Talk:Ali/POV

=From Talk:Ali/Archive1=

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)

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)

=CUT=

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)

=Cut=

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)

=Cut=

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)

=Cut=

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)

=Cut=

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) =From Talk:Ali/Archive4=

Another rewrite
It's funny -- for a long time, a Sunni editor named AladdinSE worked on this article and would not allow any Shi'a POV material at all. I had long arguments with him re the necessity of allowing Shi'a material too. Now the article seems to have been watchlisted by a large number of new Shi'a editors who are determined to turn it into a Shi'a-POV article. I keep trying to remove the pious veneration, and the Shi'a editors keep putting it back. Meanwhile, the Sunni editors are staying away -- possibly because they don't like struggles, and possibly because they're heavily involved with edit wars in other articles, with various anti-Muslim editors.

I'm guessing (though I don't know) that the Shi'a POV re Ali is all a number of the new editors know. They're probably being completely honest in adding what I'd regard as extremely doubtful or biased material. A lot of it isn't sourced at all. It is just repeated as "something everyone knows". Folks -- it's not accepted by everyone. Sunni doubt many of the claims for Ali. Academics doubt the claims for Ali.

There are extensive links to Shi'a websites here, so if readers want to find out what Shi'a think about Ali, they can go to those sites. As for this article, it has be NEUTRAL. NPOV. Not Shi'a. Please respect the purpose of this encyclopedia, which is to present all views and let readers make up their own minds. Zora 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers respons
Zora, what "pious veneration" are you talking about? Stop giving vague accusations, if you have a issue with something, then bring it, stop giving random "Shi'a pov Shi'a pov" accusations. WHAT is Shi'a pov, and WHY?

The Sunni editor staying away should give you a hint!. Zora, dont be dense, you are the only one still crying "Shi'a pov, Shi'a pov", not a single editor supports your random accusations. Give specific issues, tell why your view is correct, source it and you will see you will get plenty of support. But you dont. You just go "Shi'a pov" and thats it, nothing more. And then you complain that nobody supports you.


 * Actually, I just got two barnstars from editors who think I'm doing a good job. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, you see, i dont do that. I have a good and relevant point by point list of every item i contest, and here it is:


 * ''Shi'a Muslims believe that Ali was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam. There is some argument as to whether or not any contemporary Sunni Muslims accept this. Most Sunni reject the claim, as do academic scholars.

There is no "argument as to whether or not any contemporary Sunni Muslims accept this"', i have given you a link of a 100% Sunni contemporary biography claiming he was born in the Kaaba.


 * I am not sure that I accept that site as 100% Sunni. It doesn't SAY that it's Sunni. It accepts some Sunni views and some Shi'a views. It seems like an attempt at being all-inclusive. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

" Most Sunni reject the claim" is uncourced and uncourcable. You have not quoted one single Sunni scholar rejecting it. And you know it. And you also know that you are not supposed to say things that are unsouced. I leave it to the reader to judge you for claiming a thing you know you have no ground for doing.


 * I have cited one Sunni website that says Hakim ibn Hazm was born in the Kaaba -- and no one else . I believe that Islamonline is a major Sunni site. The complete lack of mention on other Sunni sites suggests that they don't accept it. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"as do academic scholars" is the same. You have not quoted a single scholar, Muslims or not, that rejects it. You only have Non-Muslim scholars not mentioning it. That does not summ to "rejecting", it is "skeptical or dissmissive", just as my prefered version says.


 * Oh, fiddle-de-dee. You haven't even READ any of those works and you presume to know what they mean? If they don't even mention it -- as they don't mention any number of Muslim myths, like the splitting of the moon, or the miracle of the birds and pebbles -- they reject it. It is not worthy of serious historical discussion. That's MY side in this conflict. Don't tell me what MY side believes. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

however, i do agree that a reference to Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib needs to be included.


 * ''First Muslim?

I agree that we need a reference to some people beliving it was Ali, even though it is not the Abu Bakr article. However, i object to puting only the Shi'a pov in bracers, either all views are in bracers or none.


 * ''They hired themselves out for labor and raided caravans.

"and raided caravans" is Non-Muslim pov. If you want, you can add it to the Non-Muslim view of Ali. Otherwise it will open the door to disputed events in the main article, and we have the x view of Ali article to avoid that. The Muslim view is that some Meccan caravans where raided after the meccans having been warned by a Muslim, and in the context of war, specificaly war for resources, not as a "casual" way of getting their hands on random caravans wealth. That is the view of some Non-Muslim, and belongs to the "view of" article. However, i could settle with stating both versions on the main article, since there is a considerable non-Muslims holding that view. However, I vote for omittig the whole issue in this specific article, since it is not directly relevant to Ali, and include it in the Battle of Badr article, since the caravan raiding is the prelude to the battle. If we are going to include both the Muslim and non-Muslim view here, then we need to do so in all Muslim biograpies, for consistancy, and that does not see optimal in my view. Otherwise, we could do a breakout article Caravan raiding befre Badr to exand on this particular issue, and link all Sahaba biographies to that article. But as i said, i belive the best is to included the non-Muslim view about the caravans in the Battle of Badr article, where it is already covered in great detail.


 * You admit it yourself -- they raided caravans. You just don't want it mentioned, because it makes the Muslims look bad. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Shi'a believe that Ali was also prominent at the Battle of Uhud, as well as many other battles."

Non-sense, that is Muslim pov. If you imply that non-Muslim reject that, please give reference.


 * I wrote the article on the Battle of Uhud, following Watt, and he doesn't even MENTION Ali. The heroes of the day were Abu Dujana and Hamza. In Ibn Ishaq's account, Ali offers water to Muhammad. Yet in the Shi'a account, Ali performs prodigies of valor. This is just part of a general trend to paint Ali as the perfect hero, head and shoulders above everyone else. You can't just assert that he was brave, as if everyone knows it; we don't. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunni sources:
 * ''Ali played the role of a hero in the battle. His services were highly appreciated by the Holy Prophet and the Companions. Some Muslim poets composed verses in the honor of Ali. Extolling his bravery one of the poets said: "There is no sword better than the sword of Ali; and there is no young man superior to Ali."

Man, i hade forgot that quote, ill add it.


 * Again, that source may or may not be completely Sunni. Lots of Sunni sites mention Ali's bravery, but they don't exalt him above all the other early Muslims. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''You removed the Hadith of position section.

Entirely unaccaptable to do so without motivation.


 * It's Shi'a argumentation, that's what it is, and reliance upon a very suspicious-looking hadith, that shows all the signs of being a late fabrication. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''However, Umar, the caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr, did restore the estates in Medina to al-Abbas and Ali

Are you sure Madelung says that? What does he base it on?


 * Didn't you buy the book? Yes, I'm SURE he says it. I quoted it. He bases it on Bukhari, Khums, 2, and Ibn Hanbal, Musnad.

Not that it matters, if he contest it, and several other non-Muslims scholars agree with him, then we will need to refrase it to include that non-Muslims belive that.


 * Given that I found it on a Sunni site, I think Sunnis believe it. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim view is that it was given to them only to govern as state property, not to own. And you know that. Ill remove your version of that until you have shown that there are more than Madelung holding that view, if he in fact holds it, and it is not your view of his view. I question your interpretation of his view, since there is no Muslim sources what so ever that claims it was given to them to own. If only Madelungs belives that, then it is no sufficient to have it as contested in the main article, we can in that case state it under the Madelung section of the non-Muslim view of Ali. Otherwise, we can start by saying Ali was, God forbid, a idiot, since lammens, and only him, belived so.


 * ''Some say that the sword that wounded him was poisoned.

I have seen no direct evidence for it being poisoned or not, so i have no stance in this issue. Ill stipulate that your prefered version is correct.


 * ''Treatment of the assassin.

Ill try refrase that so we both get satisfied with it.


 * ''Muslim view

You totaly decapitated it witout motivation. unaccaptable.


 * The supposed Muslim view was full of Shi'a-POV veneration of Ali.


 * ''Sunni view

You refreased the Uthman sentence. I support your version.

You also removed a big section from the Sunni view witout motivation. unaccaptable.
 * The Sunni view section is supposed to be for their view, NOT for you to set up strawmen and refute them. Also, trying to squeeze in ALL the arguments raised in the course of centuries of Sunni-Shi'a disputation is confusing. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Shi'a view

You remvoed sections from it witout motivation. unaccaptable.

Again, you were using that section for argumentation, not just stating the basic position. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Non-Muslim view

You added this:
 * ''Most historians of early Islam, however, are not interested in judging Ali's character. Contemporary historical approaches stress economic, cultural, and ecological issues, not the role of "great men" in forming history.

That realy is to ambigous to add. What is that supposed to mean? That Muslims try to determine if he was a "great man", but somehow the non-Muslims dont care if he was a "great man" or not? What is a "Great man"?

Are you implying that Muslims are not intrested in "economic, cultural, and ecological issues"? What does that have to do with Ali? "are not interested in judging Ali's character"? That is pure non-sense, of course they get a a psycological judgment on Alis person. Did you think that they will dedicate their time and effort on every single aspect of him without trying to judge his character?

Zora, what are you trying to pull?

That non-Muslims do psycological profiles for all men in History, but not Ali?


 * NO, that the Great Man theory of history is Carlyle, is 19th century, is not currently popular among historians. Sheesh, why are YOU, who don't know anything about the subject, trying to tell ME, who has done historical research in archives, who has read extensively in history, what historians do and believe? YOU are the one who interprets history solely in terms of personalities, judged as good or bad. Historians don't do that. They really don't. Stop trying to mangle the other POVs to support your beliefs. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that non-Muslims dont regard Ali's character as a source of emulation, that goes without saying, that is as superficial statment as saying that "non-Muslims dont follow Sharia" in the Sharia article.

What we do need to do, is to add in the Muslim view section that all Muslims belive Alis behavior is a source of emulation, Shi'a in particular.

Zora, disambiguette and motivate that line, then we can add it.

You also removed the UN section of Nahj witout motivation. unaccaptable.


 * It is patently ridiculous to cite a Shi'a magazine as proof of what non-Muslims believe about Ali. Again, stop trying to rewrite your opponents' views. Zora

That is all points i have changed.

See? No random accusationns of " pov", a clean and precise reasons of why you are not correct. You should try that. --Striver 06:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a bias
Anons and new editors keep adding Shi'a polemic garbage. Things like this keep sneaking into the article:


 * "Hazrat Ali is the lion of Allah and all muslims love him and trust in his teachings. He is the leader of all Sufies and the true leader of muslims after Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H)."

I seem to be the only one who cares, and I'm not even a Muslim. If anyone out there can start watching this page, I would appreciate it. Cuñado  -  Talk  21:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can help you with removing such sentences.--Sa.vakilian 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

shia veiwpoint
I this articile should be changed, it shows only the shia veiwpoint of Ali. Bazel 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an OK article at one point, and it took endless vigilance to keep it that way. I'm short on time and energy and the Shi'a have turned the article into a religious tract. Bazel, if you go back half-a-year, you can find a version that is more balanced. Zora 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for that is because the Sunni viewpoint did not have any sources. We can't have unsourced material in this article.--Sefringle 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong Sefringle. I disagree with you. I think Shia and Sunni narrations are similar from historic viewpoint. But they're different from theological viewpoint. I mean both Shia and Sunni agree with events but they have different interpretations.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources which are used to provide an NPOV text
I tried to add reliable sources by using the Allameh Tabatabaei's books. Of course someone else who is familiar with Sunni and western viewpoints should try to make this article more NPOV.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To make this article POV I used these sources:


 * Nahj al-Balagha(Peak of Eloquence), Ali ibn Abi Talib, compiled by ash-Sharif ar-Radi
 * Somebody may think this book expresses Shia viewpoint while it is neither completely Shia nor Sunni. Also some of Sunni consider it as reliable source in historic issues.(Please pay attention to the differences between Rijal criteria and historic ones.)


 * Encyclopedia of Holy Prophet and Companions, Ashraf, Shahid (2005).
 * This is the only detailed English biography of Ali which I could find. This book is written by a Sunni.


 * Shi'ite Islam, Tabatabae, Sayyid Mohammad Hosayn; Seyyed Hossein Nasr (translator) (1979)
 * Although there are several Shia source about Imam Ali but this book is the most reliable one in west.

This is an academic and reliable book which describes Rashidun's era in detail. An academic brief history Of Islam. It contains a brief academic history of Ali's reign
 * The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Madelung, Wilferd (1997).
 * Holt, P. M.; Bernard Lewis (1977). Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1.
 * A History of Islamic Societies, 2nd, Lapidus, Ira (2002).

I also use the other sources like Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim whenever I was relevant. I tried to use more than one source in each case. I hope I have written an NPOV text. Feel free to put POV tag on the article or challenge my editions. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)