Talk:Ali/Archive 3

Breakout article
It's hard to step back and see it but ... usually when there's intense partisan skirmishing over the exact wording of a sentence or two, that means that the sentence is taking more weight than it should have to bear. Probably the topic deserves a breakout article, where both pro and con views get to have their full say, instead of having to compress everything into subtle nuances of word choice.

"The Shi'a view on Ali ibn Abi Talib" is a bad choice of title -- it screams POV fork, disallows criticism, and is ungrammatical to boot. But this article could be the place to have FULL discussion of Shi'a claims for Ali, with the Shi'a getting to put in all the hadith refs and the academic historians getting to say "medieval fable". Zora 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, the "x view of" concept has precedens, you are not getting ridd of it. But suggestions are nice. Further, you have not presented one single academician saying "mediaval fable", we only have your personal view. If you manage to make any of the points contested with sourced and relevant information, i could consider not having it on the main page, however, you have not. Zora pov is personal pov is irrelavant to WP . --Striver 01:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Very impressed by these Shia hadiths
Striver, I am astonished at the range of Shia hadiths that I have come across in the last few days. I have read what seems like only a drop in the ocean. As a historian, I regularly come across reports of various events, although mostly documenting events in ancient Mexico and Egypt. But I have never experienced such detail and such a volume of texts about almost every issue. Could you, or any other person for that matter, refer me to a few basic books on Shi'ism (not sure if I should call it that). I am also trying to make sense of this wikipedia article, which seems to neglect a whole bundle of information about Ali ibn Abu Talib. I understand that it is an encyclopedia, but surely someone of this importance deserves a more thorough account. I have recently read the Nahjul Balagha. It's quite incredible. In the meantime, good luck to you, Zeresk and Zora for your work. Richard-cambridge 20:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very very much for your encouraging words! Brother in humanity, what i have pasted is only Sunni hadith, i have not presented a single Shia hadith, since they do not have any value to the ongoing argumantation. Yes, Nahj al-Balagha i INCREDIBLE! OMG, did you read his letter to Malik ibn Ashter? The letter is wholy incredible and i am no surprised one bit that the United Nations where impressed by it. Even Christian or ateist would be blown away by the ideas in it, not even mentioning that it was written for 1400 years ago!

Dear folks..Who ever put Ali;s picture should know that it is considred offensive in both Shia and Sunni Islam.If you ar still determined to put it,at least put up a warning at start of article like there is on the article about Bihais about their leader.
 * Shias have a incredible detailed account of their history, and the reason is simple: We did not give in to oppression. When the Umayyads where adamant in rewriting history by having having death sentence on pro-Ali hadith and having giant hadith burning, Shia kept the hadith with their life on stake. We did not give in to the mass brainwash of the Bannu Umayyad, when they for generations made it obligatory to curse Ali in the mosque speech of every Friday. That is the reason that we have 10 times more hadith than the Sunnis. I was writing a article about that, sourced, of cource, when Zora and BYT reverted my works so far and refuse me to give any valid reson for it. As soon as i have succeeded in re-introducing the facts you mentioned where missing, ill continue with that article.


 * Regarding reading tips: Ask User:Zereshk, he is a living library compared to me. Peace and blessings! --Striver 01:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Richard-Cambridge,


 * There is also a downside to having such a wealth of undiscovered texts. Namely, western people like Zora, who (refering to their western sources), have never even heard or seen such sources, will claim them unreliable or un-academic. And that's a shame, because it will continue to keep them ignorant about the Shia. The amount of unpublished texts from Shia sources is staggering. Example: the treatise written by Mughatil ibn Bakri has not even been published. I just happen to have a copy of a translation of it given to me by my uncle who is in contact with people at the Central Library of Astan Quds Razavi, where a manuscript is kept. There is enough unpublished Shia material to easily become the topics of dozens of PhD dissertations for western students of islamic studies.--Zereshk 05:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The image of Ali
I think the caption needs to be a bit modified. I realize that many dont approve of imaging of sacred figures. But specific imaging is not a Shia thing, and it isnt new. The manuscript here fully depicts Muhammad and it dates from 1494 (when Iran was predominantly Sunni): I have a few other similar images of manuscripts as well.--Zereshk 21:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali first to convert
Some of the Shi'a editors revised the article to read that Ali was the first male to convert to Islam. A great many references were given, some of them popular rather than academic biographies, some of them late works, and some of them deceptive (Tabari quoted as supporting the claim, when in fact he relates stories supporting all three claims). That kind of thing really cannot stand. It is just not OK to state one side of a controversy as if it were the truth, and suppress any mention of other POVs. I have created a breakout article called Identity of first male Muslim where the issue can be discussed at length, and removed the argumentation from the Ali article. Zora 11:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The opposing view (which youre pushing for) is considered less reliable by both Sunni and Shia.
 * 2) Ibn Ishaq was also quoted by Ibn Hisham, not just Tabari.
 * 3) You cannot impose your opinion about what is and what is not fact. We only report what has been stated. You have no jurisdiction on making judgements on their validity.
 * 4) F. E. Peters not academic? Youre pushing it again.--Zereshk 20:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, this is just not OK. You want to merge the breakout article back into the Ali article AND suppress all mention of alternate viewpoints. Shi'a don't get to censor Wikipedia. Zora 21:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) If you want to include alternative views, that's fine. I have no problem. My problem is with you putting that alternative view of yours as the main fact on the main page, and deleting and sending off the other views (which you cant accept) to a new separate page. That is unacceptable.


 * Zereshk, you reverted to a version in which it IS stated as fact that Ali was the first male convert, and which gives at least one cite that is actively deceptive, the Tabari cite. My version just says that the claim is controversial, and refers the reader to another page. This is absolutely NEUTRAL. It is not stating my view as fact.


 * Your usage of the word "among" is not neutral. It's only reinstating your view. Neutral is when the sentence states that "some believe it to be X...and others believe it to be Y."


 * FYI, YOU are the one who considers all Shi'a sources as "suspect" and "unreliable". YOU are the one who always wants to branch off any Shi'a documented info into a new separate page so as to prevent it from being mentioned on the main page. You are the one who is trying to impose your view on all Shi'a pages against 100 million Shias. Who do you think you are?--Zereshk 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, there you go again. You throw ad-homs at me, claim that you represent 100 million people, and interpret all resistance to YOU as prejudice against Shi'a. You are not coming off well in this. Zora 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually youre the one who isnt coming off well on this, because the above statement I posted was in fact a reply to your "ad hom": stating that Shia sources/scholars/references are "frankly always suspect" and "unreliable", is an ad hominem argument by definition. And yes, to your utter frustration, I do represent 100 million Shias, because everything Ive been posting is fully supported by sources in both Najaf and Qom. We have yet to see one Shia editor on WP to side with you. Even your favorite author Reza Aslan clearly leans towards Ali as the first male. Like I said...... youre pushing it.--Zereshk 05:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I support Zereshk, and yes, he does represent 100 million Shias as long as he gives the sources he gives. --Striver 13:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, alhamdulillah I'm not the only representative here. Needless to say, you also represent the Shia view of 100 million Shia! :) --Zereshk 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, i propose that we add information to the article created by Zora. I think the article is legit, but its pov (Zora pov) as it stands now. I am not informed in the matter, do you feel to NPOV it? --Striver 13:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with a breakout article provided that mention be made in this article that the majority of scholars believe that Ali was the first male. We cannot have a break-out article and have Zora present a minority claimed and outdated view as "fact" at the same time. That is academically unacceptable.--Zereshk 07:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, it is simply NOT TRUE that a majority of scholars say Ali was the first. The majority of academic scholars don't care. That list of references you copied and pasted "proving" that Ali was the first is highly suspect. I don't think you've read all -- or perhaps even any -- of those sources. The only one that I can confirm is Ibn Ishaq. The Tabari cite is deceptive, as is the Karen Armstrong cite. (She just says Muhammad's whole household converted, and lists the members. Besides, it's a very weak cite -- she's a popularizer, not an Islamic scholar.) Don't list a reference you haven't read, or don't have! Don't claim a majority when you haven't even read much in the field. So far as I know the score card is: Shi'a believe that Ali was first; Sunni are split; academic scholars will sometimes say one or another of the three possibles is likely, but they are never all that sure, or all that interested in the question. Leave it at that. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Zora 08:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, when will you ever cut the BS? I gave you the fuckin page numbers so that you wont say crap like: "I don't think you've read all -- or perhaps even any -- of those sources. Don't claim a majority when you haven't even read much in the field" Well, likewise, I dont think you know anything about Islam, Ali, or Shias. Would you like me to quote from those sources, so youll finally stop pestering everyone? (God your arrogance pisses me off). I know a hell of alot more than you ever will about Islam and academics. You dont even speak Arabic, nor any other ME language, are not a muslim (nor have any background in it), and have no authority to judge what is "the truth". Writing "the truth" is not even the intention of WP.--Zereshk 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, you mean to imply that the split is even, and not shifted to the view of Ali being first. That is not suported by the referens given by Zereshk, you have only quoted one or two sources, while Zereshk have quoted plenty and plenty. That is the very definition of the split being shifted to the view of Ali being first.--Striver 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but of the three quotes given by Zereshk that I can VERIFY with books in my possession, two are deceptive. They don't say what he says they do. Hence it's safest to assume that the rest of his quotes can't be trusted either. I don't think HE can verify them, as I suspect that he just copied them from somewhere. Nor is it particularly useful to draw conclusions based on the length of quote lists -- one strong early cite outweights a thousand late medieval fabulists. Look, I'm accepting that you guys can speak to the Shi'a POV on priority -- I haven't seen any Shi'a material that contradicts it. I don't think you two have read widely in Sunni sources, and you have certainly read next to nothing of the best-regarded academic authors. So any judgements you make re Sunni or academic views are not to be trusted. You can't speak for your opponents. You can't summarize the material as "most authorities agree that Ali was the first" because it simply IS NOT TRUE. As I said, most academics don't care about the question. Watt is one of the few academic authorities to even mention it, and he plumps for Zayd.

This is a question that makes sense in terms of a Shi'a-Sunni debate. It is completely beside the point for non-Muslims. You guys keep trying to argue with me as if I were a Sunni, because that's what you were taught to do, and it just pointless. Zora 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is pointless talking to an ignoramus. And this is not a personal attack. You ARE ignorant. No offense. I will start pasting quotes from now on.--Zereshk 01:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with Zora?
Zora is pissed off as heck by Striver's continual reverts to a version that is a LIE, dang it. That version says all Muslims agree that Ali was born in the Kaaba; that's a lie. I put up a link to a Sunni web page a while ago where it was said that he was born in his mother's house. I have never heard any Sunni making this claim for Ali, even if it can be found in a few hadith. Striver removes the link to Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib and adds his pet article, People born in the Kaaba, the very title of which assumes his point. Striver asserts that it is a majority belief that Ali was the first convert; this is a LIE. Striver is removing references given in the mode used by EVERY OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AND EDITOR and putting them in his preferred format, in which all bibliographic data is hidden in a separate article. He's making it difficult for the reader just because he likes creating articles. Instead of being able to assess the dates and publishers of all the references in one glance, as is normal in scholarly bibliographies, the reader would have to click the link for every dang reference and then try to REMEMBER the data for comparison. That's a good way to hide dodgy references.

Is this what Shi'a Islam stands for? Lying? I find it hard to believe that any educated Shi'a of good character would approve of Striver's actions.


 * So, Zora, now im a lier also? It does not say "all Muslims agree that Ali was born in the Kaaba", It says "All Muslim traditions describe him". That is a vast diffrence.

You wrote:
 * ''I put up a link to a Sunni web page a while ago where it was said that he was born in his mother's house.

I quote you from this talk page:


 * ''Striver, they aren't keeping quiet about it. It's too silly to refute. Anyhow, here's one Sunni site that claims Ali was born in his father's house, as one might expect:.


 * ''You're operating from the assumption that any claim is true unless refuted. OK, I claim that I can levitate. Nobody has refuted that. Therefore I levitate. Hmmmm? Zora 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And, again, i repeat my respons:


 * ''What are you talking about? This is YET another case where you see things you want to see, like demanding archealogical evidence for people pasing by a pond. Have you even read what you linked to?


 * ''It is an undisputed historical fact recognized by all historians that the Holy Ka'bah is the birthplace of Ali bin Abi Talib (A.S).

The so called "Sunni web page" is Shia, and it explicitly and totaly refutes the notion of Ali being born anywhere outside of the Kaaba. Try to read what you link to. Further, even if the link claimed what you said, it would have no value, random websites are "unscholar" as you self have stated.


 * Hmm, yes, I looked at that webpage again. It IS Shi'a. However, it is so badly written that in addition to the account of Ali being born in the Kaaba, it also says:


 * Her home was the real cradle of Islam. Both Muhammad, the future Prophet of Islam, and Ali, the future paladin of Islam, were born in her house, and they grew up in it.


 * Saying that they were born in her house kinda contradicts the Kaaba ref, doesn't it?


 * I'll still stand by this story being something that academic historians ignore as baseless, and that most Sunni ignore as well. Zora 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that People born in the Kaaba is a POV tittle, so i renamed it to People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Thanks.

The reason i gave refereance in that way is just to be more clear, i figured it was better to see the name of the source right away, rather than a [1] linking to a note in the bottom of the article. It is much easier to evaluate a sentence when you see [Sahih Bukhari] rather than [1].

But i have disscontinued that practice. --Striver 13:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You also wrote:
 * ''I have never heard any Sunni making this claim for Ali

Try to read this:.

Zora, helping you find the truth
FIRST MUSLIM: *ALL* Muslims agree that the very first MALE to have accepted Islam is Ali bin Abi Taleb. The Sunni-Muslims claim that the first MAN is Abu Bakr. The difference between the first MALE and first MAN is that Ali was only 10 years old when he accepted Islam. Nevertheless, Ali accepted Islam before any other MALE. You might disagree but are you the guardian of Islam or an Islamic scholar??


 * One of the first historians, Tabari, doesn't agree. He gives three traditions. Hence your statement re ALL Muslims is demonstrably wrong.

KAABA BIRTH: I have verified that the overwhelming majority of Muslims recognize that Ali was born in the Kaaba. God willing, I will soon publish documentation about this.


 * Have you conducted a survey of all the world's Muslims?

"Is this what Shi'a Islam stands for? Lying?" Please cease and desist. You are engaging in slander and defamation. Please stop doing that and remove your offensive comments. I also recommend that you deal with others more gently. It very much look like you are too quick to condemn others. You are not an Islam expert, yet you want to intervene in important public Islamic documents. This not fair, to you that is, and to others as well.


 * I suggested that Shi'a scholars MUST have higher standards than those being displayed here. I just wish that some of them were here.  I think I'm showing some faith in the Shi'a. Zora 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that any and all discussion of what "all Muslims" or "all Muslim traditions" believe should be removed from the article. That sort of unanimity does not exist in the real world, it is imagined up by the faithful of every tradition who fantasize about the unity and homogeneity of their people. Those sorts of absolutes belong in statements of doctrine by religious leaders, but not in encyclopedias. Babajobu 13:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Babajobu|, "all Muslims" does not belong in the this particular context, but it does in others. For example, it is correct to say "all Muslims belive in God". Further "all Muslim traditions" is' correct in regards to the Kaaba narration. That is a fact. --Striver 13:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, even "all Muslims believe in God" is inappropriate. It is certainly possible (and possibly certain) that some people who identify themselves as Muslims do not believe in God. You can say, "ah, but then they are not Muslim", but this statement makes a number of assumptions about the nature of religious or communal identity, i.e. that a person cannot define their own religious identity for themselves, that they must accept certain fundamental tenets of the faith to claim the identity, that a person who suffers from a crisis of faith has temporarily ceased to be a member of that faith, and so on. Perhaps all these things are true, but they are not so clearly true that Wikipedia can state them and assume them as simple fact. I really find it very unencyclopedic. If someone said "All Christians believe Jesus was a good man" I wouldn't even accept that, either. Speaking about what "all" members of any group believe is not the language of an encyclopedia, because in reality we can never know what all members of any group feel about anything. To claim otherwise is a statement of faith, not fact. Just my two cents. Babajobu 13:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, is see your point and agree. You are right. However, the article says nothing of the sort, so the point is irrelevant to the revert war, but it was a good point. --Striver 14:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * lol, well yeah, i guess I got a little side-tracked there. I also have problems with "all Muslim traditions", but that point is more complicated and I'm feeling too tired and lazy to argue it. Another time. Babajobu 14:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandon
Brandon, dear brother in Islam. You reverted me and gave as a comment
 * ''Striver -- I hereby dispute that Ali was born in the Kaaba, so the "all Muslims" thing is moot ;) pls take another look at this, it's quite reasonable

Brother, the article says nothing of the sort. As Babajobu pointed out, even if 99% belived in that, it still would not be correct to write that. However, it says nothing of the sort. It says:


 * ''All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam.

I will refrase it to "All Islamic sources", to be more clear.

Peace, brother! --Striver 14:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But that is simply NOT TRUE. Ibn Ishaq doesn't tell this story. Tabari doesn't tell this story, so far as I know. Neither do Waqidi or Ibn Sa'd. None of the early sources tell it. It seems to me to be a later invention designed to exalt Ali. It's going to be an interesting search to find out the when and where and who of the first narration. Striver, you keep making claims for ALL Muslims, or ALL sources, or ALL traditions, when your Islamic knowledge seems to be limited to what you can find with Google. You don't seem to have read any of the earliest sources, or any of the academic texts. Please don't make claims you can't support with references! Zora 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Not true"? See section below.--Zereshk 02:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh God, please help me make Zora understand this. (I'll even do a NAZR if I have to.)
Regarding Zora's post above (21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)),

It is WP stated policy that:


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth .


 * "It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research .

Therefore, Zora's annoying attitude to exclude Shia views (or any other views she doesnt find as accepatble) IS AGAINST WP POLICY!

It's not Zora's job to judge whether or not Ali was born in the Kaaba or whether or not he was the first to convert, or any other judicial statements. The fact that it has been cited by a source and can be verified, makes it 100% sufficient to include in the article.--Zereshk 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Folks, I'll be gone for a few days. The work load is just too much. And besides, I got some weird shit goin on to deal with. My cousin just got stabbed by his own wife. (Im not joking). I'm constantly on the phone talking to involved parties.


 * God this world is totally f*cked.--Zereshk 02:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is bad news, my prayers are with you and your cousin and wife. For sarcasms sake, you can rest assured that media will portray your cousins wife as the victim. Concentrate on them, come back later. I appreciate your work here. Ma salam! --Striver 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora
Zora, quite it! It is NOT your job to judge whether it is true or not. You can contribute by saying what scholars (not you) say about this subject, so we can quote them. That is all. You judging whether it is true or not is the very definition of original research! --Striver 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Zora, read what zereshk refered you to: WP:V. In it you see:


 * ''Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false . As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

In other words: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

--Striver 18:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora's recent edits
I again tried to strip out argument and exaggerated claims for Ali and keep the article as neutral as possible. This included removing material that I had previously let stand. Now that I have copies of Watt's books, it's easier to see what is from the earliest sources (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and Waqidi) and what is later hadith material. (Watt relies almost exclusively on the earliest sources he can find, and treats hadith as unreliable.) Ali's bravery at Uhud isn't found in the earlier sources, per Watt. Neither is Muhammad's declaration, said to have been made before the departure to Tabuk, that Ali is to him as Aaron was to Moses. That's hadith material, not repeated in Watt.

I had previously thought that the Shia view of Ali ibn Abi Talib article was useless, but perhaps it might be the place to expand on some of these contentious matters. However, Striver and Zereshk are going to have to allow some critical views in that article too. Sunni Muslims criticize the Shi'a for ignoring Muhammad and treating Ali as the central figure in Islamic history. Those views should be there.

I understand that this is extremely painful for the Shi'a here. The more I delve into these matters, the more it seems to me that popular Shi'a Islam is based on the mythologizing of history. I'm not saying that this is ALL there is to Shi'a Islam -- if it were, Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan, who follows the Western academic tradition, would not still be Shi'a. Christianity survived its collision with higher criticism and I suspect that Shi'a Islam will survive its collision with modernity too.

I am not trying to REMOVE the Shi'a POV, as Striver and Zereshk keep saying -- I only want to make it clear that it IS a Shi'a POV and not universally accepted. Zora 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers commnets
Thank you Zora, this was a informative talk page contribution where you explain your motives. More of this!

You wrote:


 * ''I again tried to strip out argument and exaggerated claims for Ali and keep the article as neutral as possible. This included removing material that I had previously let stand. Now that I have copies of Watt's books, it's easier to see what is from the earliest sources (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and Waqidi) and what is later hadith material.  (Watt relies almost exclusively on the earliest sources he can find, and treats hadith as unreliable.)

Sister in humanity, Watt is Watt. Watt is not a representative for the non-Muslim view, any more than that the Montgomery is a representative for the non-Muslim view (remeber the Umar quote?). in fact, Your previous oftern quoted wilfered madelung in the preface of his The Succession to Muhammad (book) refuted Watt:


 * ''"work with the narrative sources, both those that have been available to historians for a long time and others which have been published recently, made it plain that their wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified and that with [not without] a judicious use of them a much more reliable and accurate portrait of the period can be drawn than has so far been realized."

So this means that one scholar (Watt) not liking hadith, rather going for early sirats, does not warant to expunge all hadith material from all Islamic articles, in fact it does not warant more than mentioning just that and nothing more in the appropriate article.

If you relly want, we can start each article with:
 * ''Note: Watt rejects hadith, while Wilferd refutes him.

And then continue the article with saying what comes from Haidh sources and what comes from sirat.

And you know what? Now that you have becom such a big fan of Watt and Tabari, i guess you will agree to include the tabari part where Aisha is quoted as saying:
 * '' Kill the old fool (Na'thal, ie Uthamn) for he is a unbeliver (kafir)!

Or does that not qualify? If not, how come?

Actually, what the "early" scholars did is nothing more than collect hadith. For some bizar reason, Watt belived that the less isnad they recorded, the more credible they where. He is entitile to that view, but that is not a representetive view.


 * ''Ali's bravery at Uhud isn't found in the earlier sources, per Watt. Neither is Muhammad's declaration, said to have been made before the departure to Tabuk, that Ali is to him as Aaron was to Moses. That's hadith material, not repeated in Watt.

So what? Are you seriously proposing that we exclude everything Watt does not like? Wilfered uses Hadith literature, and so does 'all Muslim scholars. And yes, they are scholars, they are not biased goofs only because they are Muslims.

This does not warant to expunge the hadith texts, only to be more carefull with sourcing it to hadith, and then in the Western view of Ali have a go at it and explain what Watt belives and why. In fact, ill do that right away.


 * ''I had previously thought that the Shia view of Ali ibn Abi Talib article was useless, but perhaps it might be the place to expand on some of these contentious matters.

Its not a "contentious matter" that Muhammad said he was like Araon, neither is Alis bravery at Uhud. We only have Watt making sweeping alegations of fabrications against all hadith.

I really dont understand why you dismiss everything you dont like as Shia pov. It is beyound me. All Sunnis agree that the Aron quote is authentic, but you want to shuv it into the Shia view article. Well, that belongs to the Non-Muslim view article, in the same way that when the Shia reject some naration, they get to do it in the Shia view article.

This means nothing more than Watt can have a section in Western view of Ali where he can say he hates hadith and dosen't belive in any of them, and then repeat that those parts are in the hadith literature. That have nothing to do with either the Shi'a view of Ali, nor Sunni view of Ali, since all Muslims and a portion of the non-Muslims dont rejet hadith. You can also have Qur'an only Muslims view of Ali, where they can explain that there is no reason to belive anything about Ali, no mater where it is narrated, sira or no sira. If we are going to follow your logic, then we should start by expunging everything "Qur'an only Muslims" muslims reject, since they are the most "strict"/"demnading" group.

It is enough that it is understood that Quran only Muslims dont follow Hadith & and Sira, it does not need to be repreated in every article. Same with Watt, there is no need to repeat everywhere that Watt reject hadith, it is enough to state it in the "non-Muslim view of" article.


 * ''However, Striver and Zereshk are going to have to allow some critical views in that article too. Sunni Muslims criticize the Shi'a for ignoring Muhammad and treating Ali as the central figure in Islamic history. Those views should be there.

Yes, that is a part of the [Sunni view of Ali]] to explain in detail why we are mushriks for saying "Ya Ali", the Salafis can have a big section for making takfir on me. And of course, we can mention it breifly in the main article together with a link to the main article. And of course, also having a short section where Shia can refute the non-sense of holding Ali higher then Muhammad, peace be upon him.


 * ''I understand that this is extremely painful for the Shi'a here.

Not one bit. I love to have huge articles where we can expose the Salafi filth they spew, and also some of the normal clear headed arguments of good normal Sunnis like User:BYT. And the Shia answer to it.


 * ''The more I delve into these matters, the more it seems to me that popular Shi'a Islam is based on the mythologizing of history. I'm not saying that this is ALL there is to Shi'a Islam -- if it were, Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan, who follows the Western academic tradition, would not still be Shi'a. Christianity survived its collision with higher criticism and I suspect that Shi'a Islam will survive its collision with modernity too.

You are entitle to your pov, and there is no problem as long as you can remeber it is your pov.

I am not trying to REMOVE the Shi'a POV, as Striver and Zereshk keep saying -- I only want to make it clear that it IS a Shi'a POV and not universally accepted. Zora 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are. You still reject "all Muslims agree that there is 100 000 Sahaba" to be Shia pov. That is laughable, enraging and incredible. After realising you look like a fool for that, you somehow came to the conclusion that Sunni also belive that since Shia belive that, as if Shia where in any possition to influense Sunni scholars... Totaly incredible... Then when i removed that piece of unsourcable original research, you reverted! Totaly surreal...

Start by understanding that you cant remove entire sections of history only because Watt does not like hadith, or Watt prefers to belive Zaid was the first muslim, based on admited conjecture.

Again, thanks for your detailed motivation, i hope this will let us understand eachother better. --Striver 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of hadith material
I don't think that there's necessarily a contradiction between Watt's and Madelung's use of hadith, just a difference of emphasis. Watt doesn't want to use them if he can avoid it. Madelung is willing to use them AFTER he has made his own evaluation (based on many years of study) as to the usefulness of particular hadith. He is re-doing the work of Bukhari and Muslim, not just accepting it. The Shi'a approach to hadith is more on the order of combing the standard hadith collections for quotes they can use to support their position, and trumpeting them as proof that Sunnis believe this too, nyah nyah -- completely ignoring the fact that there are OTHER hadith that contradict them. That is why scholars are supposed to spend years studying hadith, so that they can make informed judgements as to what MIGHT have been Muhammad's opinion or practice, weighing and judging the various traditions. That's exactly what Madelung has done, but bringing to his task a great many more tools for scholarly thought, and a secular scholar's lack of pre-determined agenda. Shi'a seem to assume that all Sunni accept all hadith as 100% true -- which is not at all the case. Zora 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, you have truly and honestly no idea of what you are talking about. I mean, oh my God, read what you just wrote:


 * ''The Shi'a approach to hadith is more on the order of combing the standard hadith collections for quotes they can use to support their position, and trumpeting them as proof that Sunnis believe this too, nyah nyah


 * Jesus... that is not even worth addresing... Try and read Nahj al-Balagha or Usul al-Kafi... You keep amazing me...--Striver 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I should say, that's the use Shi'a make of hadith in Shi'a-Sunni debates (not in internal jurisprudence, presumably). It's a bad way of convincing the Sunni and it certainly doesn't work for non-Muslims. Zora 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You want Shi'as to try convince Sunnis by using Shi'a hadith? Yeah, great idea...


 * I have never seen any educated Shi'a to use Sunni hadith to convince non-Muslims, that is as dumb as using Shi'a hadith to convince Sunnis... --Striver 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that this is what you and Zereshk are trying to do with your reliance upon lists of hadith, as well as your arguments that if you can find one Sunni hadith that supports the Shi'a position, then of course Sunni and Shi'a, all Muslims in fact, agree on the point you're trying to make. Zora 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * yes Zora, and that is the only correct way to act. There is no alternative way of doing it. If we can find sunni scholars that authenticate a hadith, and there is no Sunni scholar disputing that authentication, and Shia do the same, then it is safe to claim the Shia and Sunnis agree on the authenticity of that hadith. That is simple sourcing and stating facts, nothing to do with pov. It is you that do not accept that ridiculy simple line of understanding, and every time i prove that Sunni and Shia agree on somthing, you delet it while yelling "Shia pov" and any other non-sense excuse you can come up with. That is unaccaptable.--Striver 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange perspective, Zora
I have been reading the thread for the past few days, and I must say, as a non-Muslim, this is all a great read. People usually have to pay for this. I studied a Masters in History and Latin, and, being geeky historians, we had regular debate sessions of historiography. But I have never seen so much detail about documenting certain accounts of events as the Shia referencing and transmission reports. I actually do not understand what Zora is aiming at. If an incident is documented by reporters who are accepted by the Shia, and it is also documented by reporters who are accepted by the Sunni, yet Sunnis in general, disagree with the implications of the report, then certainly there is something going on with the motives of Sunni scholars. It seems as though many of these reports that I have come across seem to be rejected by Sunnis, not because they are unauthenticated, but because they do not sit comfortably with the Sunni perspective.

It is therefore slightly strange of Zora to claim that the Shia try to use reports to support their view. Rather it is clear, to me at least, that on many occasions, the Sunni have used reports that clearly contradict explicit verses of the Qur'an and have rejected reports used by their own scholars. It seems however that, on many occasions, the Shia believe in their beliefs because of the authenticated reports, not vice versa. For example, it seems clear to me that the biggest incident that defines the split is the day when Mohammed appointed Ali as his successor. I have never come across any reports about Abu Bakr being appointed. Now it seems odd to me that Mohammed, after all his trouble of trying to establish some kind of order, or his religion, that he would be so passive as to his legacy and succession.

And even stranger is the Sunni acceptance that Mohammed is their master yet rejecting that Ali does not have the same level of authority, even after Mohammed's speech. Surely Sunnis want to follow Mohammed, but scholars take a perspective that seems to go against him. This is a perspective of the type that I have been taught to question. A certain trend of bias towards the caliphs seems to occur in the Sunni quarter; something that I had never realised previously. Nevertheless, a good read. --- --- William Edmundson, 23:53, 6th December 2005 (UTC)

Zoras respons
Zora choped up William Edmundsons talk page contribution, so i restored it. --Striver 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been reading the thread for the past few days, and I must say, as a non-Muslim, this is all a great read. People usually have to pay for this. I studied a Masters in History and Latin, and, being geeky historians, we had regular debate sessions of historiography. But I have never seen so much detail about documenting certain accounts of events as the Shia referencing and transmission reports. I actually do not understand what Zora is aiming at. If an incident is documented by reporters who are accepted by the Shia, and it is also documented by reporters who are accepted by the Sunni, yet Sunnis in general, disagree with the implications of the report, then certainly there is something going on with the motives of Sunni scholars. It seems as though many of these reports that I have come across seem to be rejected by Sunnis, not because they are unauthenticated, but because they do not sit comfortably with the Sunni perspective.


 * I don't think you understand the historiography here, William. We are not talking about first-hand reports at all. We are talking about supposed oral traditions written down anywhere from 150 to 250 years later. If you've studied history at all, you understand that oral traditions can mutate tremendously during such a time period -- particularily when claims to wealth, power, and religious legitimacy are based on such claims, and numerous succession disputes and civil wars have intervened.


 * The hadith collections recognized by the Sunnis were assembled by medieval scholars using medieval methods -- they are both biased and contradictory. Sometimes the scholars accepted a dicey hadith because it supported some interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and they were unwilling to abandon a legal principle, or question a supposed narrator in the chain of narrators. Some Western historians believe that hadith are ONLY useful as reflecting the circumstances of the time that they were recorded, not the time they supposedly narrate. Other Western historians are willing to use them if aforesaid historians have enough of a historical background in the various religious and political disputes involved, as well as in the biographies and genealogies of the narrators, to try to make some sense out of hadith. NO academic historians accept the views of the Sunni and Shi'a ulema as to the veracity of the hadith collections; the ulema accept them for religious reasons, and the academics doubt anything accepted for such reasons, unless it can be verified by historically sound methods.


 * The Sunni collections are highly diverse. Tradition-minded Islamic scholars believe that it takes a trained professional to read the hadith collections and come to an acceptable conclusion as to what the hadith say. That means accepting some hadith and rejecting others. There's NO account of events that will make sense of all the hadith. Well, I suppose there are Muslims who will dispute that. Some Salafis feel that laypeople can interpret hadith -- but usually they limit themselves to what are supposed to be the best collections, Bukhari and Muslim. Then they ignore contradictions . Kinda like Protestants reading the Bible -- no interpretation needed, everything is perfectly plain. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is therefore slightly strange of Zora to claim that the Shia try to use reports to support their view. Rather it is clear, to me at least, that on many occasions, the Sunni have used reports that clearly contradict explicit verses of the Qur'an and have rejected reports used by their own scholars. It seems however that, on many occasions, the Shia believe in their beliefs because of the authenticated reports, not vice versa. For example, it seems clear to me that the biggest incident that defines the split is the day when Mohammed appointed Ali as his successor. I have never come across any reports about Abu Bakr being appointed. Now it seems odd to me that Mohammed, after all his trouble of trying to establish some kind of order, or his religion, that he would be so passive as to his legacy and succession.


 * You're assuming that your ideas re dynastic succession were accepted by 7th century Arabs. There's much historical and ethnographic evidence to suggest that shura, choice of a new leader by the prominent men of the clan or tribe, was the standard practice in Muhammad's time. You're also assuming that Muhammad "knew" that his community would live on, hundreds of years past his death. However, the historian Fred Donner argues that the early Muslims expected an imminent Judgment Day, and that planning for the future when there might not be any may have seemed pointless. Of course, no Muslim writers take this point of view because that would mean admitting that Muhammad could not forsee the future.


 * I'm not saying that Muhammad didn't appoint Ali his successor. Arabs at the time certainly knew that the Byzantine and Sassanid empires believed in dynastic succession (even though successions were often highly ... irregular). Muhammad MAY have felt that the Sassanid model was better for his community. I'm not sure that there's enough historical evidence to prove this one way or another, whatever the Shi'a or Sunni say. The evidence has been completely muddled by centuries of oral transmission and controversy. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And even stranger is the Sunni acceptance that Mohammed is their master yet rejecting that Ali does not have the same level of authority, even after Mohammed's speech.


 * It's far from clear that Muhammad ever made such a speech. Madelung, a Western scholar who is tremendously learned and thinks that Ali's claims have been slighted, nevertheless dismisses this tradition as bogus. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely Sunnis want to follow Mohammed, but scholars take a perspective that seems to go against him. This is a perspective of the type that I have been taught to question. A certain trend of bias towards the caliphs seems to occur in the Sunni quarter; something that I had never realised previously. Nevertheless, a good read. --- --- William Edmundson, 23:53, 6th December 2005 (UTC)


 * Try reading Madelung's book, The Succession to Muhammad, Fred Donner's book, The Early Islamic Conquests, and perhaps, for an overview, The Formation of Islam, by Berkey. If you feel that the Sunni ulema have manipulated history, try reading God's Caliph, by Crone and Hinds. Crone has a long history of distrusting the ulema's version of events. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers answer to Zora
Zora, William Edmundson gave his view of the Shia-Sunni debatte, and you came in and claimed both are wrong. What does that have to do with what he wrote?

He wrote that both Shia and Sunni agree that Muhammad said "homsoever im Mawla of, Ali is Mawla of", and the Sunni interpretaition of that is strnage - You answered that some Non-Muslim dont belive he said that. SO? What does the non-Muslim view have to do whith what he wrote, he wrote about things that Shia and Sunni belive are authentic and how they evaluate it, not a word about Non-Muslims.

And by the way, let me remaind you again, we are not here to figure out what he said or not said, only to report on what people belive. --Striver 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

William Edmundson answer to Zora

 * I don't think you understand the historiography here, William. We are not talking about first-hand reports at all. We are talking about supposed oral traditions written down anywhere from 150 to 250 years later. If you've studied history at all, you understand that oral traditions can mutate tremendously during such a time period -- particularily when claims to wealth, power, and religious legitimacy are based on such claims, and numerous succession disputes and civil wars have intervened.


 * I most certainly do understand the historiography concerned. I think that many people are unaware that much of the documented events in history are treated as accurate, even though the incidents were actually recorded any where between 50-200 years later. Had this not been the case, we would almost certainly have had no historical accounts of anything whatsoever. Another point that seems to confuse people is this idea of the unreliability of oral tradition. Actually, it is very much the identity of the narrators of an incident that is important, not the difference in time between its first-hand acknowledgement and its later record on paper. A historian who has studied the principles of historiography must consider not the time that has lapsed, but the nature of the chain of narration. It may well be the case that a liar has reported an incident that has never occurred, or a negligent person has reported an inaccurate account of events. Both may have done so from a first-hand perspective. Their report, however, would be worthless. William Edmundson 01:35, 7th December 2005 (UTC)


 * The hadith collections recognized by the Sunnis were assembled by medieval scholars using medieval methods -- they are both biased and contradictory. Sometimes the scholars accepted a dicey hadith because it supported some interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and they were unwilling to abandon a legal principle, or question a supposed narrator in the chain of narrators. Some Western historians believe that hadith are ONLY useful as reflecting the circumstances of the time that they were recorded, not the time they supposedly narrate. Other Western historians are willing to use them if aforesaid historians have enough of a historical background in the various religious and political disputes involved, as well as in the biographies and genealogies of the narrators, to try to make some sense out of hadith. NO academic historians accept the views of the Sunni and Shi'a ulema as to the veracity of the hadith collections; the ulema accept them for religious reasons, and the academics doubt anything accepted for such reasons, unless it can be verified by historically sound methods.


 * The Sunni collections are highly diverse. Tradition-minded Islamic scholars believe that it takes a trained professional to read the hadith collections and come to an acceptable conclusion as to what the hadith say. That means accepting some hadith and rejecting others. There's NO account of events that will make sense of all the hadith. Well, I suppose there are Muslims who will dispute that. Some Salafis feel that laypeople can interpret hadith -- but usually they limit themselves to what are supposed to be the best collections, Bukhari and Muslim. Then they ignore contradictions . Kinda like Protestants reading the Bible -- no interpretation needed, everything is perfectly plain. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that your ideas re dynastic succession were accepted by 7th century Arabs. There's much historical and ethnographic evidence to suggest that shura, choice of a new leader by the prominent men of the clan or tribe, was the standard practice in Muhammad's time. You're also assuming that Muhammad "knew" that his community would live on, hundreds of years past his death. However, the historian Fred Donner argues that the early Muslims expected an imminent Judgment Day, and that planning for the future when there might not be any may have seemed pointless. Of course, no Muslim writers take this point of view because that would mean admitting that Muhammad could not forsee the future.


 * I would have to disagree with you with regards to Mohammed's belief as to the longevity of his community. There seems to be a vast range of reports, accepted both by the Shia and the Sunni, with regards to the fact that Mohammed was deeply concerned about his ummah after his death, and that he had made a promise of a messiah figure that would appear many generations after his death. Even if one were to reject the idea that Mohammed was a man of prophecy, if one accepts these reports, as the Sunni and Shia have clearly done, they should both believe that Mohammed was concerned about his legacy, the religion, the state, his ummah, succession, etc. William Edmundson 01:35, 7th December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that Muhammad didn't appoint Ali his successor. Arabs at the time certainly knew that the Byzantine and Sassanid empires believed in dynastic succession (even though successions were often highly ... irregular). Muhammad MAY have felt that the Sassanid model was better for his community. I'm not sure that there's enough historical evidence to prove this one way or another, whatever the Shi'a or Sunni say. The evidence has been completely muddled by centuries of oral transmission and controversy. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's far from clear that Muhammad ever made such a speech. Madelung, a Western scholar who is tremendously learned and thinks that Ali's claims have been slighted, nevertheless dismisses this tradition as bogus. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to see Madelung's reason for dismissing the report of Mohammed's speech. It seems to be an incident that is strongly documented. I personally have not come across many other incidents like it pre-1400 CE.  William Edmundson 01:35, 7th December 2005 (UTC)


 * Try reading Madelung's book, The Succession to Muhammad, Fred Donner's book, The Early Islamic Conquests, and perhaps, for an overview, The Formation of Islam, by Berkey. If you feel that the Sunni ulema have manipulated history, try reading God's Caliph, by Crone and Hinds. Crone has a long history of distrusting the ulema's version of events. Zora 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shia pov
Zora reverted and wrote:
 * ''rv -- this is NOT a hagiography of Ali; promulgation of Shi'a doctrine is NOT OK

i reverted back and wrote:
 * ''What shia pov? What hagiography? What are you talking about?

--Striver 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are BIASED, Striver. You can't see your bias. It just seems like TRUTH to you. I'm probably biased too -- but at least I believe in trying to step back and present both sides. Or all sides, since there are often more than two. Zora 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Im am not intrested in your sweeping allegations, comment the problem, not me. --Striver 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hypocracy
Step 1

William Edmundson adds long comment to Talk page:

Step 2

Zora answers right in the comment of William Edmundson and butchers it in the prosses:

Step 3

Strivers makes a copy of William Edmundson comment as it looked before it was butchered by Zora, and adds it above Zoras butchered version, he also adds ''"Zora choped up William Edmundsons talk page contribution, so i restored it." '':

Step 4

Zora writes: "rv - Striver, you are not supposed to edit other people's talk page contributions. STOP IT!" and reverts Striver, removing Strivers copy of William Edmundson comment:

Step 5

Cool Cat writes: "RV, Id call that vandalism please do not remove other peoples comments no mather how "ridiclous" they may feel." and reverst Zora, reinserting Strivers copy and comment:

Is this behavior ok? --Striver 01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, STOP
Striver, now I see that you're reorganizing the whole dang talk page into Striver-defined categories. STOP! You don't have the authority to do that. You are messing with other people's comments. Zora 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean it was better when you edited in the middle of others comments, without me correcting it? --Striver 14:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Striver, it is an ACCEPTED CONVENTION on talk pages that instead of quoting, one can put a reply INSIDE another person's comment, as long as it is indented to set it off clearly. It is certainly more concise than quoting. You are accusing me of something permissible. Zora 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, im not. I have no promblem with you indenting. But i have a problem with you un-doing my edits, saying i should not edit other peoples contribution, when you did excatly that five minutes earlier. --Striver 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tag
I want to get rid of the tag. Are there any disputes right now, can we take down the TotallyDisputed tag, so we have a starting point for future edits? Can we edit this version to consensus, and start from there? --Striver 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because I dispute it. You are insisting on a Shi'a version that is neither accurate nor neutral. Readers should be warned. Zora 02:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, what is "the shi'a version"? Could you please clarify that, so whe can refrase it and NPOV the article? --Striver 04:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Every time I tell you that some statements are biased, you assert that they're TRUE. You revert most of the changes I make. Don't pretend that you don't know what issues are controversial. They're the ones that have been reverted back and forth for months. Zora 05:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So, lets talk about them again. Im here, im active and intreseted, lets talk. What is Shia POV? Give me a exact quote and the exact reason for it being Shia pov. --Striver 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just revised the article -- AGAIN -- to remove all the Shi'a POV material recently introduced, and to correct all your misspelled and ungrammatical English. There was so much that was biased that it is hard to make a catalogue.


 * It is not fair to the Sunni to give YOUR version of their arguments, and then immediately follow with a Shi'a rebuttal. You're setting up straw men and knocking them down. Not only that, the Sunni and Shi'a sections blurred into each other.


 * You keep putting in YOUR preferred version of the Ali birthplace issue and taking out the article I started. Your version has little material, an ungrammatical title, and gives no space to criticism. The two articles should be merged.


 * It is not fair to say that if there are no alternate traditions as to where Ali was born, therefore he must have been born in the Kaaba. We don't know where most of the figures in early Islamic history were born, or even WHEN.


 * It is not right to include grandiose claims for Ali's bravery without cites. Ali's bravery is NOT the main impression that one receives when reading the early materials. He isn't described as a coward, but other men are described as taking the lead in battle.


 * The quote from a Shi'a newspaper saying that the UN has endorsed Ali is pointless puffery. For one thing, that article doesn't say which other figures in early Islamic history were quoted. If there were six quotes from Ali, how many quotes from the Qur'an? Muhammad? Umar?

Again, that's just part of the problem. Ali is a sacred figure to you and when you edit the article, you turn it into hagiography. This is not a Shi'a tract; this is an encyclopedia. Zora 09:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers respons
Zora wrote:
 * ''I just revised the article -- AGAIN -- to remove all the Shi'a POV material recently introduced, and to correct all your misspelled and ungrammatical English. There was so much that was biased that it is hard to make a catalogue.

This is a good start.


 * '' It is not fair to the Sunni to give YOUR version of their arguments, and then immediately follow with a Shi'a rebuttal. You're setting up straw men and knocking them down.

What do you mean "my version"? What does it matter who writes it? Either its pov or not, dont give me non-sense as "you version". If its pov, then point to exactly how and why its pov, im not satified with sweeping arguements and accusations.


 * ''Not only that, the Sunni and Shi'a sections blurred into each other.

You are correct, we can leave the rebutals to the main article, or just have a very breif mentioning of them.


 * ''You keep putting in YOUR preferred version of the Ali birthplace issue and taking out the article I started. Your version has little material, an ungrammatical title, and gives no space to criticism. The two articles should be merged.

Your version is original research, uncourced and unsourcable. Ill give you a example:


 * "No academic historian supports the Shi'a claim.".

As if Shi'a scholars were not academics.


 * "One hadith accepted by Sunni Muslims states that Hakim ibn Hizam, a rich Meccan convert to Islam, was born in the Kaaba. However, this claim does not seem to be widely accepted or publicized."

And that is all about Hakim ibn Hizam in your version.


 * "However, most Sunni historians, if they mention the matter at all, say that Ali was born in his mother's house, as one would expect."

unsourcable original research.

Your article simply does not cut it. On the other hand, my article does not take the pov stance of having the Ali birthplace as the center of the article, and mentioning the other guy "by the way", but gives both narrations the same amoung of atention. Further, it sources most claims.


 * ''It is not fair to say that if there are no alternate traditions as to where Ali was born, therefore he must have been born in the Kaaba. We don't know where most of the figures in early Islamic history were born, or even WHEN.

Strawman argument, my article does not claim he was born there. The conclusion "therefore he must have been born in the Kaaba" is entirly your own, i have never formulated such a thing. However, "there are no alternate traditions as to where Ali was born" is factual and relevant.


 * ''It is not right to include grandiose claims for Ali's bravery without cites.

You are reffering to a section in the "Muslim view" section. Are you claiming that it is unsourcable?

"He is also recognized for courage in battle, seen as one of the greates war heroes of Islam, single handedly killing multiple enemy heroes and countless soldiers in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Khaybar. He is also reqonised for as a striver for peace and unity among Muslims, initiating in peace talk before battle, as in Jamal and Siffin."

There is not a single word in that section that you can challenge.


 * ''Ali's bravery is NOT the main impression that one receives when reading the early materials. He isn't described as a coward, but other men are described as taking the lead in battle.

I dont care for your and Watts dear "early materials", that quote goes under the "Muslim view" section, so "early materials" is totaly irrelevant.


 * ''The quote from a Shi'a newspaper saying that the UN has endorsed Ali is pointless puffery. For one thing, that article doesn't say which other figures in early Islamic history were quoted. If there were six quotes from Ali, how many quotes from the Qur'an? Muhammad? Umar?

None. Zero. I have the PFD, you want it? Furhter, who cares about "other figures in early Islamic history", this is about the Ali article, not the Sahaba article. If you want to figure out if Umar was quoted ther, be my quest, but it is totaly irrelevant to this article.


 * ''Again, that's just part of the problem. Ali is a sacred figure to you and when you edit the article, you turn it into hagiography. This is not a Shi'a tract; this is an encyclopedia.

I dont agree with you. Every thing i add is either sourced or sourcable. You belive its not neutral? well, take and ADD other material that makes it neutral, you dont solve that by deleting material untill it fits your notion of neutrality. Fact talks for it self. If facts make him look good, well, though luck, maybe looking good is neutral and suits him. If you claim my additions are unfactual, then challenge that, dont delet "to achieve neutrality".

Now, take and respond to my responses in a factual and relevant manner, dont give me sweeping non-sense like "you cant write", " you are ungramatical", "you have secterian bias" and other non-sense. You have isseues, do like you just did, bring them and i will answer them. --Striver 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your last part of "Non-muslim view", since the quotes in Non-Muslim view of Ali contradict it. --Striver 07:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoras respons

 * Striver, just because something CAN be documented doesn't mean it should be included in an article. If I, as a non-Muslim, say that an fulsome Shi'a article about Ali being quoted in a UN document should not be included in the non-Muslim section, you have to pay some attention to my views. YOU are not an expert on what non-Muslims believe.


 * To continue the same theme, you keep demanding cites when I say that academic scholars don't accept Shi'a views re Ali being born in the Kaaba. I say that they discount the tradition by not mentioning it at all. You say that if I can't come up with quotes, that's just "my personal opinion". You clearly haven't read any of the material save Madelung (you must have gotten a copy of it recently, as you're now quoting from it). Yet you're presuming to doubt my reading, of which I have given ample proof. You really MUST let non-Shi'a speak for themselves. You often give your own summaries of what Sunni and non-Muslims believe and when you are told that your summaries are biased, you go on the attack. Look, Ali's birthplace is not mentioned in Madelung, Watt, Crone, Berkey, Donner, Shaban. (I'm still waiting for Hugh Kennedy's book, which I ordered on dgl's recommendation). Those are major sources.


 * I just now went to my Questia account and search for any material on the birthplace of Ali. Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned. Here are the first two paras from a recent biographical dictionary (The Rise of the Medieval World, 500-1300: A Biographical Dictionary, Jana K. Schulman; Greenwood Press, 2002):

‛ALĪ IBN  ABĪ  TĀLIB   (600–661). ‛Alī is the son-in-law and paternal first cousin of the prophet Muhammad as well as the father of Muhammad’s grandchildren, Hasan and Husayn. Questions about ‛Alī’s position in the early history of Islamic rule led to the division of the Muslim community into Sunni and Shiite factions. Whereas Shiite Muslims recognize ‛Alī as the first imam (the legitimate religious and political leader of the Muslim community), Sunni Muslims consider  ‛Alī the fourth and last of the so-called rightly guided caliphs.

‛Alī ibn Abī Tālib, born around the year 600, competes with Abū Bakr al-Siddiq, the first rightly guided caliph of Sunni Islam, over the claim to be the first male convert to Islam after Muhammad. ‛Alī’s father, Abū Tālib, had taken care of Muhammad after the latter lost his parents and his grandfather. Although Muhammad is about thirty years older than ‛Alī, early sources describe the relationship between the two as being very close.

It mentions the dispute re priority, but NOT the claims to birth in the Kaaba.


 * You have some standing to speak for the Shi'a (though I suspect that many Shi'a would not agree with you), but you really shouldn't insist on defining the conflicting traditions. Zora 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers respons
Thanks yet again for a productive reply. Here i go:

You wrote;
 * '' Striver, just because something CAN be documented doesn't mean it should be included in an article. If I, as a non-Muslim, say that an fulsome Shi'a article about Ali being quoted in a UN document should not be included in the non-Muslim section, you have to pay some attention to my views. YOU are not an expert on what non-Muslims believe.

sorry Zora, but im pretty sure you have the minority view here. UN is one of the bigest organizations in the world, and it addresing, even quoting large part Ali's letter specificaly (not inderectly) is noteworthy. UN does not quote 700 centuries people every day, and specialy not in their role as Muslim Caliphs. Specialy not when doing so in a atempt to influence its membembers. They doing it is extraordinary and meets every qualification of notability.

This information needs of course to be represented in the Ali article, and since UN is a non-Muslim organization, it has only one section where it belongs: The non-Muslim view of Ali.


 * ''To continue the same theme, you keep demanding cites when I say that academic scholars don't accept Shi'a views re Ali being born in the Kaaba. I say that they discount the tradition by not mentioning it at all. You say that if I can't come up with quotes, that's just "my personal opinion". You clearly haven't read any of the material save Madelung (you must have gotten a copy of it recently, as you're now quoting from it). Yet you're presuming to doubt my reading, of which I have given ample proof. You really MUST let non-Shi'a speak for themselves. You often give your own summaries of what Sunni and non-Muslims believe and when you are told that your summaries are biased, you go on the attack. Look, Ali's birthplace is not mentioned in Madelung, Watt, Crone, Berkey, Donner, Shaban. (I'm still waiting for Hugh Kennedy's book, which I ordered on dgl's recommendation). Those are major sources.

Zora, i dont demand you to give me quotes proving what you said, i belive you and take you on your word. I wrote that "non-Muslim scholars are skeptic and dissmissive" of the narration. That is the best you get from silence, you dont get "they deem it to be a fabrication". "skeptic and dissmissive" is a good deal. That is what they do, dissmisse it from their books, and you interpret it as a skeptical aproach. Acctualy, "skeptical" is to much without they expresing skepticism regarding it.


 * I just now went to my Questia account and search for any material on the birthplace of Ali. Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned. Here are the first two paras from a recent biographical dictionary (The Rise of the Medieval World, 500-1300: A Biographical Dictionary'', Jana K. Schulman; Greenwood Press, 2002):

You should take that "Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned." as a proof of lack of alternative narrations of his birthplace, you know that non-Muslims would be all over it if it existed a alternative narration.


 * ''‛ALĪ IBN  ABĪ  TĀLIB   (600–661).  ‛Alī is the son-in-law and paternal first cousin of the prophet Muhammad as well as the father of Muhammad’s grandchildren, Hasan and Husayn. Questions about ‛Alī’s position in the early history of Islamic rule led to the division of the Muslim community into Sunni and Shiite factions. Whereas Shiite Muslims recognize  ‛Alī as the first imam (the legitimate religious and political leader of the Muslim community), Sunni Muslims consider  ‛Alī the fourth and last of the so-called rightly guided caliphs.


 * ''‛Alī ibn Abī Tālib, born around the year 600, competes with Abū Bakr al-Siddiq, the first rightly guided caliph of Sunni Islam, over the claim to be the first male convert to Islam after Muhammad. ‛Alī’s father, Abū Tālib, had taken care of Muhammad after the latter lost his parents and his grandfather. Although Muhammad is about thirty years older than ‛Alī, early sources describe the relationship between the two as being very close.

That article let a pov slipp in, it gave Abu Bakr the honorific "al-Siddiq".


 * ''It mentions the dispute re priority, but NOT the claims to birth in the Kaaba.

It also did not mention that Ali broke the door of Khaybar with his own hands. Im not surprised. In fact, it dint even mention that Ali was the only one that dared to face the hero that jumped over the moat in the Battle of the trench. Or that he followed in all the battles, exept the one he was promoted to guvernor of the capitol city. It didnt even mentin that he warrior. However, it does not mean that Jana K. Schulman was "skeptical" or even "dissmisive" regarding Ali being a warrior or that he regards everything he did not report with a "skeptical" or even "dissmisive" view, even less that his exclusion can be interpreted as he branding it as fabrictation.

However, a patern of Non-Muslim Islamic scholars not addresing the narration of Ali being born in the Kaaba warants "dissmissive". "Dissmissive" of the born in the Kaaba is a fair catch, i even throuhg in "skeptical" in the deal, that is more than fair.


 * ''You have some standing to speak for the Shi'a (though I suspect that many Shi'a would not agree with you),

I have only seen one single Shi'a not endorsing everything i have writen, that was outside Wikipedia in a swedish forum, but he didnt bother to comment what he thought could be improved, after me asking for his involvment. Two, if you include my father giving me advice of things i plan to include.

That is a good record, not a single Shi'a Wikipedian editor has questioned anything i have writen or done, talk page included. One actualy gave me a Barnstar for representing the Shi'a view, another told i represented 100 000 Shi'a. I see no reason for questioning the validity of my ability of representing Shi'as.


 * ''but you really shouldn't insist on defining the conflicting traditions.

You have no problem in doing so, and i see no reason to give upp my right of representing views i do not endorce, while you retain that right.

If you feel that i represent them in a inacurate way, then i invite you to share that, so we can see what argumets are most firm, and everntualy reach consencus.

Having that said, i feel that i have responded to your concerns and given satisfacory justifications for my stance, and are now going to restore my prefered version.

I appreciate your raising the concerns you raised, and i await your repons to my respons. Peace. --Striver 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)