muslims, thanks to all the reading I've been doing for the last few years, but my hadith knowledge is limited to browsing in Bukhari, and knowing that Bukhari and Muslim are considered sahih by the Sunni.


 * First, Shahih-i Bukhari is just one of 150 or so major writers of that period. "Hadith"-ologists study the authenticity of a Hadith based on many factors.
 * Second, I also think Sahih Bukhari is weak in its authnticity. But I dont care. Because if that's what the Sunni think, then that's what they think. And I will merely report that.
 * Thrid, to ignore hadiths is to ignore the history altogether; almost everything we know from that period comes from people who also wrote these Hadiths. For example, Tabari was a historian, and Hadiths are merely extracted from what he recounts from early Islam. There were no western historians in Hijaz or Mesopotamia at the time.--Zereshk 20:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So when you triumphantly quote something and add an Arabic title I don't know, I can't really evaluate your quote. Is this a Sunni source? Some collection of Shi'a hadith? If I don't get it, consider how opaque it is to the average reader who is using Wikipedia to learn more about Islam.


 * The average reader will read what is written here, see the given sources I have provided at the bottom of the article, go to his library, read them (or their translations and commentaries), and investigate further in detail about the accuracy of the contents, .....and then, make up his mind.--Zereshk 20:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to educate non-Muslims, you are going to have to adopt a "for dummies" approach. It may be wearisome, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you've done your bit to combat ignorant Islamophobia. Zora 19:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * True. But deleting and not mentioning Hadiths from the ignorant will actually keep the ignorant, more ignorant about islam, because muslims extensively use hadith in their arguments whether you like it or not. Without Hadith, Shi'a or Sunnis dont have ANY justification and basis in their arguments. How are you going to justify or explain that Mohammad went up to Heaven from Jerusalem, or that he was visited in a cave by Gabriel, or that he performed miracles? By scientific justification? Or maybe by Donner's writings? Please. --Zereshk 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But there IS no proof that any of those things you mentioned happened, any more than there's proof of Christian or Hindu or Buddhist miracles. At least there's no proof that I find convincing. You can't tell me to accept hadith because they prove things I find implausible.


 * I'm not saying that you can't recount hadith as Shi'a belief -- I'm just saying they don't necessarily prove anything historical, unless used with extreme caution. Zora 01:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the spiritual efficacy or relevance of a belief. As a Buddhist, I'm aware that most of the stories about the Sixth Patriarch are pious fabrications. I don't believe them as history, but they are useful to my Zen practice. I'm sure that there are a number of hadith that would fall into this category. Zora 09:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing others' comments on talk pages
Um, one additional thing -- Zereshk, several times you've edited my messages on talk pages, changing spelling or adding emphasis that I didn't add. This is really a no-no. The article itself is a collaborative effort; not the talk page. I know you didn't mean any harm by it, you were just trying to fix what you thought were errors, or pointing to something that you were going to discuss. But it puts your words, or your thoughts, in my mouth. Please don't ... Zora 09:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I do remember boldening the font, so you will know what I'm refering to, but I dont remember fixing your spelling, unless it was in the main article.


 * But anyway, rest assured, I'll watch out for it next time.--Zereshk 17:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope that jumping in and responding to your statements right in the middle of a pargraph (bi-secting it) isn't considered a no-no. If it is, let me know.--Zereshk 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More on hadith
We're really getting far afield from the article, and the replies are getting REALLY indented. This wiki interface for argument is clumsy, IMHO. Anyway ...

Zereshk says he (I'm assuming "he" -- tell me if I'm wrong) doesn't care what I think, the reader will go his/her library, read the quoted works, make up his/her own mind. Zereshk, the quoted works probably don't exist in libraries in most Western cities and schools. They haven't been translated, or if they've been translated, they aren't part of the library collection. Telling people to go to the websites and explore is not all that helpful. I have no particular reason to trust any of the websites to which you link. They all seem to be Iranian Shi'a sites in Qom, right?


 * Qom is clearly the center of Shi'a religious studies at the present time. Traditionally Najaf is #1, making Qom #2, but the current political situation has made Qom the #1 center of Shi'a scholarship during the past 20 years. Besides, anything that is published in Najaf, makes its way to Qom anyway. There is total consensus between Qom, Mash-had, and Najaf on these issues. So if you care what Shi'as have to say about their leader, you will listen to them.--Zereshk 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're inside their own little sectarian world, a sectarian world that, from my POV, is full of violence, oppression, and corruption (Marjane Satrapi, Persepolis). I don't expect scholarly impartiality from them.


 * Ignoring what muslims have to say about their own religion is not only un-academic, but is totally ridiculous.--Zereshk 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring it, dang it, I'm saying that if you insist that all discussion and presentation be on YOUR terms, you're failing to communicate. If you're going to cite references, you need to link to them, or cite them Western academic style. Information about their significance helps. Frex, I have a copy of the Sirat Rasulallah translated into English, and when I cite something from Ibn Ishaq, I'll usually say something like "earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, as translated by Guillaume". If I'm careful, I'll put the book with the ISBN number in a references section. That way, anyone who doubts me can buy the book and check out the citation. There's a 20-volume translation of Tabari, too, though it's not in any local libraries and I can't afford a copy. But at least it exists. Bukhari and Muslim are available on the net in English translation. But you're not telling us anything about all the Shi'a material you're citing. Where is it? Is it translated? When was it written? Etc.


 * If you think we should know this, then perhaps you need to state the obvious (to you) in a Wikipedia article so that we can look it up. Zora 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking from you. If you want infidels to listen to you, you have to reach to us, learn our language. I'm making an effort from my end, an effort that's much much more than many Westerners are willing to make. You need to make an effort from yours. Zora 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody is preventing you from writing what you want. All I am saying is that Hadith should not be ignored, but rather should be included. You are in fact withholding and censoring information from everyone based on your personal opinion.--Zereshk 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked you to move your "documentation" out of the Ali article, and you moved it to the Succession to Muhammad article. From which I have not deleted it. Disagreeing with you about the significance of hadith on a talk page is not censoring you. It is arguing with you. Zora 01:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I think it's easier to discuss this in a serial way, rather than keep going back to the original text above and inserting and answer there.


 * 1) Just FYI, Actually if you look at the page hadith, the word ahadith is used further down in the article again. In English text. Lets just agree to disagree here. At least now you know what ahadith means anyway.
 * 2) The documentation thingy applies to Ali's article as well, because it expalins why Shi'as think Ali (their Imam) was not the fourth caliph, but was in fact the first one.
 * 3) All the documentation, ideas, and claims I cited thus far has been quoted, used, and mentioned from American textbooks in fact: Most come from "Shi'te Islam" by Allameh Tabatabaei, edited and forward by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, PhD Harvard, published by State University of New York Press, 1979. ISBN: 0873953908. Buy it, and read it. It's English. You will see everything I told you there.
 * 4) For the nth time, this article is not about whether Hadiths are academically acceptable or not. I suggest you write that stuff on a page called Why Islam is full of nonesense based on the FACT that there's no scientific evidence to back up anything it claims, including Mohammad's Miraj, his visit by Gabriel, and the Shi'a claim that Ali is their Imam and first caliph. Heck, even God's existence is as much proven as Cold Fusion.

Yes. You are simply preventing and withholding info about why and on what basis Shi'as beleive in what they beleive about ALI. merely because they dont have any western academic backing.

As long as you dismiss the proper Shi'a POV on this page, that POV tag stays up. Shi'as must be properly represented on this page. Especially on a page about THEIR Imam. Period.--Zereshk 03:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars
Zereshk, please calm down. This is not YOUR page. Nor is the Shi'a page YOUR page. The Sunni page does not belong to AladdinSE. No page on Wikipedia belongs to any one person or group. If you clearly have expertise on a subject, other editors will usually listen to you and incorporate your changes, but you have to win their trust and cooperation -- which you do by behaving reasonably.

I think we can solve this particular problem by a rewrite, instead of playing revert war. I've got RL (real life) stuff to do now, but I'll come back later and try to produce a version of the offending para that both you and Aladdin will accept. If I can. Inshallah. Zora 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not your page either Zora.


 * However, as a Shi'a, I do have a say about what my faith says about Ali, Which you have been denying, up to now, with the most ridiculous excuses, that Sunnis dont even accept.


 * All you need to do, is make some impartial revisions that I agree to be acceptable from a Shi'a POV. That's all I asked for.--Zereshk 02:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is really absurd. Zereshk, I am issuing an official warning to you to stop attacking me personally in your edit summaries. Do not even assume that I am Muslim, much less Sunni. Concern yourself with the edits, and not the editor. That you are shia does not entitle you at all to insert POVs. Zora, I am surprised that you have allowed this militant shia-centrism to destroy the great balance and consensus that had been reached earlier. Not to mention that a once well written article now sounds childish and un-encyclopedic. I am reverting most of these changes, and deleting "external links" to propaganda and highly partisan shia-only websites. Scholarly and neutral websites are acceptable, these are neither. --AladdinSE 02:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

P. S. The Muslim confession of faith is the Shahada. the adhan is the call to prayer. Also, please do not insert dividers into talk discussions where there are already section titles, this makes it difficult to keep track of conversations. Please use indentations instead. --AladdinSE 02:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop threatening me AladdinSE. I can also have administrators throw you out, if you keep vandalizing Shi'a pages. That you consider Shi'a documentation "partisan publications and POV interpretations" is your personal opinion. You are not entitled to present it as fact or censor our beliefs.--Zereshk 04:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, if you believe a case of Vandalism has taken place, please report it and refrain form making ugly threats about having editors thrown out, which is laughable. No on is entitled to present their personal oppinions as facts or censor anyones beliefs, but neither is Wikipedia the place for you to publish your personal beliefs. --AladdinSE 07:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladdin, I did not justify all my changes to this article in minute detail. But I did my best to remove things to which Shi'a would object, without putting in their place anything to which I, as a non-Muslim and a non-Shi'a, would object. You just reverted, without engaging any of the changes. OK, to take just one change. The old article had "Election of the Caliph". After reading Madelung, I no longer believe that Saqifah was an election -- it was a muddle, which ended up with some of the men on Abu Bakr's side beating up one of the Ansar. The ummah as a whole was not consulted, there was no council of elders, there was simply ... a shouting match. So putting "Election" in the heading is a Sunni POV in itself. I'm not sure that the title I put in its place was the best -- I really agonized over it -- but at least it didn't take sides. And so on. I made the changes I made with the intent of being neutral, based on Zereshk's input and the reading that I've been doing. Zora 05:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zora, please remember that one book does not an international consensus make. The contested American election in 2000 was a HUGE shouting match and had accusations of misconduct that makes the Caliphal election look like a walk in the park, that doesn't mean we can go around declaring that it wasn't really an election. International consensus clearly describes the first four caliphs as elected. You can certainly include a caveat that so and so scholar(s) think this and that, but not change the fundamental nature of accepted history because you read a book. I think your concerns are often a boon to NPOV and neutrality, but I am concerned that you are allowing yourself to be bullied by certain editors. --AladdinSE 07:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Madelung book is highly regarded, even by academics of different views. I've been printing out course outlines and bibliographies for college Islamic history courses and Madelung shows up on all of them. Of course I'm just full of enthusiasm for it right now, and I'll probably cool down later, but -- I'd trust him when he says that Saqifah was nothing like an "election". Abu Bakr and his friends heard that the Ansar were discussing setting up their own ruler, rushed over the meeting, and proposed Abu Bakr as the new leader. Ali wasn't there; most of the companions weren't there; it wasn't planned or announced. It was a rowdy back-room deal, and it wasn't accepted immediately. Zora 08:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's one version, but most important of all, Ali himself accepted it, and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, and the next two elected caliphs. He then used the Shura system to assume office himself, based on election and never once advancing any divine right to rule. These facts clearly legitimize the succession of the first four caliphs. --AladdinSE 14:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ali took six months to "accept" the outcome, and that was only after all sorts of pressure (short of actual violence) had been brought to bear on the Rafidi. As for the "election" of Umar -- Abu Bakr selected him, he wasn't elected. Umar did set up an election to pick his successor, but he himself selected the electors. As for the "election" of Ali -- that was a mob, which had just killed the previous caliph, forcing the office upon him. Only the choice of Uthman could be described as anything even like an election, and it's a sad excuse for an election when the electors are chosen by fiat. As Madelung points out, it's interesting that Uthman seems to have taken the comparative regularity of his election as a justification for assuming all the prerogatives of a "king", which drove his "subjects" into revolt. Zora 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zora, we're talking the seventh century here. Of course there was violence and mayhem. In some respects I've seen worse during Bush V. Gore. That Ali was quite anxious to rule is evident. 6 months or 6 years, he still accepted and swore allegiance. Also, Abu Bak did not appoint Umar, he nominated him. He was elected thereafter by the elders and sahaba. Abu Bakr was revered and his nomination carries enormous weight. That does not mean Abu Bakr appointed Umar. Also, please remember that you are reading one book, do not accept it as gospel, and remember that it is what is internationally regarded as scholarly consensus which has to guide us. --AladdinSE 22:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, what is the scholarly consensus and who holds it? Crone? Cook? Berkey? Donner? Watt? Rippin? Berg? ... It's true that I'm very enthusiastic about the Madelung book at the moment, and I will check my other books before I do more on the academic section, but I'm not sure that there's as much consensus on the succession as you think. Zora 11:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Qom as a reference
Zereshk, I removed Qom from the list of links. That's one center of scholarship, out of several, for one sect of Islam. Adding that, and that only, is POV -- claiming Ali for that particular sect. If you have one educational institution, you'd have to have them all, which is ridiculous. Qom on the Shi'a Islam page makes sense. Zora 11:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a link at the bottom of the page for God's sake!


 * Links for College of Bishops and Pontifical University exist on the "see also" section of the pope page. Im afraid youre wrong therefore, and that the name Qom will have to go back on that page.--Zereshk 23:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope is an office. Institutions associated with that office are fair game for links. Ali is a PERSON, not an office. He has as much to do with Qom as he does with Al-Azhar -- both of which were founded centuries after his death. I repeat, if you link to Qom, you have to link to all Islamic institutes, which would overwhelm the article, and be off-topic and silly besides. Adding a link to Qom to this article is inherently POV! Zora 01:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry new person to wipipedia, whats POV??? Thanks


 * = biased. See here.--Zereshk 22:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thulfeqar's quotes
A new editor with the username Thufeqar has entered the fray  with a list of famous quotes of Ali added to the bottom of the page. While quotes are not a bad idea (I've seen them in other biographical articles) I think having that many is overkill, and borders on using the article for proselytization. How about selecting the best three or four, and then integrating them into the body of the article? Zora 23:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They are completely irrelevant in this article, I have removed them. If someone thinks they are relevant to some person or topic, then consider creating them in the Wikiquotes. --AladdinSE 05:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

would AladdinSE please go ahead and remove the entire quote sections from the following articles as well:


 * Richard Nixon
 * Andrew Jackson
 * Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * Herbert Hoover

Otherwise please restore the quote section.--Zereshk 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You might be surprised to know that actually, yes, the quotations in those articles should be moved to Wikiquote which is then inserted as a template-link in the article. For example, see the Ariel Sharon article. When there are a large number of quotations like that, that is the proper procedure, and there are some editors who devote much of their time to "transwikifying" large quotations sections to WikiQuotes and then linking that in the original articles. --AladdinSE 09:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please make your argument on those respective pages, AFTER you have deleted the quote sections from all those pages.--Zereshk 22:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to AlladinSE Well Umm, no I do think they are quite relavant. In response to Zora I did not mean to proselytize anything, however if they're that good what can I do? Jokes aside, I do like your idea about choosing three or four qoutes, so I did it, tell me what you think! --Thulfeqar 6:02 AM, 27 Apr 2005


 * The quotes are much less overwhelming now. I moved them to follow the para on Ali's eloquence, where they seem like less of an afterthought. Zora 11:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Overwhelming, I put four little quotes, at the bottom of the page right before the external links, no on the contrary I believe they complement the article. I mean look at any other great historical figure and they have some sort of quotes. Thulfeqar

Thulfeqar, I can see why you misread my note. The "now" of "much less overwhelming now" is the "now" of "after Thulfeqar's edit. All I did was move the quotes to a better place in the article, where they illustrate the reputation for eloquence. Zora 08:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * They do appear to be less unwieldy now. Nevertheless, will someone please provide a source that verifies these as quotations truly from the caliph and not simply attributed to him? A notable and neutral scholarly or journalistic source would be very useful here. --AladdinSE 09:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Once again I don’t see why the quotes have been removed! Check out Richard Nixon, Andrew Jackson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, all of them have quotes regarding the respective individual and non of those require a source, I find I funny how everyone else doesn’t need a source but when it comes to Ali ibn Abu Talib we need sources, but be that as it may, all these quotes are found in Nahjul Balagah (The Peak of Eloquence), there are many online editions of this book and many print editions, take your pick! Thank you! By the way I added an external link to a source http://www.imamalinet.net/en/nahj/nahj.htmlThulfeqar 12:31PM April 30th 2005

POV 2.0
Ive read the "revision". These problems still need to be addressed:

1. The article still uses the pro-Sunni word "Shura" to describe the decision of first caliphate, without ever mentioning the equivalent Shi'a word of "ijma" anywhere. There's a slight but crucial difference.

2. The word "Election" is still used objectively in the article to describe the first Caliph's coming to power. It titles a section.

3. The article claims Qadir i Khumm as the only event Shi'as use to back themselves with. This is not true. Nothing is mentioned about Shi'a fundamental claims such as Hadith-i Thaqalayn or other similar hadith and events. Or at least, a link should be provided to Succession to Muhammad in the text.--Zereshk 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major revision repealed
I worked hard to do a Shi'a/Sunni neutral revision and Aladdin reverted it. When I have time, I will go at it again, piecemeal this time. Zora 08:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt
I haven't completely de-Sunnified the article, or so it seems to me, but I have changed a few things. Instead of referring to Abu Bakr's election, I've referred to his succession. I've changed wording that suggested that Hassan ibn Ali renounced the caliphate and said that he refrained from publicly advancing his claims to it. I don't think Shi'a would agree that he did renounce it, or that he could have renounced it, since in their opinion, he was imam by God's will. I've removed a bit re Ali being Abu Bakr's closest advisor -- Madelung says that this is Sunni propaganda. Abu Bakr distrusted him to an extent, and kept him at arm's length. Ali, however, did not intrigue against Abu Bakr. All this could be argued at length, but it seems easiest to delete the questionable claim.

Someone changed the bit re the Hashemites to include other "royal families". I tweaked that a bit and removed the "praise be upon him". The usual Muslim interjections are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Zora 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thx for your efforts, it appreciated :) --Striver 13:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The picture
An anon editor keeps removing an Iranian picture of Ali; Zereshk keeps adding it.

The anon editor doesn't explain why he removes it; possibly he feels that picturing Islamic figures is shirk, and possibly he dislikes the Iranian origin. Or it could be that he sees no value in a picture that is purely imaginary.

I don't care whether the picture is there or not. I'm staying out of this one. Zora 02:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ali's birthdate
An anon editor changed Ali's birth year, and added a birth date. He/she didn't give any reason for this. I've left it, since I don't know that it's wrong, but I'd sure like to hear from other editors as to accepted dates. Zora 10:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Most Shi'a -- All Shi'a
An anon editor changed the wording of "most Shi'a accept Hassan as the second imam" to "all Shi'a ...". I'll leave it like that for now, since I can't find the reference, but I'm fairly sure that there was a reference somewhere, in an academic history of Islam I'm reading, to a sect of Shi'a, now extinct, who accepted Hussein as the second imam. That's all, just me being nitpicky. Zora 16:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The sect is not extinct most nizari shi'a accept Hussein as the second imam and Hasan as never having been imam.


 * Anon, that's useful if true, but I can't confirm it. Can you direct me to some online resources that would confirm it, please? Zora 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, why delete my contribution?
Striver removed my contribution (a quote from Nahjul Balagha), saying it's a Sunni POV. As he mentions in his own comment, it's from a Shia book. How he can even begin to bring up Sunni POV when all the external links are Shia based, I don't know. In fact this article is more Shia POV than Sunni. Striver, don't do it again!

--GNU4Eva 19:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Asalam aleikom GNU4Eva.

It was abvious that with that Nahj al-balagha referens you wanted to covertly claim that Ali does not like shias. That is not the case. I do agree with the statement you quoted, and in my POV it is obviously talking about people that deidyfie Ali, like the alawis.

If you insist in qouting that part of Nahj al-Balagha, then also quote this part to balance the POV:

Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)[2] dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(ref)

Here is the rest, i add it for your education:

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group[4] and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth[5] like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:

That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones.

(Qur'an, 28:83)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)

So, if you want to give some sunni POV ref from Nahj, then dont forget to bring this one to.

Ma salam --Striver 21:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Striver 21:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Initial comment of MOST SHI'A accept Hadrat Hassan as second Imam is true, the Nizari Shi'a have Hadrat Hussein as the second imam.

Article for Ali's descendents
An anon added a list of Ali's best-known sons to the article. It was INFO, and I didn't want to delete it, but I could also see that it could metastisize (sp?) and eat the article. So I moved it to an new article, Descendents of Ali ibn Abi Talib. I think all his wives and descendents, at least down to grandchildren, should be listed. That would help make sense of some later Islamic history, for one thing. I don't have the time or resources to do the research, but I figure other editors here should be able to supply what's needed. Zora 14:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added that list, (hey what's with the anon title! ;-) ) but unfortunately I have not been able to find a list that names all his children. It was, more than anything, a stub. What I'd liked to have happen was that each child could be listed (birth info if available) and to which mother s/he belonged to.   I like the idea of listing all his descendants to his grand children.  Now if only all the information could be located!! --GNU4Eva 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to slight you, Mr. Emacs enthusiast . Chalk it up to writing in the wee hours. I'm glad you like the idea. I'd bet that some of our Shi'a editors could fill in the info. Zora 20:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tried to NPOV the article
I spent some time doing an extensive rewrite. I hope that it's sufficiently NPOV to quiet some of the partisan skirmishing here. But I haven't removed the NPOV tag; I want to be sure that we're all on board. Zora 4 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)


 * Good job :) I added som more facts about the battles. --Striver 4 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

No, Striver, you did more than that. You tried to Shi'a-fy the article again. I tried to keep the writeup neutral and refer readers to the whole dang article created for the controversy, and you split the article into a Sunni version (a few sentences) and a Shi'a version (paragraphs and paragraphs). The imbalance is highly POV. You added incoherent prose glorifying Ali as a warrior. This is not your vanity page! This is not a Shi'a sermon! You are creating hours and hours of extra work for people who have to follow behind you and clean up your excrable prose. Yes, I'm being harsh, but nothing else seems to penetrate. You cannot write grammatical English and you have no concept of NPOV. This does not reflect well on the Shi'a! Please, if you care for the public reputation of your sect, desist. Zora 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)


 * No, it is not better. Moving all the stuff I wrote into the "Sunni" section is simply wrong. I'm not a Sunni. I am trying hard not to take a Sunni POV. I do not represent Sunnis. I started an article on the subject of the succession so that the controversy could go THERE and not clutter up umpteen biographical articles (being essentially recreated in each article). Zora 4 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

I only made cosmetic changes. But Im not happy with the way things are written. It could be written better. Some sentences are vague. Also, since I saw a CE at the begining, I made the page consistent by putting CE for the rest of the years.--Zereshk 5 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

Zora, I put it there since i didn't want to delet you contribution, and i expected some one else to make it a better representativ of the sunni POV. I have commited my self to report the shia pov and seldom try to report the sunni pov. That has three reasons:


 * There is a great lack of shia pov reported.
 * Ther are more sunnis than shias on wikipedia
 * Im not the best man to write the sunni pov.

Zereshk, feel invited to change the prose to the better.

--Striver 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

I will help out soon. Presently, I have no good English references at my disposal. Maybe in a month.--Zereshk 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Controversies in biography articles
Striver, a biography of Ali is not the right place to rehearse all the grievances of the Shi'a. You keep repeating the same litany of accusation and spite in dozens of early Islamic biographical articles. This is excessive. All we need is ONE article on the disputed succession, where all the minutest details can be discussed, and then we can link to it from all the articles to which it is relevant. Work on the Succession article, don't attack all the bios. The Succession article needs work, I know. I need to pull out my Madelung and get to work.

I think you'd like the Madelung book if you read it. The author is a non-Muslim academic, and he tended to accept the Sunni account of things when he started working on his book on the disputed succession. By the end of the book, he's come down basically on the Shi'a side. Zora 5 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Ok, i acctaly hoped that you would say that. I dont know i you remeber, but a while ago i did a "Muhammds inheritance and the land of fadak" and a "Ali opposed Abu Bakr", but they became deleted. Seems like its time to do something like that again, give all disputed issues that involve several people their own articl, insted of repeating it all over the place. Note that i dont intent do use those article names again.

Oh, btw, take a look at this:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/the+prophet

A similar thing, Gordie Howe is also called MR HOCKEY®.

--Striver 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Sectarian struggle
I just reverted a whole bunch of edits made by Sunniwarrior, who wanted to turn the article into an explanation of why Sunni were right and Shi'a were wrong. He also added the usual pious interjections and various editorial comments re the truth of Islam.

The next time you're tempted to call me a Sunni, guys, remember this. Zora 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Zora, you have been very clear about your religius belifes, and even if i sometimes disagree with you, i do appreciat you efforts, yes even though you sometime remove my edits.

thanks for beeing here! Peace!

--Striver 5 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Caravan
Zora, whats wrong whith this?:

"They hired themselves out to work and also raided caravans since they where in war with the mecca Banu Umayyed clan after their assassination attempt on Muhammad."

--Striver 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)


 * It's special pleading. Those of us who are not Muslims regard a career of theft and conquest as repugnant. If you want to try to make a case that theft is OK, I'll argue against it. Otherwise we can just leave it as stated.


 * If you've been raised as a Muslim, reading all the triumphant accounts of conquest, then it all seems natural and right. Those of us who weren't so raised will think of the feelings of those whose caravans were robbed, whose families were killed, who were sold into slavery, etc. I'm willing to leave all that aside for the purposes of the biography, but I'm not going to let it be excused and glorified.

Oh, and the Muslims were angry at all of Mecca, not just the Umayyads. You're reading your anti-Umayyad bias into everything. Zora 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Regarding Umayyad, you are right, i was misstaken and lett my bias carry me away. Thank you for your correction. Regarding the caravans, isnt it a legitimit part of war to raid your enemys supply convoys? Think of the german subs vs american supplys in ww2, you know, the wolf pack subs. If that is legit, why is caravan raiding meccans not legit?

--Striver 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

But had Mecca declared war on the Muslims? The Muslims were now hundreds of miles away. They could have just left the Meccans alone, and then the Meccans would have left them alone. As for "it's OK to raid commerce" -- why? You think it's OK to steal from someone you don't like? You think that a "cause" justifies stealing? Radical groups in the US, like the SLA, robbed banks, saying that it was part of their war against the system. The IRA robs banks. The Chinese Triads said that they were warring against the Manchus, and turned into nothing more than gangsters. Look, I'm not trying to drag this into the article. I'm not accusing Ali of banditry. I understand that by the standards of his time, caravan raiding was no big deal. Wars of conquest and slavery were no big deal. I'm not going to try to indict him by the standards of later times -- but I'm not going to try to whitewash things so that they look nice by later standards either. Zora 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

As for Meccan declaring war on the muslim, they did that when they sent a assassination squad on their leader. Of course they did not send a formal declaration of war, with a timestamp from the mail.

Regarding meccas further behavior, im currently reading a book about it, and it does not pain a nice and fuzzy picture.


 * No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It's a pietistic Deobandi work, not real academic history. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Further, your examples are not valid, since its not equated with what muslims whent thrue.


 * SLA did not have their leader undergo a conspiracy of death through a group of assassins. Further, they did not have any political aim, rather just a lame excuse to behave badly:

''In reality, however, the SLA was nothing more or less than a criminal gang. Its principal activities were murder, bank robbery and kidnapping. It never had more than a dozen members, and is not known to have participated in any political activity. (ref)


 * the IRA robbing banks is not endorsable, since their counterparts where intrested in a peace proces. Mecca never even implied that Muhammad was entitled to peace. Unless you have a source that says otherwise. They rather kept going with a culture that endorsed the killing of daghters.

''The IRA is facing fresh questions about its commitment to the peace process after an official report said that it was still involved in paramilitary and criminal activity, including the recruitment and training of new members. ([The IRA is facing fresh questions about its commitment to the peace process after an official report said that it was still involved in paramilitary and criminal activity, including the recruitment and training of new members. ref])


 * The triad indulged in "Such activities include drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal gambling, prostitution, car theft and other forms of racketeering. " which makes it obvious that they where not intrested in a legitimal and uppright goals. Did Muhmmad (as) endorse such things? no, he reveled the prohibition of alcohol, banning of money interest, sever punishment for fornification and stealing.


 * Yabbut, the Triads originally started as resistance groups to the Manchu invasion, just as the IRA was a protest against the English conquest and occupation of Ireland. They had good intentions at the start and then .... Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Non of those groups whent a continued chain of persecution, resulting in the loss of home due to having been sent to exile, without loosing their long term plans. They are not comaparable.


 * So any group that has been persecuted and dispossessed is entitled to go to war? Anyone? Does that make the world a better place? I don't think so. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: If the wolf pack subs where legit in war, why is raiding (whitout drownig the crew) not legit?

Did they not have a city of their own? Was it not Mecca vs Medina? was it not a acctual war?


 * Not, so far as I can tell, until the Muslims started attacking caravans during the sacred season that was supposed to be safe for transit. No, I don't approve of persecution or attempted assassination, but I don't think it justifies banditry. Zora 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

best regards, --Striver 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Seems as if we are not going to agree on this issue, not tonight anyhow... so lets leave the article as it is.

--Striver 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Why some refrences to sunni ideology and not all contested points are mentioned? -unsigned

How do you mean?

--Striver 6 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Great!
Masterfully put, Zora!

--Striver 6 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Born in the Kaaba
Shaneabbas added a sentence to the effect that Ali was born inside the Kaaba. I seen this story elsewhere, but I have never read it in any reliable source. It seems to be a pious folktale.

I recently set up an article called Islam and veneration for Muhammad to hold such material for Muhammad -- there's a great deal of pious folklore about Muhammad, or folk practices venerating Muhammad. Since this is also true of Ali, how about setting up an article called Shi'a Islam and veneration for Ali? That could be linked to both this article and the Shi'a article. The "born in the Kaaba" story would be relevant there. Zora 6 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Actually, sunnis also claim that somebody was born in the kaba, but they cant agree on whom:

You can read a bit more about it here:

''Fatimah bint Asad was circumbulating the Ka'ba when she was carrying Ali (a.s.). The wall of Ka'ba cracked to create an opening and she entered it to give birth to Ali (a.s.). Al-Mustadrak 3:483.

''no when they put the cloth up, u can still see the crack. I have seen it, its on the opposite side of hajr-e-asvad, you can see it when we are doing tawaf,

'' apparently the wahabis try to fill the crack up but it no matter what they do the crack still shows up! if abu bakr or umar were born there they would have put a sign post there!!

'' Well I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali as.gif and our HAzrat Ali ra.gif born in holy Kaba... It is right and it shows the dignity of Ali ra.gif

''Maybe you have never been there. Ask anybody who has been there. And the crack is still very visible.

''Does it really matter if the crack was there or not? I personally spoke to many Saudi Shias who say that the Wahabi establishment used zinc to cover up the crack since that area keeps on breaking mysteriously - so some are claiming that Allah wants this miracle to live on even if the actual building was destroyed twice in history (after the birth of Imam Ali). Be this a miracle or not is a matter of personal opinion unless some photographs can be presented.

''fortunately it is still there. When they put the covers up, and you are doing tawaf, many people go and do masah of it. and lukily for me, out of the 100 times i went 50% of the covers were up

''^ ok guys I remember once getting an email which had pictures of the crack, i would see if i still have the email saved I would put the pictures here ( but dont count on that though)

''Hazrat Ali razialahutalaanho He is the personality who given the name sherekhudafrom ALLAH.And he is the personality who won the battel of khaiber,and took the roots off that door called darekhaibar.And he has one more speciality that is he accept islaam in his childhood. He was born in the KABA> (sunni site)

''History has recorded that he is the only person who was born inside the Kabah itself.: HAKIM IBN HAZM

Zora, both Shia and Sunnis agree that somebody was born in the Ka'bah. Nobody says that nobody was ever born in the Ka'ba. Remmeber the number of Sahaba thing? (sunni site)

Peace!, --Striver 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)


 * No offense but it seems like sockpuppets are in play on this page. I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali. As far as I know, Sunnis refer to Ali as "caliph ali" and not imam ali, I could be wrong but since they hold him on the same level as Abu Bakr et al, I have never heard of imam Abu Bakr or imam Uthman. As for the crack in the kaaba being there or not, they kaaba's been destroyed many times since the birth of Ali so I don't know how relevant it is... -- GNU 4 Eva 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * Sunnis saying Ali (AS) was born in the Kaba :


 * Sunnis sayingHAKIM IBN HAZM was born in the Kaba : http://anwary-islam.com/companion/s_hakim-ibn-hazm.htm


 * Sunni saing "imam Ali" : When Umar bin Khattab (ra) appointed 6 people to elect a khalif, one of the six was Imam Ali (ra). His uncle Abbas criticised him for this, to which he replied :Ali replied to Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, after the latter criticised him for participating in the council : "It is one of the mighty affairs of Islam and I did not think I should be excluded from it".  Sunni site :


 * Both Shia and sunni agree that someone was born in the Kaba, but they dont agree on whom. To say nobody did it lacks sources and is personal pov, irrelvant for an npov encyclopedia. Saying that the crack is due to it being destroid is conjecture. It might be true, it might not. If it is, bring forth one source that claims such. Otherwise, keep personal pov out of the article.


 * --Striver 7 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)

This is absurd. The entire Ka'ba was destroyed in the Qaramita's time. Any crack in the current Ka'ba has nothing to do with anything that happened before then. A chat room is not a reference; quote an actual respected historian or jurist's works. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Aladdin's edits
Aladdin, some of your edits reverse the Shi'a bias that Striver has been trying to enforce. However, you are pushing hard to introduce Sunni bias. You want to state as fact some matters that Shi'a dispute. You relly need to step back and allow different views to be stated.

As to Saqifah, shura, all that -- I strongly recommend that you read Wilferd Madelung's book, The Succession to Muhammad. The author is apparently not a Muslim, is a Professor at Oxford, and knows the primary sources inside out. He says that Saqifah was not a meeting that had been properly announced, to which the whole community had been invited. It was an impromptu matter. Someone came to Abu Bakr and Umar, and announced that the Ansar were already meeting, without any Muhajirun present, to decide whom they would support as the new leader of the community. It seemed that the whole community might fall apart if the Ansar were allowed to elect a leader without any Muhajirun input. Abu Bakr and Umar rushed off to prevent any decision, and apparently made an impromptu move, entirely on their own initiative, to advance Abu Bakr as the new leader. Was this fair? Ali and all the Banu Hashim were still preparing Muhammad's body for burial and were effectively shut out of the decision. However, Madelung says, an ugly and contentious several months followed, during which Abu Bakr and Umar campaigned to line up support from the Muslim community, and Ali and his Rafidi held out against the pressure -- which was sometimes violent. That is, Abu Bakr apparently didn't feel that he could truly be leader without consensus and allegiance from everyone, including Ali. So it could be said that shura was followed, in a rough way that wouldn't meet current UN guidelines for fair elections . It could also be argued that if Abu Bakr hadn't done what he did, the community might have dissolved right then and there.

Madelung is not necessarily the TRUTH -- though every historian I've read speaks highly of the work -- but I think he's reconstructed what might have happened in a fairly NPOV way. You can use Madelung to make an argument that Abu Bakr did the right thing -- but it's going to be a more complex and sophisticated Sunni argument than just saying that Abu Bakr was elected by shura and anyone who objected was a bad loser.

Statements that Ali fully supported the first three caliphs are also highly POV. Shi'a say that he kept his distance from the caliphs, and simply refrained from publicly challenging them. Madelung tends to support the latter version (p. 54 of his book). Insisting on Ali's willing and enthusiastic support is Sunni POV.

I have been doing LOTS of reading since I first started working on these issues. I think I have a better grasp on the Shi'a viewpoint and the complexities of the primary sources. Let's try to present an account that respects the complexity. Zora 8 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

Shura, support
Aladdin, are you saying that Ali was there at the gathering at Saqifah? If not, what do you make of all the evidence that the decision was made there? See Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, p. 683.

Why do you insist on saying that Ali supported the previous caliphs when the Shi'a deny it, and when reputable academic sources say that there was considerable distrust between Ali and the other leaders? They didn't forget that he had opposed Abu Bakr for a long time.

Don't just try to impose your version by force, give us some sources, some cites. Zora 8 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)


 * Well said Zora. I just hope you start using the same arguments in our other argument. --Striver 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)


 * Zora, I think at least a starting point is the fact that although it is claimed he hated the first three caliphs, he named three of his sons after them: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman. -- GNU 4 Eva 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Nop, no way. That does not prove anything. Read the motvivation here

--Striver 8 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Propose move
I propose that this article be moved to Ali. He is by far the most famous Ali, and English-speakers are not generally familiar with his filiation. The current Ali page can be moved to Ali (disambiguation). I am proposing the same for Umar and Uthman. john k 20:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. BrandonYusufToropov 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that he is the best known Ali... ehh.. wait, i take that back, isn't Muhammad Ali more famous? I vote Agains. Lets move it to Ali ibn Abu Talib, that is the correct speling in my eyes.


 * --Striver 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone looking for Muhammad Ali would not type in Ali. john k 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sixteen months ago, User:Wik said it was "Abi", not "Abu". Needs some scholarship there, please, all you experts, before settling it here and on pages that link to here such as Shi'a Imam. My interest is as a contributor to http://genealogy.wikicities.com/wiki/Category:Shia_Imams.  Robin Patterson 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering about that. Transliterating Arabic is apparently not a settled matter; there are several different schemes. I've seen "father of" as Abi a few places, but Abu seems much more common -- and almost universal on Wikipedia. I defer to any Arabic experts here. Zora 03:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Only abi is correct in his name. Abu is the nominative form before a noun; abi the genitive form. In this case the name is ibn Abi Talib, hence ab is in the genitive. Abu would be quite wrong here. In the case of names like Abu Ammar, Abu Jihad, Abu Leila, there is nothing before them to put them in the genitive. Hope that's helpful. Palmiro 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(Bracing self)
Given the historic, age-old bitterness of the debate over image-making, and the likelihood of ongoing Sunni vandalism at Islamic pages featuring images of prominent Islamic figures, might it make sense, purely from a logistical sense, to delete the image of Ali?

Not condemning anyone, or calling anyone a heretic, or anything like that. Honest. Just thinking of all the reverts required... Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 21:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Picture Is Wrong
It's not the real pic of Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib all Muslims knew that why the Editor puted it then.

Titles
Sunni's accepts the titles of Amir-ul-Momineen given to the 'Khalifa-ur-Rashidin'. They also accepts that Ali was 'Lion of God' + Abu Turab: from suuni website: The Prophet (peace be on him) loved Ali dearly and called him by many fond names. Once the Prophet found him sleeping in the dust. He brushed off Ali's clothes and said fondly, "Wake up, Abu Turab (Father of Dust)." The Prophet also gave him the title of 'Asadullah' ('Lion of God'). ([www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/sahabah/Ali.htm])


 * Leader of the Faithful really shouldn't be in the list, as it was born by all the caliphs. In fact, it was used in preference to caliph until the Umayyads, or so I gather. The Abu Turab story is also found in Ibn Ishaq, but with a different emphasis -- Muhammad is supposed to have said that when he saw Ali with dust in his hair, he knew he'd been quarreling with Fatima, and putting dust on his head to show his repentance. The Lion of God title is used by Sunnis, that's a good cite -- but what about the other, untranslated titles? They should really be translated and cited if Sunni. I strongly suspect that there are titles that the Shi'a use that the Sunni don't, but I'm not sure. Zora 21:48, 20 July

2005 (UTC)


 * AladdinSE removed As-Sadique from the titles saying the title is associated with the 1st caliph. If the title is used by some muslims for the 1st caliph, it does not meen that no else had the title.

We know that people that had accompanied Mohammad to 'Mubahila' where all sidique, as only people who never lied accompanied him. Plus i dont think there will be any sunni who would say that any of the 4 rightly guided caliphs were not sadique. Im again adding the title.--Khalid! 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because they were all honest does not mean they were nicknamed As Siddique; I've heard of Abu Bakr being referred to as Abu Bakr As Siddique but never heard of Ali  As Siddique , or anyone else for that matter. -- GNU 4 Eva 12:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. I've never heard of Ali As-Sadique either. Even if it was used as a minor title, when it is so famously and widely associated with Abu Bakr, it ought not to be included here. Merely removing the title does not in any way mean that we are implying the fourth Caliph was not truthful. --AladdinSE 19:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, when Striver put back the As-Siddiq title for Ali, he remarks, "In my view, Abu Bakr was from from that..." It's not your view that matters; WP should not be used as a message board forum but rather to report the facts.  As-Siddiq is a nickname that is associated with Abu Bakr, and no one else.  Don't confuse nicknames with personality traits -- Ali was siddiq too. -- GNU 4 Eva  14:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "nickname" really captures the phenomenon. Various Muslim editors have been adding "titles" to various biographical articles, notably Muhammad and Ali. I think this is more the impulse towards veneration. If God cannot be depicted, but must be known by the canonical 99 names, then Muhammad and Ali are also venerated with lists of official titles. Zora 18:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why dont you lot understand? If the title is commonly used with Abu Bakr, it does not mean that no1 else could have that title. The title of Amir-ul-Momineen is commonly used with Ali but that does not mean that none of the other caliphs could use the title. Again gonna add the title.

--Khalid! 18:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Amir Al Mumineen is a position, literally the leader of the faithful (starting from Umar). Al Siddiq is not a position, it was a title given to Abu Bakr.  Check out the following google searches.
 * Actually let me be even more obvious, with the following google searches:
 * * "ali al siddiq" 1 Result
 * * "abu bakr al siddiq" 5050 Results
 * * "ali as siddiq" 4 Results
 * * "abu bakr as siddiq" 8190 Results
 * * "ali As-Sadiq" 4 Results (As-Sadique as spelt in the article gets 0 results)
 * * "Abu Bakr as-Sadiq" 65 Results (As-Sadiq gets one result).

-- GNU 4 Eva 19:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That still does not mean that he cant have the title, anywayz i'll ad this title to the Shia titles.--Khalid! 18:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * still inaccurate, but your stubborness is to be admired... incidentally, when we say Titles, are we referring to Titles and names he possessed during his lifetime, or titles given to him later on? -- GNU 4</B> Eva 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV revisited
What is more NPOV, to say, as an example,


 * While Ali was washing Muhammad's body, preparing it for burial, the Muslims of Medina were arguing about who should succeed Muhammad as the leader of the community. Ali had a strong claim to the leadership, both as one of Muhammad's closest assistants and as his cousin and son-in-law. But he was passed over for the leadership and was eventually forced to swear fealty to Abu Bakr, another prominent Muslim. as Striver would have it, or my version:


 * Ali had a strong claim to the leadership, both as one of Muhammad's closest assistants and as his cousin and son-in-law. But in a controversial and heated debate and election, he was passed over for the leadership and was eventually persuaded to swear fealty to Abu Bakr, another prominent Muslim. There were allegations that the election was held while Ali was engaged in the funeral arrangements for the prophet, in addition to other objections. Some six months elapsed from the election of Abu Bakr until the furor died down and Ali made his formal submission.

You did a blind revert, alleging that Uthman was an unpopular leader which is false. The man was stabbed to death in his home, and you refuse to allow that to be called "murder", always changing it to "killed". Are you trying to say he deserved it??

You also try to make it appear as if the entire city of Medina begged Ali to become Caliph, when in fact there was considerable controversy and chaos in the city which later aided Muawiyah in seeking support to challenge Ali. You are demolishing NPOV in favor of our shia biases. --AladdinSE 16:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Various edits
I reverted some outright vandalism. I removed Striver's hadith dump. I also took the para re pious interjections and moved it to a new Veneration section. I am not quite sure of the edits there, and would appreciate some help.

When people speak, do they append these pious interjections in Quranic Arabic, or in the local dialect or language? What do these interjections sound like in Quranic or classical Arabic? Do Muslims use the acronyms (like PBUH and SAW) when speaking? Or is that only in writing? What are the acronyms used specifically for Ali? Do Sunnis say "Honored be his face" -- or whatever it is -- or is that only a Shi'a practice? Finally, there are some websites that do the PBUHs and SAWs in beautiful, teeny-tiny Arabic calligraphy, so that the interjection looks like a smudge. Can we have some of those copied en large and inserted here? Zora 07:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Inhericance
Zora, what are you doing, why are you removing the inheritance section?

--Striver 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because it's ugly, Striver. I'll put a few sentences re inheritance in there, to placate you, but I'm not going to use your hadith-hurling style of argument. Zora 22:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but i want it to show more of how Ali reacted to it. And i denfintly want the part where Umar says what Ali and Ibn Abbas thought of them for it. --Striver 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not important enough to be included, Striver. Frankly, Ali comes off better if he's NOT whining about how he was cheated. From my Buddhist POV, it's hard to respect someone who cares that much about STUFF. Or power, or fame. If you want the Shi'a to look good, leave it out. Zora 00:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I simply do not agree. I belive that one oppresed have full right to express his discontent, and i dont understand how you called an oppresed mans crys for justies as "whining" when "cheated". I whant everything i added to be included. You expresed discontent with my format. Ok, feel free to change in any way it pleases you. But do not exclude any content, neither do excluded the sources. --Striver 11:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you have a full right to express your discontent. If you want to go to Hyde Park and whine about oppression, you can do so. If you want to pass out leaflets on the street complaining that you are being oppressed, you can do so. Wikipedia, however, has no obligation to provide a free forum for you.


 * Given that all the STUFF that Ali and Fatima wanted so badly was the fruit of conquest and pillage, I don't see how you expect anyone else to be indignant on their behalf. Zora 19:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, im fairly unintrested right now in what or why you have the oppinions regarding Ali reaction to not receiving his inheritance. The thing you are reffering to as "stuff" is their INHERITANCE for gods sake! What if i whent to you, took your fathers inheritance and said i heard it was his last wish, would you think "oh, whadever, its just STUFF"? WHEN did Abu Bakr hear that, he WAS NOT EVEN IN THE CITY when Muhammad (as) died, he was TWO MILES AWAY!


 * And yes, Ali didnt care for it as stuff, he wanted it to use it for the better of the comunity, instead of using it to butcher Muslims that didnt want to pay zakat to Abu Bakr. As you know, Ali always strover to have nothing for himself and everything in his good deeds account.


 * I made a very NPOV and factual section about it, you removed it since you didnt like my style. Ok, i agree to im not having your skills in prose. But dont delet the facts i presented. It is factual. It is relevant. Add it. Sourece it. Period. --Striver 00:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No reponse Zora? Are you going to keep Alis reaction and the sources deleted? --Striver 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora delets iformation
Zora just deleted well sourced, NPOV and accurate information. She commented:


 * '' Striver, you're acting like a conspiracy theorist with "documents" to prove his case; a cleaner version is both more favorable to the Shi'a, and easier to read

The information is regarding Alis reaction to not receiving his inheritance. She has no right under wikipedia rules to remove that iformation, which is much relevant to Alis biography. --Striver 11:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules don't mandate that we include every "shiny thing" that magpie editors try to jam into an article. We are trying to create READABLE articles. Zora 19:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, in no way is inclusion of that information render the article unredable. Further, the facts are not "shiny thing" that "magpie editors" (i take that as a personal insult) include for personal resons. That is facts that are very relant to Shias, Shia do not hesitate to mention that Ali and Umar had a became what my edits show. Books are writen about Ali and Abu Bakr and the Inheritance, articles in the net has been writen about it. You know it. You try to remove it since you know that it will make Sunni feel bad, but since they can not refute it or say they dont belive in it, you simply try to marginalize it and try to claim it is uninportant or not relevant. It is very relevant. And it will remain there. Persist in removing it by no other motivation that you think it to be irrelevant and i will be forced to seek other meand to have it included, beggining with a RFC. Here you have a example of a article DEDICATED to represent Ali, Abu Bakr and the inheritance answering-ansar.org, writen in a very prominent Shia site, and here you have a the same topic given a whole chapter in a very prominent Shia Book And then i was guided. In this part of the article they mentioning all the facts i presented answering-ansar.org. So dont claim its uninportant, you KNOW its not since you have been a editor of Islam related articles for a long time. It is Factual. It is Relevant. It is NPOV. It is Well sourced. It is NOT unreadeble. It will remain there, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REMOVE IT! --Striver 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zora for your steps toward compromise. What you did is to remove Alis actions and replased them with how Shia picture them. That is not acceptable. You can not remove any reference to Garbiel in the cave where Muhammad received his revelation and simply state that Muslims belive he became a prophet there. The acctual event must be reported, specialy since it is a relevant event to manny people!


 * You can not simply replace this parts from the Muhammad article:


 * ''Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and routinely spent nights in a cave (Hira) near Mecca in meditation and thought. Around the year 610, while meditating, Muhammad had a vision of the Angel Gabriel and heard a voice saying to him in rough translation "Read in the name of your Lord the Creator. He created man from something which clings. Read and your Lord is the Most Honored. He taught man with the pen; taught him all that he knew not." (See surat Al-Alaq for a fuller account.)


 * ''The first vision of Gabriel disturbed Muhammad, but his wife Khadijah reassured him that it was a true vision and became his first follower. She was soon followed by his ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abu Bakr, whom Sunnis assert to have been Muhammad's closest friend.

With:


 * ''Muhammad was often in a cave. Muslims belive he became a prophet there and followed him.


 * In the same manner, you can not remove the parts you removed from the inheritance article and just briefly state that Shias dont like Abu Bakr! THAT was the event that cippled Alis economical resources and any hope of having any authority or power at all! Otherwise, he would have inherited a vast amount of resources though Muhammds daughter!


 * The facts of the matter must be reported, you can not simply present the Abu Bakr argument that he heard prophets (plural) did not inherit, but not present that Ali countered that the Quran refutes that! That is not a neutral point of view, both arguments must be presented. Further, it is inacurate to claim that Shia POINT to that event as A example of persecution, even if you said that shia CLAIM that Ali BELIVED that Umar and Abu Bakr was a lier, treacherous, sinner and so on, it would STILL be inacurate, since it is regarded as AUTHENTIC by SAHIH MUSLIM! NO ONE disputes the authenticity of that part of the hadith, Umar himself said that those two belive them to be low-lifes, Shia belive it and the second most authentic Sunni source around reports it as AUTHENTIC! I will not settle with NOT presenting Alis view, not even presenting that Shia belived that Ali belived that, no, you just want to replace that with some general line about Shia not liking it!


 * Also, I dont even want to hear anything about Alis reaction to Abu Bakr and Umar actions not being important or relevant to his biography!


 * Since Abu Bakr argument for not letting Ali inherit was presented, Alis counteragument MUST be presented


 * Alis view on Abu Bakr and Umar must be presented, specialy since it is deemed authentic by BOTH Shia and Sunnis!


 * Further, Wikipedia demands that the sources for the inforamtion to be given, which i did. --Striver 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora does not motivate
Zora delets iformation regarding what Alis thought of Umar and Abu Bakr, as reported in Sunni sources that classified the narration as authentic, and also in prominent Shia collections. Alis oppinion are regarding the subject that the section is about, and his oppinion are further also highly relevant to the biography of Ali. Zora gives the following motivations for doing so:


 * ''"you're acting like a conspiracy theorist"
 * ''"we (dont) include every "shiny thing" that magpie editors try to jam into an article"
 * ''"We are trying to create READABLE articles"

As can easly been seen, the first point ignores that i am citing the most prominent mainstream sources of both Shia and Sunni. That does not make a conspiracy, that makes reporting acknowledged and authenticated facts.

The second point is a pure personal assualt on me, calling me a magpie editors trying to insert non-sense in the article. As is evident, Alis oppinion regarding a pivital event in his life according to the most prominent sources around does not qualifie as legitimate information in Zoras eyes.

The third point... i dont event get what it supposed to mean. Maybe that she does not like me sourcing the informatino in this format?

And here is her forth argument:


 * "Striver, please stop mangling the article"

Dont you love how well she articulates her arguments?

What she DOES NOT manage to do, is to either disprove one of my arguments for insertnig it:


 * It is a fact that is not disputed
 * Is is reported in the most prominent books around
 * Its is NPOV
 * It is relevant
 * It needs to be sourced

Zora, if you delet my editions one more time, without properly addresing my arguments and insiting on giving oppions regarding my person as the only motivatin for deleting Alis oppinions and the sources given, i will take it to the next step, making a RFC.

You started by deleting the whole section. When i asked why, you claimed that my editinos did not have the right prose, they where "hadith dumps". I said ok and let you correct my prose. But you did not only correct my prose, you also deleted, and keep insinting on deleting the relevant and factual informatin that i demand to have represented. That is in violation of WP rules. Stop it.

--Striver 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, striver I can only hope that both Sunni and Shi'a point of view will be be reflected in the article. I would just like to point out though that the link ("answering-islam.org/Silas/rf1_mhd_wealth.htm") is from an anti-Islamic site that wants to create conflict between Muslims. The site is also plagued with lies and distortion of the Qur'an so it can make christianity look good. Yes, it is very pathetic and so, I would recommend that the link be deleted and a better one found from a Shi'a site. But remember the article can't simply be the Shi'a perspective - you have to reach middle ground with the Sunni POV. Thanks and Salaam, a-n-o-n-y-m  01:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wa aleikom salam Anonymous editor! I dont know exactly who Sunni relate to this topic, they seem to admit the facts, but i dont know how they interpret it. So i just laid out the facts from Shia and Sunnis most prominent sources without commenting on them. However, Zora added a line regarding Shia pov and i did not delet it. I welcome a sunni to also add the sunni pov to that event, since it is lacking as it is. I recall reading a Sunni article basicly saying that "sure, they said harsh stuff, but it dosnt matter, friends say harsh stuff". In any case, my concern in this matter is not so much to have the Shia or Sunni pov included, rather the factual event it self, and having it well sourced.


 * Regarding the answering Islam link, i know its a bad link, but i could not find tabari in any other place online... ill try to search for a alternative tabari quote...--Striver 12:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not censoring a Shi'a view -- I think any reasonable Shi'a would conclude that I'm keeping Striver from depicting Ali as a mean-spirited, grasping monomaniac. Striver's quote re "Ali didn't give bay'ah" didn't prove what he thought it did. One quote is from an anti-Islamic site. The quote from Ali seems to refer to the caliphate rather than lands or goods. The hadith that Striver cites, so that he can enter a string of epithets directed at the non-Alid caliphs, is actually a Sunni hadith that depicts Ali and Abbas as squabbling over stuff and motivated by greed, and shamed by Umar who contrasts their behavior with that of Muhammad, who kept only what he needed for the bare essentials and gave the rest of his income to the community. The version of the article that I'm championing accurately summarizes the dispute, and is missing only the complaints and the epithets. Does Shi'ism consist of hatred and complaints of persecution? I refuse to believe that it does. Zora 03:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Bay'ah quote is not concerned in this dispute. The quote is from Tabari, that happens to be on a anti Islamic site. If you manage to find it somewhere else, you are welcomned to quote Tabari from there.


 * "I'm keeping Striver from depicting Ali as a mean-spirited, grasping monomaniac" is your pov, not everyones. I for my self dont belive that persisting to receive ones inheritance makes one a "mean-spirited, grasping monomaniac". - Rather, whitholding somones inheritance might cause one to deserve those titles. However, its is totaly irrelevant, since i dont aim to represent pov of some group, rather the facts of what Ali thought.


 * "The quote from Ali seems to refer to the caliphate rather than lands or goods." must refer to the Nahj al-Balagha quote "I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself." since its the only Ali quote in the section. "I watched the plundering of my inheritance" not refering to inheritance is Zora pov, im sure that manny would agree that i does refer to what it says, inheritance.


 * "The hadith that Striver cites, so that he can enter a string of epithets directed at the non-Alid caliphs, is actually a Sunni hadith that depicts Ali and Abbas as squabbling over stuff and motivated by greed, and shamed by Umar who contrasts their behavior with that of Muhammad, who kept only what he needed for the bare essentials and gave the rest of his income to the community." - That is your interpretaition of it, you are entitled to that. But your pov is not a valid reason for deleting the information. The information is relevant, as in shown in this aricle that quotes the same hadith with a totaly diffrent pov.


 * "The version of the article that I'm championing accurately summarizes the dispute, and is missing only the complaints and the epithets. Does Shi'ism consist of hatred and complaints of persecution?" - What you refer to as Your version is simply the deletion of Alis reaction to having his inheritance denied and nothing more. Your version does nothing more that remove all referens to Alis oppinions and also removes the reference given, and as if that was not enough, you also removed his answer/rebutal to Abu Bakrs argument. that is not acceptable --Striver 22:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC
I was reading the rules regarding RFC, and it stated that two "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."

As the two users, i choose User:Zereshk and User:BrandonYusufToropov.

I choose Zereshk since she have the same pov as me, and i chose BrandonYusufToropov since Zora herself have tried to contact him regarding this issue

My complains are simple: I have added information that is factual, NPOV and relevant, Zora keeps deleting them and the sources for them, motivating that i have a bad prose. I counter argue that if that is the problem, correct my prose, dont delet the information. In my pov, she is blaiming my bad prose as a cover for removing information she does not like to be included in the page. What are you comments on this issue? --Striver 01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Blotting out contributions under the pretext of "bad prose" is a weak excuse to prevent real NPOV. Zora's persistence in this respect has time and time again led me to completely abandon contributing to the page at hand. I agree with Striver. --Zereshk 02:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't want to interfere in this dispute, but perhaps designating sections called the "Shi'a perspective" and/or the "Sunni perspective" can help. I don't think this dispute will be resolved easily. One of my recommendations is finding better sources than anti-Islamic sites. Aside from that, I can only be optimistic. a-n-o-n-y-m  02:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * There can not be a Shia and Sunni view regarding this particular quote since it is authenticated in Shahih Muslim. Therefoure, it would enter both the proposed Shia and Sunni version. The facts is NPOV, the interpreteition of them differ. I want the facts to be presented. --Striver 10:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Striver
Thanks for your note on my userpage. Great to hear from you again. I can't help thinking, though, that the recent edits you've proposed here are needlessly partisan. There are neutrality issues here to consider. Let's take a break and let the page breathe for a little bit, all right? BrandonYusufToropov 17:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you elaborat a bit on how my version is pov? --Striver 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

--Striver 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * However, Abu Bakr claimed that he had heard Muhammad say that prophets do not leave an inheritance bukhari. Ali then pointed out that the Quran mentions prophets leaving inheritance, but Abu Bakr keept his stance. Tabari

Given that this is a historically contentious issue, doesn't a "group A holds that X was observed, while group B holds that Y was observed" seem more appropriate (and sensitive) than implying that Abu Bakr was simply ignoring the Qur'an? Also, is it possible that citing this reference here would sidetrack the article into a "can-you-top-this" series of comeuppance citations from people who will disagree with the implication here?


 * When Abu Bakr died, Ali and Ibn Abbas both whent to Umar to demand their share of inheritance. On that event, Umar stated that he knew that Ibn Abbas and Ali thought Umar and Abu Bakr where "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" due to their actions, but would still not give Ali and Ibn Abbas their inheritance Muslim.

Similarly, are there groups today who are likely to consider Abu Bakr's actions in this (historically contentious) case justified? Have we given their viewpoint fair exposure? Do we risk "dueling citations" episodes in the article if we include a passage such as this? BrandonYusufToropov 12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora added regarding Quran rebutal
Here is Alis answer to Abu Bakr according to Tabari. He did not mention vers number:

Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance. Ali came with them. Thereupon Abu Bakr said, “The Apostle of Allah said, “We leave no inheritance, what we leave behind us is sadaqah.” I shall make provisions for those for whom the Prophet had made.”  On this Ali said, “Sulayman (Solomon) inherited Dawud (David), and Zakariya said, ‘He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Yaqab (Zachariah and John the Baptist)’”. Abu Bakr said, “This is as this is. By Allah! You know it as I know.” Thereupon Ali said, “This is the Book of Allah that speaks.”  Then they became quiet and retired. (page 393). 

But it is the following verses:

[27.16] And Sulaiman was Dawood's heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.

[21.89] And Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: O my Lord leave me not alone; and Thou art the best of inheritors.

--Striver 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The captions to the picture
Who put that crap about Shirk up there in Ali's picture caption?

Shirk comes opposite to Tawheed. Nobody prays to Ali or the painting of Ali, be they in Iran or Pakistan. This is one of the misconceptions about The Shia that I tried to address in the article Academic Bias against The Shia (which is about to be censored, as is the norm). Shias and Sunnis alike pray to the one God. Ali's picture is not God's replacement (na'udhu billah), as the caption implies. Therefore the comment about the painting being shirk is BS, because the imaging of Ali is merely analogous to keeping a picture of a loved one, like your mother or father. I suppose Sunnis do keep family photos? That caption needs to be changed.--Zereshk 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora's recent edits
I changed the wording. "Stabbed in the head" suggests sudden death. When you STAB something, the blade penetrates a considerable distance. Mortal head wound is better phrasing, IMHO.

I also removed a para that someone snuck in there re some agency recommending that Muslims imitate Ali. It was in the wrong place and it's not especially encyclopedic. Zora 18:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a imam
Muhammad was not an imam. Ali is considered the first imam. Muhammad should not be in the succession box. Zora 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the Shi'a belief, Muhammad was also an Imam. Adamcaliph 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to doubt that. Frex, your sect, the twelvers, believes in twelve imams, and the first is Ali, not Muhammad. As I understand it, being a prophet and being an imam are entirely different matters. Zora 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The term Ithna Ashariya ("twelvers") is used only to distinguish the sect from other Islamic sects. The "twelver" Shia belief is that God appoints a guide, or hujja ("argument") for every single generation. Shi'ism cites the following Qur'anic verse as a reference:


 * "...for every generation there is a guide." (Qur'an, 13:7)


 * Shi'ism cites other verses and hadiths when explaining this belief. Some of these "guides" are appointed as:


 * 1) Prophets - one who receives revelations from God.
 * 2) Messengers - one who receives revelations from God, and has the duty to teach the revelations to humankind.
 * 3) Imams - one who is appointed to lead the believers in every single aspect of life.


 * Shi'ism teaches that God appointed Abraham with various statuses; in the following order:


 * 1) Servant
 * 2) Prophet
 * 3) Messenger
 * 4) Friend
 * 5) Imam


 * Shi'ism teaches that Muhammad is God's greatest creation. As such, there is no human greater than him. With regards to his duties, Shi'ism teaches that Muhammad was a Prophet from birth. At the age of 40, Muhammad was given the duty to teach the revelations. This duty meant that he had become a Messenger. Shi'ism teaches that he was also an Imam.


 * Shi'ism does not teach that there have only ever been twelve Imams. Shi'ism teaches that there have been many Prophets, many Messengers and many Imams. However, since the final stage of God's religion was completed by Muhammad, the only other Imams that are relevant to the practice of religion are the twelve Imams that were appointed after the prophet, Muhammad. This is the "Twelver" Shia belief: that in order to obey God, one must follow 2 sources; (i) the Qur'an, and (ii) the Prophet Muhammad and the 12 Imams. I apologise if I have been reiterating Shi'ism facts that you are already aware of, but I felt that it may explain the beliefs. Adamcaliph 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be giving a negative view; that shia believ that Ali was prophet after muhammad.--Khalid! 16:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Where has it been written that Shia believe that Ali was a prophet? Adamcaliph 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesnt say he was prophet, but some people might be getting the feeling that Shia accept him as a Prophet because of the box:

--Khalid! 09:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali - Allah?
So far as I know, no Shi'a authorities have speculated that Ali's name reflects any particular closeness to Allah, God. Does this mean that anyone named Al is particularily holy? This is bizarre. If there are any Shi'a who do indulge in such speculations (which is far from demonstrated), I'm fairly sure that they would be regarded as mere coffee-house babblers. Zora 18:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet again you delete legit info on the basis of Zora pov, and dismis the info added as loony non-sense...


 * i have conferred a special honor on you both by giving you a pure, distinguished son. He has been given the name 'Ali' from the side of Allah. It is derived from 'Ali' (The Exalted)."


 * --Striver 18:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And for your information, "muttaqun" is closer to "assured" than "pious". I have no idea how you came to the idea of objecting to that, remebering that you dont speak Arabic. --Striver 19:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The word al-Ali is believed by Muslims to be one of the 99 descriptions of Allah, provided by Allah Himself for our reference. The word means the Most High (sometimes trans. Most Exalted). Like many of these 99 descriptions, Ali is used by many people to name their children. Such words are considered by Muslims to be sacred. Zora is absolutely correct; the mere name of Ali does not render someone "holy" per se; however, the name is nonetheless considered by Muslims to be a holy name.


 * The hadith that Striver quoted is accepted by anyone who considers him or herself to be a Shia. In the Shia belief, Allah chose the names of the Prophets and Imams, as well as other infallibles.


 * The phrase muttaqīn, as with many words, has to be explained beyond mere translation. This is possibly the reason why both words assured and pious have been included. The word actually means "one who is certain". In reference to Islam, it refers to someone who is so certain in Islamic beliefs that it translates through into practice. Therefore, one who is certain becomes pious. As such, in Islam, one who is muttaqīn is a very pious person. For the sake of this encyclopedia however, it is probably sufficient that either the word assured or certain is used. Adamcaliph 20:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case "established in his faith" is a better English translation. "Assured" has no such connotations.

- Guys guys, your hopeless, Allah's name Al-3aleey ( the most high) is different from Ali, you silly people, the pronunciation of both names in arabic is so different. Ali is just a man, don't make Ali into a god, or the closet assosiate of god, thats shirk, Ali is a mere man, whom by the guidance of Allah and his last messenger was able to perform such feats in battle and knew the way of the heavens more than he knew the ways of the Earth. Don't be silly and post sources which may hint that Ali was divine. It is only considered to be a holy name due to Ali's (r.a) personality. Know your facts people holy moly

Insertion of Shi'a traditions as fact
Striver, no reputable historian of Islam accepts the stories that you are trying to insert. Those stories aren't in the earliest texts and they show every sign of being later fabrications. You are trying to insert them as if they were fact.

We give enough links to Shi'a sites that if a reader wanted to explore further, he/she would certainly read those stories and hear those claims.

It is not up to me to show that they are fables, it is up to you to show that they are not. Cites from Peshawar Nights are particularily problematic, since the text has been shown to be a Persian forgery. Zora 19:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)