Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/Archive 1

Poisoned?
I have seen people change this page to include that Hasan was poisoned. This is not a proven theory. It may have occured, it may not have. Also remember to keep a neutral POV. I understant that Hasan is especially important to Shiite Muslims, but Wikipedia is written with a neutral Point of View, and it must be maintained

DigiBullet 20:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AladdinSE, you are wrong, it's not even a sectarian view, educated Sunni and Shia scholars both accept that Hasan Ibn Ali was a ruler, now I'm not sure if he should have a regnal number, for reasons below, but he was indisputably a ruler to both Sunnis and Shia.

Hasan ibn Ali was actually Khalifa, *prior* to abdicating and passing authority to Muawiyya ibn Abi Sufyan. Which of course means he was a ruler who passed on his rule. It's not just basic logic really: Every single Sunni historian accepts Hasan as a Khalifa, ergo he was a ruler. Khalifa = ruler; I trust this is clear. Sunni ulama rely on explicit authentic hadiths from the Messenger that Hasan would be the last of the Khulafa, and the fact is he was given allegiance as a khalifa by numerous people when he resided in Kufa.

The very fact that you mention he "retired, renouncing all claim to the caliphate" illustrates this. Suyuti in his book Tarikh al-Khulafa indicates Hasan as one of the Khulafa Rashideen which indicates that Suyuti saw Hasan as a legitimate ruler.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Caliphs

Hasan abdicated. You can only abdicate if you are a ruler. The main reason that a regnal number shouldn't be applied is that the name Hasan is a bit of an anomaly in the line of Sunni Khalifas... we can find numerous local dynasties with rulers named Hasan in, for example take Hasan II of Morocco (father of Morocco's present King) now his dynasty is the only contemporary ruling line claiming the title Amir al-Mumineen, but they are a dynasty local to Morocco. Hassan III the sultan of Maldives a couple of hundred years ago, ditto. Here the regnal numbers reflect the dynasty in question. Again look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Caliphs - there is only one Hasan there.

So a regnal number would be inappropriate, in the line of Caliphs with any widely accepted claim to the office, there is only one man named Hasan, and it is Hasan ibn Ali.

Now, that said, the point still stands that he was a ruler. It doesn't matter if Hasan was acknowledged as Khalifa for a day or a week prior to coming to terms with Muawiyya, the fact is that he was Khalifa - and hence a ruler - immediately after the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This IS NOT a Shai Sectarian view, it's something that mainstream Sunni Ulama know and generally accept. Numerous people gave allegiance, bayah, to him BEFORE he reached any agreement with Muawiyya - which he only did to prevent civil war, AFTER Muawiyya, the Umayyad, marched against Hasan in Kufa with around 60,000 men.

Numerous statements from Hasan himself attest that the only reason he "retired" as you put it was to prevent bloodshed - therefore he was a ruler who abdicated. A ruler who abdicates is still logically and legally a ruler. No amount of sophistry can get around this. - Highly Annoyed SUNNI Maliki 208.65.192.1 (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a disambiguation page for al-Hasan, as with most rulers with a regnal number, as there were a Louis I in france and a Louis I Holy Roman Emperor for example. Kingsean1 16:51, 6 March 2005


 * Except that he was not a ruler. He accepted the authority of the Umayyad caliph, was paid a pension, and retired, renouncing all claim to the caliphate. Any disambiguation or regnal number would have to derive from his position as a Shia Imaam.--A. S. A. 18:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to include that aisha didnt let him to be buried next to his grandfather. --Striver 16:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can cite a credible non-partisan source, why not.--A. S. A. 18:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Move
Ali is listed as "Ali ibn Abi Talib", yet, when we come to this name, despite the page being called "Hasan bin Ali", we end up having to have the name bolded as "Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib". I think we should move this for consistency's sake since it seems ibn is the more popular in scholarly, and well, most literature I've seen recently. gren グレン 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support gren グレン 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Adamcaliph's edits
Adamcaliph, your edits seemed very Shi'a POV to me, and claimed as fact some things that secular and Sunni historians regard as rumour only. I have revised in an attempt to make clear what is commonly accepted and what is Shi'a POV. Zora 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. What I'm trying to do is to introduce a standard for the articles on the twelve Shia Imams. I wanted to structure the articles so that they follow a particular format:


 * His birth and family life
 * His titles
 * His death
 * Succession
 * His sayings


 * Then, anything of particular significance to the Imams would be included in between, e.g. the numerous discussions of science and religion conducted by Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, or the massacre of Imam Husayn at Karbala. Adamcaliph 4 October 2005, 00:40 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposed format will work out. I'd like to see something like:

X, dates, son of Y and Z, accepted as the Xth imam by X Shi'a Muslims. (Particularly notable points re X).


 * Biography
 * Historical significance, controversies
 * Titles
 * Succession, according to X Shi'a Muslims
 * Sayings

However, I'm not sure that this will work for all Imams. Frex, there's a long section in Madelung on Hassan's marriages (he thinks Hassan has been maligned). If there's controversy re Hassan's marriages, they probably deserve a section of their own.

How about just working on the best articles you can for all imams and seeing if a structure emerges? I've noticed that one is emerging in the Bollywood film actor articles. We have a short into, career, personal life, trivia, awards, filmography, external links. Not universal, but more and more articles fall into line. Zora 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits
Zora, i do appreciate this edit, but i dont understand why you insist on removing all references while doing so. That really bothers me. --Striver 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What's this obsession with Muawiya II and Al-Zubayr?
Striver, it is pointless to mention just TWO of the hundreds of men who have claimed to be caliphs throughout history, and who controlled some territory in which they could enforce their claims. I don't know why you are insisting on sticking those two names into the article. Zora 13:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Easy: to give two examples. Whats wrong with that? --Striver 12:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and i am linking to Nikah Mut'ah, since it is hard to understand what he was accused of without the link. --Striver 12:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali, Hasan and Muawiya
Aladdin, I don't think it's right to say that Muawiya won the civil war -- he had certainly gotten the upper hand, but Ali was far from finished when he was killed. It's also not right to declare that Hassan was NOT a caliph and that there's not doubt about who was a caliph and who wasn't, when in fact even Sunni historians differ on the matter. History is not tidy. Please, let's try to walk the razor's edge between pro-Sunni and pro-Shi'a, since that's where NPOV will be found. Zora 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have asked you before NOT to insert my handle into section titles, and to use properly descriptive and relevant titles pertaining to the subject matter at hand. Now, it is a valid point to say Muawiya had the upper hand (by far) when Ali was assassinated, rather than to say Muawiya won outright, with that I agree. But it is POV to revert to the previous version which seems to imply that Muawiya seized much of the empire form Ali in the manner of a usurper. Though highly controversial, Muawiya won the arbitration and the military conflict, so if you can find an NPOV way of presenting this, change the wording accordingly.


 * It is absolutely right to say that Hasan was not caliph. Pepsidrinka started a discussion section regarding this issue on my Talk page which I have quoted below. It states my position concisely. --AladdinSE 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hasan as a caliph
You seem pretty adamanat about removing all references to Hasan ibn Ali as a Sunni caliph. Yet, in the Hasan ibn Ali article, it is stated that several notable Sunni personalities have accepted Hasan as the fifth caliph. Whether you want to believe those claims is another issue. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is pure nonsense. The order was: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and then the Umayyad Dynasty and then the Abassid Dynasty and so on and so forth. Hasan is limited solely to the Shiite Imamate. A short lived claim with no substantial state-wide backing, no actual rule, does not a Caliph make. He did not rule, his claim was short lived, and he resigned said claim. Quod erat demonstrandum. --AladdinSE 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine that you feel that it is nonsense. I also feel that the order you mentioned is correct. However, our role is not to decide what the order was, but to convey it. And since a handful of notable Sunni scholars feel that he was the fifth caliph, we should mention it to maintain a NPOV. Pepsidrinka 00:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, mention it by all means, but what you are doing is altering the historical consensus and replacing it with what a "handful of scholars" have said. We cannot say "Hasan bin Ali was the fifth Sunni Caliph." We can only say, in a relevant subsection, that "a handful of scholars consider him to be the fifth Sunni Caliph, even though he never ruled, was never installed, and himself resigned any claim etc etc."--AladdinSE 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference between the Sunnite and Shiite lies in wether Hasan Ibn Ali was a Rightly Guided Caliph, not a Caliph like all others in respects to history as far as im aware of. It's a known fact that he did hold the head-of-state position whereby he administered the affairs of all in the empire, although his caliphate was brief. We should be very clear about what a "Sunni Caliph" is and an actual "Caliph". I'll adjust it unless you can show me the contrary since all of the sources im aware of prove otherwise then your hard-headed censorship thus far.--Paradoxic 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not the difference. The majority of Sunni scholars believe the last "Righly Guided" Caliph was Ali, period. Most Sunni historians, along with a vast, overwhelming international consensus, do not count Hasan as Caliph. Any rebel can "rule" in the area where his supporters obey him, and "claim" any title he wishes, and command an army. What makes a recognized caliphate is sustained rule legitimized by military victory, treaty and acclamation of a majority of the state. This then translates to consensus historical recognition over the ages, which you must agree, Hasan does not have. Ali does have that pan sunni, shia, and international recognition because he had state-wide backing for years until Muawiyah rebelled and gained the upper hand militarily and through arbitration. --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We're supposed to outline the dispute, not take sides in it. Both sides should be mentioned and given equal billing. How about moving the whole argument to the bottom of the article, and giving more detail, instead of trying to make one or two words bear the weight of the controversy.

We cannot obliterate the historical record every time a factional POV makes an objection to the majority consensus. Yes we can mention all historical controversies, but not alter generally agreed upon history. --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me one of those historical moments that comes in shades of grey. Hassan WAS acclaimed as caliph, DID rule for several months, DID control territory and an army ... and then he gave it up to prevent yet more strife and dissension. It's not clear to me that this abdication nullifies all previous events. He didn't control the whole Islamic empire, but then neither did his father Ali, and Ali is recognized as a caliph. Arguing about black and white (was/was not) doesn't do justice to the complexity of events. Zora 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See above --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sayings, rumors re marriages
The sayings are badly translated and not all that brilliant. If you're going to have sayings, pick three GOOD ones and make sure the translations are in idiomatic English.

As for deleting the section on the marriage controversy -- we give both the rumors AND point people to Madelung's academically well-regarded book, which dismisses them. That's giving both sides. Since people might have heard the rumors before reading the article, it's just as well to discuss them. Zora 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Death, sayings
Salman, that bit you added was pure Shi'a legend, full of hatred against the Umayyads. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. The sayings might be worth including if they were in good English, but the translations you gave were atrocious. If you can find the Arabic originals for those sayings, see if you can find someone who can re-translate them for you. I was thinking of trying to reword the translations to make them better, but that's really not honest if I don't have the originals and can't read them. Cunardo19 can translate Arabic. Zora 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora I am going to be honest with you, each and everything I do on wikipedia, you think I am doing it from a Shi'a POV. As far as the saying is concerned, instead of deleting it why don't you fix it, you know what I mean. All right I will add another section under the death section, where I will state that according to Shi'as (I am going to add that section). Shi'as POV should be expressed too. Firstly, you told me that I can only put 2-3 sayings and when I selected only 3 saying now you are telling me that they can not be on the page. Secondly, then you told me that I can not just post sayings of Imam Hassan AS without telling where I got the sources from. I even added the source and reference to the website where I got the sayings from. When everything that you wanted was there now you are telling me that the sayings cannot be there because the English is incorrect. Well then try to correct it instead of deleting it. Imam Hassan AS is a Shi’a Imam we know more about our Imam then anyone else in this world. We wouldn’t do and say anything he didn’t do or said. Thank You Salman


 * Salman, I think the issue is verifiability. For quotes on someone from the 7th century a website is not a good source. I am not familiar with the Shi`ah hadiths or where they come from, but I assume somewhere there is a compilation of sayings that explicitly say who originally wrote down the Hadith. You should be quoting a published source, and mention who originally began recording the hadith. I've seen this done with sayings of Muhammad, but I'm not familiar with the Imams' sayings. Many hadiths are just made up by people as a type of folklore over time, and every time a hadith is changed, a little piece of Islam is destroyed.


 * If you have really well referenced information, and write good articles, then people will leave you alone. It takes effort, and if you rely on dubious websites and link to them as sources you will have a hard time on wikipedia. Thank You Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Salman, I'm not objecting to the sayings you quoted just to be mean -- if I were a devout Shi'a I would object to them, because they make Hasan sound like an idiot! The point of including them is to let other people see what Shi'a see in him and that is surely not someone who can't express himself clearly. A bad translation does him no favors. That's why I suggested finding the Arabic originals and re-translating. If your Arabic is rusty (if you're from Iran I presume you had Arabic in school, but languages learned in school are often not our strong points!) you could look for Shi'a sites where you could contact learned Shi'a (say from Iraq) who would be happy to help you. Zora 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora's recent edits
An anon who clearly wrote English as a second language replaced the old account of the death of Hasan with a long Shi'a diatribe. I have completely rewritten that section, summarized the Shi'a story, and added copious links to various Shi'a websites. I hope that the Shi'a will accept this as sufficient coverage. Zora 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Zora. One thing to note on your say: "A Shi'a scholar, Ali Muhammad Sulabi, claims that these Sunni traditions are calumny." First, Dr. Sulabi is not Shia :) Second, the original statement " and found all of them to be unreliable." is more accurate because his study involved deep analysis of the isnad of each tradition. --Islamic 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hasan or Hassan?
The title and opening sentence of this article don't match. Which is the preferred spelling? Is the letter doubled in the Arabic name? If there is a dispute in how to render it, can that be explained in the article? Rigadoun 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Arabic version of his name included here is clearly not the same as the name given in the introduction; it seems to include more generations. I think the same name should be given in both languages (i.e., it should just be a transliteration); I don't know which would be more appropriate but either the English should be expanded or the Arabic condensed. Rigadoun 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

source
Salafi web blog that referes to Hasan (as) as Caliph --Striver 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
This article also has been turned into Shi'a hagiography. It is written by a Shi'a for Shi'as, and it is completely POV. I'm swamped right now. I'll rewrite if I can, but would appreciate help from someone else. Zora 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Zora if you want to rewrite this article, then before rewriting anything please indicate on the talk page about what you are going to edit and why. I don’t really understand why Shi’ahs (I am a Shi’ah too) will ruin the neutrality of this article since there is a separate page for Hassan ibn Ali, which contains truth things about Imam Hassan ibn Ali. Thank You Salman 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing, you shouldn't use the term Prophet Muhammad, especially in worshipful fashion, without a "the." Those of us who are non-Muslims do not accept him as a prophet. There are more problems ... dang, I would need to rewrite the thing to show you what's wrong. It would help, Salman, if you would read something like Wilferd Madelung's book Succession to Muhammad, which is an academic treatment of subjects you hold dear, and fairly kind to Shi'a, BUT, it is academically rigorous. You seem not to be familiar with academic writing standards. Zora 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right Zora, I am not familiar with academic writing standards. My point is that Muslims consider Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) a Prophet, and I don’t understand why non-Muslims would have any problem if I write Islamic Prophet Muhammad. I hope I am not messing around with anyone’s religion this way because I added Islamic Prophet Muhammad not just Prophet Mohammad. Thank You Salman 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing cruft
I removed a number of honorifics (WP is a secular encyclopedia, doesn't do honorifics), a Sunni argument embedded clumsily in a reference, and an ad for an Iranian TV series. Zora 09:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate article created
Hi, someone just created an article at 'Biography of imam hasan', which I have turned into a redirect to this page. I'm mentioning it because there might be some useful info in the history of the new article here. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno when this happened ...
Some !!!! started replacing all the instances of "Hasan" with al-Hasan. The accepted, common, form of the name in English is just plain Hasan. Or Hassan. Changing it to something that I presume is closer to Arabic usage is not helpful. It just confuses English-speaking readers.

I made a few other changes, mostly wording tweaks and in a few instances, Shi'a claims presented as fact. Zora 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates
WHY are some of the dates in AH? This is not an islamic encyclopedia! Zazaban 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Marriages, Concubines, etc
Placing this material here, which was inserted into the article itself by a new user upset with scholars' reports that Hasan had married many times.

(But quite importantly, note: It was impossible for Hasan to legally and hence mathematically marry so many women even if he wanted to! Unless otherwise it is being implied that he broke Islamic Law, which is a very serious and indeed a nonsensical accusation against a person such as Hasan, who, Sunnis and Shia alike, consider, as having the manners, character and likeness of Mohammed himself!

As evidence against these claims note that: All the narrations against him imply that he started this alleged pursuit of pleasure during the Khilafa of his father Ali in Kufa, by marrying and divorcing up to four women at a time in one sitting. `Ali came to Kufa in 37 Hijra. Note that Hasan had at least three wives in Kufa:

1.Khawal Fazariya, who was the mother of Hasan Muthanna (the grandfather of Muhammad Nafs al-Zakiyya). She survived Hasan. This marriage had taken place in Medina. And was still his wife after his death.

2. Umm Ishaq bint Talha. She was the mother of Husain Athram, Talha and Fatima. This marriage also had taken place in Medina. She too survived Hasan; and was later married to Hussain.

3. Ju'da bint Ash-ath. This marriage took place in Kufa and she also survived Hasan. (She poisoned him!)

Given that Islamic law allows a man to marry up to four women at any given time, and Hasan already had three wives, who were with him up to the last day of his life, he could marry only one more woman at any time!

So how could he marry 4 wives in one sitting when he already had 3 wives? The common accusation leveled against him !

Supposing that Hasan married a fourth wife, and then divorced her, as long as that divorced wife was in 'idda (period of probation, normally 3 months) she was legally counted as his wife, and so Hasan could not marry another wife before expiry of her 'idda.

Let us, now, suppose that he married a woman. As divorce cannot be given in a month in which co-habitation has taken place, the earliest that that wife could be divorced was in next month; her 'idda continued for 3 months.

Thus, four months passed before Hasan could be free to marry another woman. One wife in four months gives us a maximum of 3 wives in a year! Supposing that Hasan had no other work except marrying and divorcing, as implied, and if we count from 37 A.H. up to his death at the beginning of 51 A.H. to get a period of 14 years, this will give us a maximum number of 42 possible marriages!

And the minimum alleged by the scholars is 70 wives! (Or 90 as is the case above)

This casts a serious doubt over the credibility of these claims given the Islamic legal framework! Unless you are making the nonsense claim that a person such as Ali allowed his son to transgress or that Hasan himself was disobedient to the rulings delivered by his grandfather Mohammed!

Furthermore, Imamah is a doctrine, and based on that doctrine God himself appoints his representative - Hasan having "doubts" about his imamah or not wanting it is somewhat in contradiction to the doctrine and unless it is clarified what is being implied by “imamah”, the sentence makes little sense.

The way this sentence is written is seriously biased towards a particular opinion/view and indeed insulting to some. It is misleading to pass it of as a fact, by dressing it up by referencing a random orientalist, when HUNDREDS of others have written on the same subject arguing otherwise in context of the propaganda against Hasan.

If you wish to write something against Hasan then feel free, but please do not try to pass your bias as a fact, which is evident in every nuance of this sentence.

Trying to salvage some academic quality to what is written; by dropping in as a subtext what other scholars, such Madelung, have written is unlikely to remove that bias. This bias is even more obvious especially since you fail to include in the main text the fact this is deemed slanderous by so many, Madelung inclusive.

The sentence also fails to include the important, and historically narrated, origin of this belief of contention about Hasan, which according to some, is either a result of the politically motivated Umayyad propaganda machine or the Abbasid propaganda spearheaded by the khalifa Mansur, bent on belittling Ali and his family for the sake of his own rule. This sentence is certainly not a core Shia belief and at the very least this needs to be clarified.

Shias reject such slanders and accusations for they consider this as part of a character assassination strategy used not just against Hasan but also against Ali, Hussain, and Mohammed himself! For a detailed references see Bihar al-anwar, kitab al-irshad, choudah sitaraay, and Imam Hasan 'The Myth of his Divorces', Rizvi, Al-Serat, Vol 4 (1978), No 3. (Originally posted by User:MusaNaqvi) Elijahmeeks (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There certainly seems to be very little cited sources indicating the proposed exorbitant number of wives. Due to the lack of verifiable and credible information on this matter I am tagging it for the time being to give any persons who wish to cite sources on this a chance before removing the section, as I kind of hate to delete stuff someone worked to put together. Peter Deer (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Could someone please convert the dates of his birth and death to the Julian calendar? English readers have no idea what the current information means. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) maktar takafi should be include the man who avenger kabala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.42.11 (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Decendent family Al-Sharif Ghalib Bin Musaad web address temporary address alsharifghali_alghalib.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.255.154 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Decendents of السـبط Al Emam Al Hassan Ebin Sayedna Ali كرم الله وجهه
Ghalib Afendi (or Ghalib Efendi, or Sharif Ghalib bin Musa'ed) (Arabic: غالب أفندي‎) (Turkish: Gelib Efendi) was the Sharif of Hejaz (Governor of Hejaz) from 1788 to 1808 and from 1811 to 1813.[1]

www.AlSharif-Ghali.com From www.amtrs1@hotmail.com Every thing is important in history,AMTRS thanks Wkipedia/AMMAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.159.47 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC) family decendent website www.alsharif-ghali.com was provided by Al-Sharif Mujahid Bin Talib Bin Rafiq Bin Sadiq Bin Ahmad Adnan Bin Abud Al Mutalib Bin Ghalib Bin Musaad www.amtrs1@hotmail.com الشريف مجاهد بن طالب بن رفيق بن صادق بن أحمد عدنان بن عبدالمطلب بن غالب بن مساعد —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.91.238 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Burial picture
A user above has kindly suggested that a picture of Hassan's burial site in Saudi Arabia be uploaded. Can someone carry out this task? He is buried here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannatul_Baqee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias
The article is not neutral, it mainly reflects shia POV. E.g. the info box states him as a shia imam, which is true but suggests that he's somehow an exclusive property to shia. This is not true. It also mentions biased expressions like "Aisha's army". The language and structure of the article needs to be revised, and many references are required. (Ewpfpod (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)) I think there should be seperate articles on Wikipedia about sunni and shia beliefs because they are very contradicting and this article definitely gives a false judgment about things like Hasan's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.141.205 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

His Picture
Islamic law syas that the face of Prophets cannot be shown. For Shias, this includes Imams. So I think that his grave should be shown instead of someone's idea of his face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.0.42 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The two largest branches of Shi'a Islam, the Ismaili and the Twelver, allow pictures. For example, the most accepted authority in the Usuli world, Ayatollah Sistani, has given fatwas allowing pictures for both the Prophets (AS) and the Imams (AS). -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest but Wikipedia is not an Islamic publication and not bound by Islamic law or tradition. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no credibility for the image. Hence removing it. Or else it can be moved to separate section mentioning that the image was based on someone's imagination —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyHuman (talk • contribs) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is not creditable. If someone at that time had a camera and took a picture, then it could be accepted. Someone's imagination being used to draw a picture cannot be used. Please remove. Sherenk (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Donzeye (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons it cannot be removed.
 * It is misleading to say that "Islamic law" prohibits it. It is not in the Koran, although it is in the Hadith. Even there, not all scholars agree on the interpretation.
 * Even if someone finds a compelling argument that it is covered by Islamic law, we are not bound by Islamic Law. Islamic Law applies to Muslims, not to kafir. If you are not permitted to add an image, don't. But please do not presume to tell us what to do.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, the original source of the image is a non-working link. We ought to discuss whether this is, in fact, a portrait of Hasan ibn Ali. If it cannot be ascertained, we ought to remove it, but let's make inclusion or exclusion arguments based upon Wikipedia Policy.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The page can be reached at by using the Wayback Machine. mabdul 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Discussion
Let us resolve the NPOV tag by discussing the existing issues in a civil manner. I went over the remarks mentioned by the folks suggesting lack of neutrality and here is the summary:

1.Hasan was poisoned 2.the info box states him as a shia imam that he's somehow an exclusive property to shia. 3.It also mentions biased expressions like "Aisha's army". 4.The language and structure of the article needs to be revised 5. many references are required

The first comment definitely needs a referrence. In case someone can come up with a history book belonging to old times we can keep this statement; otherwise, we will have to modify it. By modifying, I mean either removing it or briefly saying, "Shiets believe ... while Sunnies disagree with the fact that ... "

The second comment is a valid point and someone needs to add another box representing Hasan ibn Ali as what he means to Sunnies.

The third comment needs more elaboration as why "Aisha's army" is biased and what is proposed to replace it.

The fourth comment is too general, and unless not clarified cannot be worked on.

The fifth comment is a valid point. Would appreciate it if someone points out those parts by adding "Wikipedia:Citing sources" tags.

Please, note that in order to reach consensus we need everyone to attend the discussion.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I waited for one week, but no one attended the discussion. I even sent messages around. Therefore, I will modify the text based on the 5 comments mentioned above and then remove the NPOV tag.

1. References added for poisoning. Also, the term "Shiets believe" added somewhere. 2. I do not know what he means to Sunnies, since he does not fall in Rashidun according to that article. However, if you are reading this and want to add more info about Sunni side of Hassan, you are more than welcome to do so after discussing it on this page. 3. Changed "Aisha's army" to "Army accompanying Aisha". 4. This is what we are trying to do. 5. This again can be addressed by [citation needed] tags wherever needed; not NPOV.75.60.102.240 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Muslims generally don't like to draw/publish the pictures of religious icons. Can I know what's wikipedia policy for this? Also, I think these pictures have no authenticity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Miher (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to second that. How can one prove the authenticity of these pictures, considering that at those times in that area of the world, drawing pictures of people was banned? Is there an administrator whom we could refer to and ask?Kazemita1 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see NOTCENSORED to understand the most relevant policy; namely that images will not be excluded simply because some groups find them offensive. Regarding the question of authenticity, no one really expects 1,000+ year old images to be completely accurate, rather they are expected to be informative. They may inform the reader about any aspect of the subject, including how they have been historically viewed at different times and in different cultures. A good example is the numerous images in Jesus which are clearly not accurate, but are nonetheless useful and informative. I hope this helps. Doc  Tropics  20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. As a matter of fact, I did not make any comments about objectionability or offensiveness and I am not sure why you referred me to NOTCENSORED. As for the rest of your comments, I do not find them helpful unless you relate them to a policy of Wikipedia, say for example VERIFIABILITY.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to both of the above posts and provided the link to NOTCENSORED for Ali Miher's benefit. Your question was "How can one prove the authenticity of these pictures...?" and you brought up VERIFIABILITY. That policy would apply to verifying information like "who created the image?", and "when and where was it published?", but it would not apply in the context of "is the image an accurate representation of the subject?"; that isn't a criteria for inclusion. You might review Image use policy, but that relates more to technical issues, so I'm not sure if it will help. In short, there is no policy requiring that images be an accurate representation, just that they be useful in the article. Doc  Tropics  18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "there is no policy requiring that images be an accurate representation". So, if I put the picture of this article inside Jesus article, policy-wise it is OK? Or I need to be able to relate the picture to the character through some degree of verrifiablity, i.e. by giving at least a source?Kazemita1 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be fine to include an image from this article in any other article as long as it is related in some fashion and is useful there. It would not be acceptable to take an image of Hasan, label it Jesus, and try to pass it off as an image of Jesus; that would not be in keeping with the original artist's intent and would fail WP:VERIFY. But if an artist paints a representation of Hasan, it is perfectly acceptable to use it as a representation of Hasan even when we know that the image is probably not accurate. Doc  Tropics  19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All agreed! I hereby kindly ask whoever is willing to keep this picture to find at least one source for it as for example, who, when and where created this picture and if at all it was meant to represent the subject of this article. Thank you for this helpful discussion Doc Tropics.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ The image file is clearly labeled "ImamHassan" and the technical details of the upload appear to be in order. The original website is no longer available but the image was uploaded by User:Afghana, an experienced editor with a good history, so perhaps you could contact her for further details? In any event, it is unlikely that the image will be removed for those reasons. The real issue seems to be that some people find it offensive, and may try to find reasons to remove it, but policy and consensus support the inclusion of images in this and similar cases. Doc  Tropics  20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I contacted the aforementioned user for a source. Meantime, may I suggest that we avoid judging people by saying statements like "The real issue seems to be that some people ..." and focus on what is germane to this discussion, i.e. the actual source.Kazemita1 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I worked ridiculously hard for a couple of years to get these pictures up here, and keep them up. Most articles kept getting vandalized, with Muslims taking them down, and now I no longer have the ones I renovated for Wikipedia since a wonderful campaign succeeded in censoring them. Despite the fact that most Shi'a spiritual leaders in the Eastern Shi'a world such as Ayatollah Sistani, and the Western Shi'a world such as the Alevi in Turkey and the Bektashi allow the use of images and actively partake in that artistic tradition, and they are widely spread in the Shi'a world, some individual Muslims of both denominations see it fit to censor what is an honest religious expression. Does one honestly think, that the dozens of dozens of images that come up when you type 'Imam Ali' and 'Imam Husayn' on Google have no relevance? These specific images were from Turkey and were drawn by an Alevi artist. But, nonetheless, they say that there is no proof that the individuals looked like that ("How can one prove the authenticity of these pictures, considering that at those times in that area of the world, drawing pictures of people was banned?"). Great, now go to the article on Jesus Christ or King David and tell me them the same thing. Seriously. I'm not fighting this battle anymore guys. Or maybe I will, after I get over how easy it was to undo all that work. Also, if you're concerned that this is a picture of Imam Hasan and not Jesus, someone already posted a link on top, and a little Googling will bring up pages with several instances of these pictures being associated with their respective Imams. -- Afghana [talk]  00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have heard that Hazrath Hasan R.A use to marry in the morning and divorce in the evening. Is this a rumor/concoted history about our sahaba. Kindly enlighten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.104.252 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Umar's acceptance of Yazid as Caliph
The pages states that Abdullah ibn Umar rejected the caliphate of Yazid-1, which is wrong according to Sahih Bukhari, Ibn-Umar not only accepted Yazid-1 as caliph but also asked his family and tribe to support him.

Narrated Nafi':

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227

So I have taken the liberty of removing the name of Ibn-e-Umar and the page now reads;

"But the decision stirred widespread agitation, particularly amidst prominent personalities such as Hussain, Abdul-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr, Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr and others" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.54.30 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Badly written article, confusing - "According to historians" ???
I am trying to find out a little about Islamic history and find the wikipedia articles on the subject badly written in poor English and they seem to assume some familiarity with the topic already and I have none at all. This article has a particularly bad section on the subject's death or murder or whatever it was, I can't make it out.It says "According to historians, Muawiyah wished to pass the caliphate to his own son Yazid" - what historians? Something is either history or not. Apparently "historians" say one thing but "Madelung[35] notes other traditions" and then we read that this "Madelung" thought Hasan was poisoned but some famous historian suppressed it although this is the first time we have read anything about him not being poisoned. "Shia Muslims" believe something else, apparently. This is close to being gibberish, it is incomprehensible to a newcomer to the subject. The article should state what is known about his death and make clear what is accepted by all as history. If no one knows for sure how he died the article should say that. Then at the funeral there was apparently a kerfluffle when " Aisha bint Abu Bakr appeared, riding a mule and shouting that the grave of Muhammad was in her house" - Is there some significance to the fact that she was riding a mule? If not, there is no reason to state that she was on a mule. "Shouting" - is it known for sure that she was shouting? What does it mean, the grave is in her house? Under her family control? This is actually fairly useless as an article for a newcomer to the subject. Smeat75 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a ref
While improving the intro, I have removed this url. It leads to a deleted page, which is archived here. This essay does not mention Hasan, and I don't think it can be of use here. Cheers, theFace 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nahj al-Balaghah as a source
An editor has added the following text on 2 April 2013.
 * Some modern Twelver Shia sources suggest that Aisha bint Abu Bakr appeared, and refused to allow Hassan to be buried in her house. Sunni and Zaidiyyah Shia sources disagree with this. Aisha's brother Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was killed by the Ummayads a few years earlier and Aisha and the Ummayads did not get on.

Let us see what Nahj al-Balagha says - this site is useful. They do not mention whether Aisha bint Abu Bakr appeared and or whether she expressed any opinion about Hassan ibn Ali being buried. I am therefore reverting the edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sermon 71.
 * Letter 27.
 * Letter 34.
 * Letter 35.

Too many assumptions
The biography revolves around the supposedly divine right of Caliphate to the Children of Hazrat Ali Ibn-e-Abu-Talib only. Many facts are therefore ignored by the contributors. This topic should be strictly academic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.152.234 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ismailis Don't Consider Hasan (RAZ) an Imam
As the article on Imamate says, the Ismaili sect do not consider Hasan an Imam, just a 'pir'.

&mdash; iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we really have a succession box for Shi'a imams?
I am somewhat fuzzy on the details, but I believe that some Shi'a do not accept Hassan as an imam. The succession box gives the impression that all Shi'a do so. The problem is going to get really acute after the fifth and seventh imams. I think we should specify WHICH Shi'a accept which imams. Zora 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be the Ismailis that don't consider Hasan an Imam.
 * &mdash; iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 20:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New version of the article of 23 December
A new version of the article was created on 23 December 2014. This has a number of problems: -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It is extremely biased in favour of the subject of the article - for example: "In human perfection Hasan was reminiscent of his father and a perfect example of his noble grandfather." "After the death of his father, through Divine Command and according to the will of his father, Hasan became Imam"
 * 2) It is extremely biased against Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan.
 * 3) It omits issues that consensus was for retaining in the article (for example the issue of his concubines).
 * 4) It has new citations that are dead links: e.g.  A citation what was a live link at the time it was made and is dead now is tolerable under Wikipedia policy. A link that was dead on the day it was added to the article as a citation is not.
 * 5) Some other apparent "citations" are actually to English-language Wikipedia articles: e.g. >
 * 6) There are mysterious return characters in the article that suggest that the text was lifted from a website. It might be added that some of the new text appears on many websites - for example, try doing a search for "After the death of his father, through Divine Command and according to the".


 * The parts with the return characters in the middle of sentences were copied from websites that themselves copy from Shi'ite Islam (book), which was published by the State University of New York Press in 1979. For example the following was copied from the last paragraph of page 194 of Shi'ite Islam.  I have placed strikethrough on words not in the version in the Wikipedia article
 * Imam Hasan was born in the year 3 A.H. in Medina[51] and shared in the life of the Prophet for somewhat over seven
 * years, growing up during that time under his loving care. After
 * the death of the Prophet which was no more than three, or
 * according to some, six months earlier than the death of his daughter
 * Hadrat Fatimah, Hasan was placed directly under the care of his
 * noble father.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Page 195 of Shi'ite Islam (book), which was published by the State University of New York Press in 1979, reads as follows (though the first three words are on page 194 - as before I have used strike-through with words not in the Wikipedia article and put in bold words not in the book:
 * After the death of his father, through Divine Command and according to the
 * will of his father, Imam Hasan became Imam; he also
 * occupied the outward function of caliph for about six months,
 * during which time he administered the affairs of the Muslims.
 * During that time Muawiayh, who was a bitter enemy of Ali and his
 * family and had fought for years with the ambition of
 * capturing the caliphate, first on the pretext of avenging the
 * death of the third caliph and finally with an open claim to the
 * caliphate, marched his army into Iraq, the seat of Imam Hasan's
 * caliphate. War ensued during which Mu'awiyah
 * gradually subverted the generals and commanders of Imam Hasan's army with large sums of money and deceiving
 * promises until the army rebelled against Imam Hasan. [52]
 * Finally, the Imam Hasan was forced to make peace and to yield the
 * caliphate to Mu'awiyah, provided it would again return to
 * Imam Hasan after Mu'awiyah's death and the Imam's Hasan's
 * household and partisans would be protected in every way. [53]


 * In this way Mu'awiyah captured the Islamic caliphate and
 * entered Iraq. In a public speech he officially made null and
 * void all the peace conditions [54] and in every way possible
 * placed the severest pressure upon the members of the
 * Household of the Prophet and the Shi'ah. During all the ten
 * years of his imamate, Imam Hasan lived in conditions of
 * extreme hardship and under persecution, with no security even
 * in his own house. In the year 50 A.H. he was poisoned and
 * martyred by one of his own household who, as has been
 * accounted by historians, had been motivated by Mu'awiyah. [55]


 * In human perfection Hasan was reminiscent of his
 * father and a perfect example of his noble grandfather. In fact,
 * as long as the Prophet was alive, he and his brother were
 * always in the company of the Prophet who even sometimes
 * would carry them on his shoulders. Both Sunni and Shi'ite
 * sources have transmitted this saying of the Prophet
 * concerning Hasan and Husayn: "These two children of mine
 * are Imams whether they stand up or sit down" (allusion to
 * whether they occupy the external function of caliphate or
 * not). [56]] Also there are many traditions of the Muhammad
 * and Ali concerning the fact that Hasan would gain the
 * function of imamate after his father.
 * The new version of the article is unacceptable as a copyright violation, quite apart from the incredible bias.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like its best to revert to the pre-change version and then edit from there. Edward321 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Improving the Article

 * I am going to improve this article using reliable sources.Hadi (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make your modifications in chunks rather than one big edit which is more likely to get reverted. --Neil N  talk to me 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Neil N . Thanks for your note. As you could see most of the references here are not reliable and if I am going to replace them with reliable ones, I will have to change the text a little, however I will do my best to replace them with the same expanded information and mostly in new sections.Hadi (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the advice to do it in chunks - you will find a personal sandbox useful for developing such edits (if you click on "personal sandbox" it will create one for you). Personal sandboxes allow you to develop your proposed section in peace, and only propose it when you are ready.  As Hasan ibn Ali is a controversial topic, you may find it helpful to post a copy of your completed proposed section in the talk page, and ask for comments.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Toddy1. I'll take your advice. I do appreciate your help. Hadi (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1,Neil N , Sa.vakilian. I have been working on this article in my personal sandbox for a while, and now it includes much new information as you could see. Do you think it has the minimum standard of a good article now?
 * I have looked at your draft. It looks like good work - though there are some issues of wording - I need time to study it.  I will start a list of questions - these will grow over the next 2 weeks.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. You sure have a better command of English language. I'll be waiting for your contribution.Hadi (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am posting the improved/expanded version of this article to the article page. I hope it would have the needed criteria of a good article. I'd be happy to read your comments. Hadi (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been asked to help out with the copyediting of this article. As Islam is not my area of expertise, please always check that the text is still correct after I changed the wording. I'll report back here every once in a while when I have specific questions. For now, my questions are about the lead phrase: Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) From what I have read, both Shia and Sunni Muslims acknowledge that Hasan is (a) grandson of Muhammad, (b) member of Ahl al-Bayt, and (c) member of Ahl al-Kisa. If so, I think the first sentence should not introduce differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims, but what they have in common. Is the current reading of the first sentence correct?
 * 2) The lead phrase on the poisoning of Hasan is a bit problematic:
 * 3) *To prove that someone is 'commonly accused of X', we don't need a lot of sources, each accusing the person of X, but rather one good source saying that the person is commonly accused of X. Everything else would be synthesis, and thus not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * 4) *The lead phrases do not need to be referenced at all but the topic needs to occur further down in the article. Currently, there are reference in the lead (for the poisoning of Hasan) that are not used at all down in the section on Hasan's death.
 * 5) *So it would be good if someone who knows what the good sources are, removes bad sources (if any) from the lead phrase, and moves the good sources from the lead phrase down to the section on Hasan's death, to the phrase that they support.


 * I think the bit about Hasan being the 2nd Shia Imam belongs at the end of the introduction. The Sunni-Shia split occurred years after Hasan's death. He had no way of knowing that later generations would regard him as a Shia Imam.


 * Saying that Moslems worship Hasan is most offensive and generally untrue. To worship Hasan would be shirk (idolatry).  Some non-Shia allege that some Shia sects worship Ali and his two sons.


 * After Ali died, Hasan became leader of Ali's faction in the civil war. Hasan was a wise and good man, and therefore made peace with Muawiyah; recognising Muawiyah as Commander of the Faithful (i.e caliph).  To say that Hasan was caliph is stretching the truth.  Unlike Ali (the 4th Caliph) and Muawiyah (the 5th Caliph), Hasan was never generally recognised as caliph.


 * All the sources cited for the claim that his wife poisoned him at the instigation of Muawiyah are Shiite POV sources. So if the claim goes in the introduction, the sources must also go there.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the clumsy wording; some IP removed the offending "worship". Unfortunately it is now an ungrammatical sentence, what can be put there? The previous phrase was "respect him as", which doesn't say much, but I have reinstated it for now.
 * If the poisoning is POV it does not belong in the lead, particularly not with such a litany of sources, suggesting (optically) that this is a very common view.
 * Otherwise your explanations should not be here but in the article - can they be referenced? --Pgallert (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read Tabari's history? It is the best source on all this.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. The help I offered only extends to formatting and English. I will undertake to take more care with potentially insensitive wording in the future. --Pgallert (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Pgallert, Toddy1. Many thanks for your contribution. With your help, I hope, we could nominate this article as a Good Article. Hadi (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Shia view - Sunni view
I feel that I'm navigating a dead end trying to understand, never mind improve, this article. I have particular difficulties identifying reliable sources in this area. From what I have read so far, Wilferd Madelung is an expert on the topic. He had a named professorship at Oxford, his main work won a price in the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, as I read it, he is the expert on the Shia interpretation of Islamic history.

Now, again if I understand that correctly, there is a Sunni view on Islamic history which differs considerably from that of Shia. The Sunni represent the vast majority of Islam followers. Is there a comparably reliable authority on the "Sunni side" of the story? Or is it okay to represent a Shia topic exclusively with Shia sources?

You see, I got quite some flak at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Sahifat al-Ridha, culminating in 's suggestion to me to leave religious topics to editors who have more clue than I. On the other hand, I would love to see a few balanced and impeccably sourced articles on Islam, that's why I volunteered to help here.

Currently the situation is this: If Madelung is the sterling source for Hasan ibn Ali then
 * 1) he was poisoned as stated in the lead, by one of his wifes, at the instigation of Muawiya
 * 2) there is no mention of him being, or even remotely being regarded as, caliph

Both of these points have been heavily contested above... May I call upon the main editors of this article to either bring forth another 'sterling' source, or to accept that the article be modelled along the Madelung narrative? Thanks and best regards, Pgallert (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Pgallert. I thank you again for your edit. I ask MezzoMezzo and Sa.vakilian to help us find more 'sterling' sources. Best Hadi (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping. I only checked the article and the discussion above briefly, so please take my comment for what it is - a brief first impression only.
 * There is an author whose work dominates the references. That author happens to be a very respected scholar in his field, but he's mostly alone. Any article that is based on the work of only one person is deficient in sourcing, even if the content itself is accurate and well-written. Perhaps this could be viewed as an acceptable article in and of itself that just needs a tune-up.
 * My suggestion would be to look to Brill Publishers. They tend to specialize in Oriental studies and a surprising amount of their books and journals are available for free on Google Books and elsewhere. That way, the article can just be added to and expanded upon, and the existing material cited by Madelung's work wouldn't need to really be touched, other than making it clear which view is attributed to which author.
 * That's just what came to my mind upon the first glance here, I could be wrong. I hope I'm right, though, as the solution seems simple. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"The naming of Hasan ibn Ali"
As i know, about the naming of Hasan ibn Ali is seen many traditions. Shia tradition and sunni tradion are same about one of them but about some of them is not. For example it was narrated that first Imam Ali named him "Hamze", then prophet Muhammad changed the name to Hasan or shia believed that first prophet named him and Imam Ali did not accept to naming his son before the prophet. There are other narratives. So according to WP:BALANCE, all opinions should be brought.Savior59 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources for whatever it is you are proposing. See WP:RS--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Of course! Any way the article should be balance.Savior59 (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

al-Hassan or Hassan
User:Wiqi55: How about this newer article by Madelung which uses Hasan (and not al-Hassan) entirely. Mhhossein (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You're referring to Encyclopedia Iranica even though they have a peculiar transliteration style (e.g., "Ebn Sa'd" instead of the standard "Ibn Sa'd"). We don't follow their non-standard ways. Also al-Hasan is a common name in Islamic history. For instance, on Al-Hasan ibn Qahtaba the name "al-Hasan" appears both on title and first line. So to be consistent we should prefer "Al-Hasan". Wiqi( 55 ) 08:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiqi55 I checked three sources In Al-Hasan ibn Qahtaba and they had not used "al" (one may move that article to the proper title). By, the way the article on none of the twelfth Imams start with "al" (check it here) and Per WP:BEGIN we'd better start with the title. Mhhossein (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Such sources use "Hasan" for brevity (some even use "b." instead of "ibn"). In any case, I have checked some of the early primary sources in Arabic and noticed that both forms, al-Hasan and Hasan, are considered correct when referring to the son of Ali (although al-Hasan is more common). So I guess it is OK to leave it as it is. Wiqi( 55 ) 23:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Al-Hasan is the correct at least put in in the introdcution but we use Hasan for simplicity, we don't want to keep repeating the Al- every sentence. In fact you can see the Al- in the arabic translation in the introduction. All I did was transliterate the Arabic for English readers, also the H is correct it is Ḥ Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As you see above, the sources suggest the both form and even Encyclopedia Iranica is suggesting the form without "al". Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, I meant adding al- in the first word of the whole article, as it corresponds to the Arabic name, but the rest of the article you don't have to say Al, but if you don't want Al- in the introduction you might want to remove the al- in the Arabic word, which I think is wrong. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not willing to add this "al" while I suggest you to open an RFC if you think it should be so. The arabic phrase is I think correct. Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Al-Ḥasan will correspond to the "الحسن", it is the transliteration of his name. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion
Toddy1: Could I know about your very recent edit? (pinging seyyed to know his opinion). Mhhossein (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the religion of Allah Shia?
 * Was the religion of the prophet Moses Shia?
 * Was the religion of the prophet Muhammad Shia?
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your questions are not in accordance with our discussion... We're talking about Shia Islam. Mhhossein (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest to use the reliable sources instead of such discussion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seyyed: And do you have any suggestions for that? Mhhossein (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The date of his death is wrong. The strongest narrations state either 7th or 28th Safar — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenorNiceGuy (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Hasan is a Rashid (رَاشِـد, Rightly Guided) Caliph for both Sunnis and Shi'ites
If anyone has any doubt about Al-Hasan being the 5th Rightly Guided Caliph for Sunnis, then here is a reference. Leo1pard (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Arabic references on his importance: Leo1pard (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Leo1pard: Please try to find some reliable sources proving your claim. -- M h hossein   talk 14:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A difference between the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphate is that whereas all the Rashidun Caliphs were elected by Shuras, the Umayyad Caliphs were not elected in the same way, rather, it was a dynasty founded by Mu'awiyah I, who took advantage of a treaty with Caliph Hasan to become the next Caliph, and besides, to exclude Hasan from the list of Rashidun Caliphs would imply that the Rashidun Caliphate was not immediately succeeded by the Umayyad  one, but by the Caliphate of Hasan, but the traditional belief is that the Rashidun Caliphate was succeeded by the Umayyad Dynasty, so how would that work out, if Hasan's Caliphate is not treated as a part of the Rashidun Caliphate? Leo1pard (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And also consider Sunni references, like from Abul A'la Maududi or Muhammad al-Bukhari, who would view Hasan in a positive light, to the extend that they would criticize Mu'awiyah's enmity to his Caliphate. Leo1pard (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Instead of WP:OVERKILL or possible WP:EDITWARRING, refer to the existing discussion on WikiProject Islam here . I urge other members or editors to do the same, and share their input for consensus. -DA1 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Leo1pard (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: Imamah (numbered)
11 October 2016, there were some edits made to change up the style of the infobox:. While a nice touchup in my opinion; however, some important information was lost in that process, which hasn't been retained since. I'm referring to Hasan's Imamate. Previously it stated:
 * 1st Imam of Taiyabi-Mustaali Shia
 * 2nd Imam of Seveners, Twelvers and Zaydis

Currently it simply states "2nd Imam"; what should be noted is that Hasan is the 2nd Imam in Zaydi and Twelver sects of Shia Islam. However, he is the 1st Imam among the Musta'li Ismailis, and is not a Imam at all among the Nizari Ismailis. So the existing honorific on the article, and that of other Shia Imams should reflect this/disambiguation accurately instead of "# Imam of all Muslims (Shia view)" or "# Imam of Shia Islam." Otherwise it may constitute WP:POV. This isn't WP:FRINGE, as these are established sects and have their own history and Wikipedia articles (they've met WP:NOTABILITY).

In this article for example, I propose it state "2nd Imam of Shia Islam<br.>(Twelver and Zaydi view)" and alternatively "1st Imam of Shia Islam<br.>(Mustali view)"... This covers NPOV, and retains what it was prior to 11 Oct 2016. -DA1 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @,, ; Thoughts or suggestions?
 * Your proposal sounds reasonable but we need to consider the successors too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposal doesn't disrupt the 'Successors'; i presume you're referring to the Caliphs? This is how it looked after I made my edit ; Since then its been edited again, by ; who also edited the Ali article, rearranging the Twelver view to be on top and everything else to be on bottom. See
 * "Caliph" should be listed first since that is a factual political seat, other titles (irrespective of sect) are a religious construct. DA1 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the parameter "Successors", but rather the numbering on the infoboxes of the articles for the actual successors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I created separate/new parameters for the new Imam templates. Please have a look at my boldened link above. On the related note, what are your opinions on rearranging the parameters that 'Caliph' is inserted below the Twelver 'Imam' view? This seems to go against WP:DUE WEIGHT. -DA1 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the new parameters. I think that we should probably put the Caliph above Imam, but we should include the sects other than Twelvers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the new parameters. I think that we should probably put the Caliph above Imam, but we should include the sects other than Twelvers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Family tree of his descendants
There should be one more name in the descendants to 10th Imam (i.e. 4th son to Ali al-Hadi, namely Hussain) as mentioned in the last paragraph of ""Death Section"of page Ali al-Hadi. Nannadeem (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

5th Caliph
Sources do call him the 5th Caliph. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hasan+5th+caliph&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHlfm1yrDZAhXKY8AKHR7TDfYQ_AUIECgB&biw=1536&bih=759 I would need to look into the reliability of this and whether it is a fringe view but is definitely a view. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see sources saying that he was proclaimed the 5th Caliph, not that Sunnis consider him to be the 5th Caliph. One source says that "a small minority" of Muslims consider him the 5th rightly guided caliph. Presumably that small minority wouldn't be Sunni Muslims, who are the vast majority of the world's Muslims. Others of those sources are completely irrelevant - one mentions other people named Hasan and calls Harun al-Rashid the 5th Abbasid Caliph. To include this statement, you need a good, reliable source that shows that Sunni Muslims today consider Hasan to have been the 5th Caliph. I suspect you won't find that, because the standard account is that there were four rightly guided Caliphs, ending with Ali, who was directly followed by Mu'awiyah I, the first Umayyad Caliph. That Hasan was proclaimed Caliph seems, indeed, to be generally accepted, but my version also states that. john k (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

5th Caliph in the infobox was reincluded by. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Madelung has explained the issue in his work "The Succession to Muhammad"-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you participate in this discussion, please? -- M h hossein   talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, responding to the ping. I can participate, but not immediately - I have a few talk pages I'm behind on, and my schedule is irregular in terms of Wikipedia time. I'll see what I can find as soon as possible.
 * From the top of my head, I can say that the minority which considers Hasan the 5th caliph does include some Sunni scholars. The denomination is much more diverse in belief than Sunnis ourselves let on - claiming ijma (consensus) is often a desperate copout in debates, but it's rarely ever true. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I know nobody here claimed consensus on anything, so I didn't mean to accuse anyone. I was referring to the general Sunni habit of crying "ijma" whenever we feel we can't win an argument. And on the issue of caliphate and related issues, status of Hasan included, one is likely to encounter literature falsely claiming ijma. It's something to watch out for. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Tense
The lead sentence says "is the eldest son of Ali and Muhammad's daughter Fatimah, and is the older brother of Husayn." Shouldn't it be "was" since he isn't alive anymore? Gotitbro (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro: Be bold. -- M h hossein   talk 06:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I corrected the tense. I wanted to ask first as it had been the lead for quite sometime. Gotitbro (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I am going to work on this article in order to become a good article.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. We could nominate this article first, if Ali is too long to start with. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have been working on this article for a long time in order to replace its unreliable content with reliable, But an edit war is going on in the article which was started with adding (probably) some unreliable information by one of the users, and led to restoring some more unreliable information. I reverted to the last version before the war started. Please discuss your changes here before you add them to the article. By the way, I rewrote the Lede based on the well-sourced information in the main body of the article, so I did not feel the need to repeat the citations in the Lede, but if needed I will do that. Please excuse me and put your ideas here.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ghazaalch, could you please be specific about the unreliable information that I have added? There is no edit war except the one that you might be trying to start. I improved the writing of a few sections, added better religious references, and removed some unnecessary and uncontroversial details, e.g., the details about the Mubuhala event which already has a dedicated wiki page. I also removed a couple of biased paragraphs and that was undone by Toddy1, to which I didn't object. We're all trying to improve the article and I have as much right to do so as you. On my part, instead of undoing your edits (as you did to me) and which will lead to an edit war, I'll continue to improve the text, starting with your version.


 * It would be better to revert to the version of 23 May. The version you reverted to has bad features like:
 * A huge lead section, including three paragraphs with no citations. The lead in the 23 May version was more concise and fully cited.
 * Inline links to external sites:  and being called "our sons" in the verse of Mubahala.  Wikipedia:External links advises that "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article".  External links belong in citations or in a list of external links at the bottom of the article.
 * Chunks of text copied from other websites. That might be OK, if the chunks of text were in quotation marks.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector for 4 August version 74.0% violation score against iranicaonline.org/articles/hasan-b-ali 38.3% violation score against iranicaonline.org/articles/al-e-aba-the-family-of-the-cloak-i
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector for 23 May version 63.2% violation score against iranicaonline.org/articles/hasan-b-ali
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . would you have the time to check again and see the copvio issue is solved? Does the Copyvio detector exclude the texts between quotations from the given percentage? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hasan Ibn Ali page needs a lot of change. It is heavily biased towards Shia belief which is wrong and it needs to be more neutral. In the references, I see many evidences are based on scholars from the Shia sect of Islam which would naturally provide a biased. It is unacepptable for scholars like Shaykh Al Mufid and others to be used as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamdefence (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am OK with your suggestion. -- M h hossein   talk 11:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The copvio issue should be taken seriously but can be resolved via copyediting. -- M h hossein   talk 11:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the article currently makes the distinction between the Shia and Sunni views but, when it eventually does, having Shia references (e.g., Mufid) in the text seems necessary for an unbiased article. I should add that the references that I used (and were deleted by another user) were all Sunni sources. Albertatiran (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I have already started modifying the article and I hope you all will be satisfied. It would take me a few days and then I will ask you to review it and see if it is good enough. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that you have a lot of experience in reviewing and nominating Islam related articles. I would be grateful if you could review this article too and write your comments here.Ghazaalch (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvement
Here are some general suggestions, with a few examples of specifics, based on a first go through the article. I will give it another round, when you've dealt with these. Hope that's helpful. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Shorten the lead by at-leat a quarter third.
 * Remove useless headings. ToC should not be an article on its own. For example, "Death and burial" has subheadings "Death", and "Burial". Remove both and their children (if any). Similarly, why do you need "In Kufa", "In Medina", and "Others" subsections for "Wives and children"? Remove section "Mitlaq" as well, and discuss the material briefly; see WP:DUE. Wives and children should be just one section with no subsections. Same for other pointless headings/subheadings.
 * Imamate should be a subsection of Shia beliefs section. It was not a historical office, as opposed to caliphate which was not just a belief system but an actual office.
 * "In Quran and Hadiths": make it a subsection of beliefs section.
 * The section "After the peace treaty" should be removed and the material moved to the next section: "Abdication and retirement in Medina".
 * The article reads like a hagiography. Remove the section "Names and titles".
 * Rename the section "Birth and lineage" as "Early life", merge the section "Under Muhammad" with it and remove the table of ancestors.
 * "Shortly after the migration to Medina, the Prophet of Islam told Ali ibn Abi Talib that God had commanded him to give his daughter, Fatima, in marriage to him(Ali).[53]" Move this into religious views section. Right now it stands a historical fact.
 * "father suggestion" --> "father's suggestion"
 * He is the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib --> was
 * the Prophet of Islam --> the prophet of Islam or just Muhammad
 * "According to Encyclopaedia Islamica,...". Name the author of the article instead of the publication.
 * Emirate of Kufa --> Governorship of Kufa.
 * In the section "During Caliphate of Ali", you mention Jamal, then Siffin, and then Jamal again. Try to be coherent and concise.
 * "On the 10th of Jamadi al-Awal, 39 AH / November 2, 658 AD, Ali put Hassan in charge of his land endowments" Why do you need precise date for this?
 * "According to Jafri, al-Hasan became the caliph of the Ummah,..." Which Jafri are you talking about? You haven't introduced him before this.
 * Kufis --> Kufans
 * ‘Ali --> Ali; ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan --> Uthman ibn Affan. Read MOS:ISLAM carefully.
 * Hikmah --> hikma; Shura --> shura; Imamah --> imamate.
 * Fatemeh --> Fatima
 * b. --> ibn
 * Remove primary sources, except for Tabari (it too should be used occasionally; e.g. when you don't have a better secondary source and the information is important), and poor quality secondary sources. This applies to al-Qurashi, Baqir Shareef (2006), Paktchi et al, Mahdavi Damghani et al, Engineer Asghar Ali, Sharif al-Qarashi2 Baqir (2000), Al-Islam.org, and other similar sources. Try to find high quality secondary sources for religious views as well. Any information based on these and similar is to be either cited to secondary RS or purged.
 * Works dedicated to / containing the narrations Hassan Mojtaba etc.: Remove. In its stead, try to have a section on the discussion of the primary sources about his life (the discussion itself should be based on secondary RS) and discuss only the most important and relevant works (e.g. Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal al-Hasan, or Isfahani's Maqatil).
 * Remove all red-links
 * Remove duplinks
 * Remove links to all modern countries (e.g. Iraq).
 * One important thing that I forgot to mention: Of the RS, you rely heavily on 3 or 4 sources–Vaglieri, Madelung, and Momen. Try to include more RS. See, for example, Pierce's Twelve Infallible Men, Dakake's Charismatic Community, Halm's Shi'ism, and Kohlberg's edited volume Shi'ism, and try to spread out citations.

Thank you. I do appreciate your help. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It needs to have consistency of spelling (though titles of sources and quotations are obvious exceptions to this). For example, either Muawiyah or Mu‘awiyah or Mu'awiyah. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am still working on the article based on your good suggestions. I am also trying to include both Shia and Sunni views, so it is a lot of work and would take me some more days, but and  won't stop the edit war. Would you please explain the situation to them and persuade them to wait a little until the article is completed? Many thanks. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * you can use this script to detect duplinks. You still have some 50+. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 13:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you again for your help. I modified the article so that it won't have the issues you mentioned above. Still I couldn't replace all the sources you entitled as "poor quality secondary sources". I removed some of them and moved some others to the "Note" section, Still sections like "Teachings", "Works", and "views of Islamic religions" are relied mostly on Encyclopaedia Islamica written by Tareh and Hajmanochehri.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for fixing some of the issues, but I think not all have been addressed:
 * Duplinks are still there.
 * The entry in External Links should be moved to the Sister Projects Box (use The New International Encyclopædia/Hasan and Hosein as s value) and this useless heading should be removed.
 * You have following bad sources:
 * Redha, Mohammed; Agha, Mohammed (1999).
 * Ahmad, Israr (2003)
 * Smith, Jack (2011)
 * Akhtar RizvI, Sayyid Sa'eed (2017)
 * These all should be removed.
 * Tomass, Mark (2016)--This is not actually a bad source, but it isn't focused on this subject or Early Islamic History in general. A source focused on the topic is preferable.
 * Tabatabai (1981, and 1997) you should use only to discuss religious point of view.
 * Do not cite the Qur'an directly. Use it based on references in the RS. E.g. if a source refers to a Qur'anic verse on something, you can give the Chapter and Verse number and link an external translation (or give the translation in the article body) but also cite your source which referred to that verse.
 * Haj-Manouchehri and Tareh 1392: I don't think this article is from Encyclopaedia Islamica. Your reference goes to Dā'erat-ol-Ma'āref-e Bozorg-e Eslāmi and not any published volume of Islamica. The article itself is an expression of religious point of view; for example it refers to the subject as Imam Al-Hasan (A.S), talks about the "responsibility of two heavy duties of the Imamate and the caliphate", his strong character and tolerance, his noble parents, his heroic leniency etc. This is not a suitable source if you are aiming for GA and/or FA. The sourcing requirements of GA are not lower than those of FA. The difference between the two lies in prose quality, comprehensiveness, and formatting requirements.
 * Moving poor sources to footnotes isn't enough. The criteria for footnotes are not lower than the main body. In fact, there are no separate sourcing requirements for footnotes. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 15:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't use the script you introduced for detecting Duplinks. I am also not sure I get the following. Would you fix it yourself?
 * The entry in External Links should be moved to the Sister Projects Box (use The New International Encyclopædia/Hasan and Hosein as s value) and this useless heading should be removed.

Is there anything else that should be done? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Forget this one. I didn't know that the sister project links are to be used under separate heading (External Links). Other comments are at the end of the section. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 17:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Treaty with Muawiyah
I think Hasan ibn Ali's treaty with Muawiyah is of the most important events of this page. For this, you can find valuable content/source in Battle of Karbala. -- M h hossein   talk 04:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I will. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hasan's death
I undid your WP:OR. It might be better if you could cite your claims and add your argument to the talk page or, better yet, to the wiki page. Removing the other side's view would not help us create an unbiased article. Thank you. Albertatiran (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran. You are continiously asserting false information. There is no mention in the early sources of Yazid promising to marry the wife of Imam Hasan (as). Could you please substantiate your point. I removed it as the evidence for this is severely lacking. Do not make the article biased and take a critical view of what you write Islamdefence (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Islamdefence I think what happened is that you removed some of the content without giving a reference to support your claims: "The evidence that the wife of Hassan (as) was instructed to poison Hassan (as) and would be promised to marry Yazid is based on weak evidence. The evidence for this is found in Tadhib Al Kamal on the authority of Ibn Ju’dubah who was not born at the time of Hasan (as) death." This is original research unless you support your claims with proper references. I never supplied any new information myself, so it's entertaining that you're accusing me of giving false information :) Albertatiran (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran You added information that is unfounded. Could you please give early sources to support your claim. There is no need for me to support my claims as I can't prove a negative. The default position is that all information is unreliable unless proven otherwise Islamdefence (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Islamdefence Please be specific: What information did I add to this wiki page? What claims did I make on this wiki page? You removed some content from the page (not added by me) based on historical claims that you did not cite or validate. That would look unacceptable to anyone else who'd read this pointless exchange. Albertatiran (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are you omitting Vaglieri and Madelung which are reliable sources? If there are sources that have different views then you could add them to the article as a counter-view, but you cannot delete reliable information. Sources like Al Waqidi, Al Yaqubi are primary sources and we cannot use them directly. For more information see Good Article criteria or ask who is more experienced. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I also encourage you to add your views (from reliable sources) to the article instead of cutting cited material without explanation. Albertatiran (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

My sources state that Muawiya did not order the poisoning of Hasan or offer his son Yazid in marriage. This would directly contradict the statements of Vaglieri and Madelung. It would be highly apprreciated if assistance could be provided Islamdefence (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Detailed comments
MOS and Misc. Early Life
 * The article "al" should be lowercase whenever inside a sentence (e.g. al-Tabari, and not Al-Tabari)
 * Hasan / al-Hasan: Choose one and stick to it; same for (al-)Husayn, (al-)Tabari etc.
 * Quran / Qur'an: ditto.
 * Imamah etc. See MOS Islam again. Use English words and give Arabic transliteration if necessary. In this case: imamate, not Imamah.
 * "Prophet Muhammad". Again, "Islamic prophet Muhammad" the first time, and then just "Muhammad"; not "Prophet Muhammad", or "the Prophet", even if the sources use that. It is against MOS.
 * When using Arabic transliteration, use italics. Use this template: your term here ; e.g. shura; but not when the word is common in English; so hadith, not hadith
 * Avoid whatever except for the first sentence of the lead. For example: apart from prophethood, such as hukm (حُـكـم, rule), hikma (حِـكـمـة, wisdom), and imamate (إمـامـة, leadership). --> apart from prophethood, such as rule (hukm), wisdom (hikma), and leadership (imama). In this particular case, use leaderhip (imama); otherwise use imamate.
 * Do not capitalize Arabic terms: ahl al-bayt, not Ahl al-Bayt/Ahl Al-Bayt, except when the sources unanimously use capitalization or when the term starts the sentence.
 * 'A'isha --> A'isha.
 * Hasan was born on the 15th of Ramadan, equal to March 3/2, 625 AD. --> Hasan was born on the 15th of Ramadan [year here followed by AH], which corresponds to 2nd/3rd March 625.
 * I should add here that March 3/2 is incorrect. The source which you used here says "15 Ramażān 3/2 March 625", which means 15 Ramadan 3 AH (2 March 625). Take this into account when changing the above sentence.
 * both from the Banu Hashim clan and Quraysh tribe. --> both from the Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe.
 * "...Muhammad sacrificed a ram, and chose the name "al-Hasan" for him." You have already mentioned that Muhammad named him Hasan. Avoid repetition. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 17:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "According to Wilferd Madelung, the family formed from this marriage..." Which marriage? You haven't referred to any marriage before this. It also interrupts the discussion about Hasan's birth, which is then resumed after this. Move this sentence elsewhere and mention which marriage is meant.
 * You talk about the term ahl al-bayt at two occasions separately.
 * "Most important of all, ..." Do not pass judgments in Wikipedia's voice. Either remove or refer to the author/group of people who consider something "most important"/"least important" or whatever.
 * "In the year AH 10 (631/32 CE)..." --> "In the year 10 AH (631–632)..."
 * Link Najran.
 * "Muhammad was instructed to call them to Mubahalah..." Instructed by whom? Phrase it something like this: "Muhammad reportedly received a revelation instructing him to ..."
 * When quotations are longer than a line or so, as is the case with the Qur'anic quotation here, use the quote template: "..."
 * "...and place the curse of God on those who lie". (III 61)" Mention in the brackets that the quote is from the Qur'an: (Qur'an 3:61)
 * In the interpretation of the mubahla event, discuss the Shi'a position first.
 * The term "verse of Mubahla" should be used directly before or directly after the verse is quoted, and not half a para later. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Life during Caliphs
 * "Life during Caliphs". This heading is wrong. Change it to "Life under Caliphs" or "Life during the Orthodox [or Rashidun if you like] Caliphate".
 * "It is said that during the Caliphate of Uthman ..." Said by whom?
 * "Ali blamed Hasan and left it to his nephew" Blamed for what? The source says "chided", which means scolded.
 * Avoid "According to blah blah" with every sentence. Use it only when something actually is an opinion of someone. With historical facts, don't use it.
 * "he criticized his father for not defending Uthman, more forcefully" remove comma.
 * "During Caliphate of Ali" --> "During the Caliphate of Ali"/"During Ali's Caliphate"
 * " and bring them to Dhi Qar." Where is Dhi Qar? Anyway, it is unnecessary--> remove.
 * Rephrase Jafarian's view something like this: "Based on Hasan's participation in Ali's battles at Camel and Siffin, his role in raising up support, and his communication with Mu'awiya later during his own caliphate, where he asserted the right of Muhammad's family to the caliphal office, the Shi'a historian Rasul Jafarian has suggested that the notion of Hasan opposing Ali's policies is incorrect."

Caliphate
 * "After Ali was assassinated,..." Briefly mention "by whom" and "why".
 * "Ubayd Allah ibn al-Abbas invited people to give allegiance to al-Hasan." Who was Ubayd Allah ibn al-Abbas?
 * " According to Husain Mohammad Jafri, ..." What is the point of this? There is no context.
 * "an speech" --> a speech.
 * Again, use the quote template for the speech, or rephrase the major points if you want it as a part of the continuous text.
 * "Qays ibn Sa'd was the first to give allegiance to him." Who was he?
 * "Lawful" --> "lawful"
 * Momen's point: Move up beside Jafri's (see above), or move Jafri's below here, and provide context why that is important/relevant. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 15:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much AhmadLX. I think it is done, except for your last point (Momen's point) that I am not sure I get it. You should check it again and see if it is resolved.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes so far, looking good; although MOS non-compliance is still visible throughout the article. I will look into Momen's point myself. Other comments follow. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 17:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Facing Mu'awiya
 * This heading is awkward. Change to something like "Dispute with Mu'awiya", or "Challenge by Mu'awiya", or something similar.
 * "However, these letters, which are recorded in Madelung and Jafri's books..." The letters are not recorded in Madelung/Jafri's books, they are recorded in primary sources. --> Remove this phrase, as it is implicit that the letters have survived, else we won't be talking about them.
 * "... provided useful arguments concerning..." This is partisan position. We don't judge what is useful and what is not.
 * "In his book, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, Jafri comes to the conclusion..." Although what follows this is a historical fact, it is not directly relevant to this article. Jafri brings this point in his book because, as the title suggests, he is focused on the development of Shi'a Islam. This article is not about the development of Shia Islam, it is about Hasan. So focus on him, and do not stray away to other partially related topics.
 * In the same vein, remove the heading "Arguments on the rights of caliphate". The para should be the opener of the main section.
 * Ash-Sham/Al-Sham --> Syria. Link at the first instance to Bilad al-Sham.
 * "... the region that stretches from Syria and southern Anatolia in the north, to Palestine and Transjordan in the south"--> Remove or move to footnotes.
 * Link Mesopotemia to Al-Jazira (caliphal province).
 * "... towards the Sawad" Where is Sawad? -->Link/explain/remove. The last option is preferable, as the context makes it clear that he was moving towards southern Iraq. Better is to state that Maskin was situated about 50km north of modern-day Baghdad, see Battle of Maskin, or just that it was inside the Iraqi territory.
 * "...sending the young heir letters..." What does this mean?
 * "...either force Hasan to come to terms; or attack the Iraqi forces..." --> comma instead of semicolon
 * "According to Jafri, he was correct,..." Remove this sentence. This article is not about the treaty and its consequences for Mu'awiya/Husayn.
 * You mention Mu'awiya's letters to Hasan in this para, but his response or lack thereof isn't discussed.
 * "As the news of Mu'awiya's army reached Hasan...here people were coming together in large groups.[71]" You have the wrong page number here. Check the other instances of [71] to see if that's the page range you intended.
 * "...as some tribal chiefs, paid by Mu'awiya, were reluctant to move." Is this a wider consensus among the sources? I don't think so. But if it is, a couple more sources would be needed. If not, attribute to Madelung.
 * "Hasan appointed ‘Ubayd Allah ibn al-Abbas as the commander of his vanguard..." This is not unanimous position among the primary sources. Some name Abd Allah ibn Abbas; see Wellhausen, The Arab Kingdom and its Fall, pp. 104-112. Mention both Abd Allah and Ubayd Allah. Also drop ‘ from ‘Ubayd Allah.
 * The purpose of citing Wellhausen here was that you should read the discussion of Hasan's caliphate there, especially the page range mentioned, and incorporate it in the article so as to reduce the reliance on the 3 or 4 sources you are now using.
 * An-Nukhayla --> Nukhayla. Mention that it was the army mustering ground outside Kufa.
 * ".(in case Ubayd Allah were killed)." Redundant. --> Rmv. People will understand what second in command means.
 * "According to Madelung, the election of ... reach a peaceful conclusion." --> "According to Madelung, the choice of Ubayd Allah ibn al-Abbas, who had previously surrendered Yemen, the province under his rule, to Mu'awiya's forces without war, and was admonished by Ali for it, indicates that Hasan was hoping to reach a peaceful conclusion." <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 17:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "...by his governor, Sa'd ibn Mas'ud al-Thaqafi[76][71][79]": Missing period. Also, the page number of [71], like above example, is wrong; the correct page number here is also different from the correct page number of the above example. I'm not revealing the correct page numbers on purpose. You should find them yourself ;)
 * The whole sub-section "Hasan's sermon and its aftermath" is verbose for no reason. All the information therein can be condensed without loss. Try something like this:
 * While his vanguard was waiting for his arrival at Maskin, Hasan himself faced mutiny at his camp near al-Mada'in. He stated in his speech that he bore no resentment, hatred, or evil intentions towards anyone, that "whatever they hated in community was better than what they loved in schism",[76][72] and that he was looking after their best interest, better than they themselves, instructing them not to disobey whatever orders he gave them.[23] Taking this as a sign that he intended to make peace with Mu'awiya, some of the troops rebelled, looting his tent,[77][78] and seizing the prayer rug from underneath him. While his loyalists were escorting him to safety in al-Mada'in, a Kharijite named al-Jarrah ibn Sinan ambushed and wounded Hasan in thigh, accusing him of unbelief like "his father before him". The attacker was eventually overpowered and killed, and Hasan was cared for by his governor of al-Mada'in, Sa'd ibn Mas'ud al-Thaqafi.[76][71][79] The news of this attack, having been spread by Mu'awiya, further demoralised Hasan's army, and led to extensive desertions.[23][80]


 * Afterwards, merge this section with the previous, and name it "Mobilization of troops and subsequent mutiny"
 * "When Ubayd Allah and the Kufan vanguard arrived at al-Maskin,..." Drop Ubayd Allah; it is already mentioned that he was leading the vanguard.
 * The part of the para ending with [23][81] is closely paraphrased from [81]. Rephrase.
 * Page number in [23] is missing.
 * "The next morning, the Kufans waited for Ubayd Allah to emerge and lead the morning prayer. Then Qays ibn Sa'd took charge and, in his sermon, severely denounced Ubayd Allah, his father and his brother." Drop the first sentence, it is pointless, and readjust the second accordingly.
 * "The people shouted: Praise be to God that He has removed him from us; stand up with us against our enemy." Remove this sentence. Remember that you are writing about Hasan.
 * "...but Qays replied that he would never meet him except with a lance between them." --> "...but Qays refused."
 * "According to Vaglieri Iraqis had no wish to fight..." Comma after Vaglieri.
 * "It seems that 8000 men out of 12000, followed the example of their general...[84]" Not in [84]


 * Thank you again Ahmad. You can find the following in Vaglieri p. 242

"...it seems that 8,000 men followed the example of their general. Kays b. Sacd then took command of the 4,000 who had not left him..."
 * The copy of Jafri's book that I have, does not have page number, instead I mentioned the number of chapter, but try to find another copy. Many thanks. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Page numbers for Jafri you can find in the snippet view on Google books.  The procedure is to paste a sentence or half, such that it is unique enough, in the snippet view and it will return you the page number. The link to it you can find in the Bibliography of Battle of Karbala. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Hasan accepted the offer in principle..." Elaborate what is meant by "in principle".
 * "Abd Allah ibn al-Harith, whose mother, Hind, was Mu'awiya's sister,..." --> Mu'awiya's nephew Abd Allah ibn al-Harith.
 * Go to your uncle and tell him...: Quotes are not to be italicized. Use quotation marks.
 * "Afterward, Mu'awiya gave him a blank paper with his seal at the bottom, inviting Hasan to write on it whatever he desired." No mention is made of what Hasan wrote.
 * "timing of the black sheet ..." --> blank sheet.
 * "the timing of the black sheet sent by Mu'awiya to Hasan was confusing in al-Tabari's account." Add "how".
 * "which must have taken it from al-Mada'ini." --> "which he must have taken from al-Mada'ini."/"which must have been taken from al-Mada'ini."
 * On the terms of the treaty, add Vaglieri's position as well.
 * "...Mu'awiya have not the right to appoint the next caliph." --> Mu'awiya would not have the right to appoint the next caliph.
 * Madelung's view ends with [37][88][75]. The last two are not Madelung's works.
 * No mention is made of how the treaty was concluded.
 * I know not whether haply this be not for your trial, and that ye may enjoy yourselves for a time : Period after "time"; de-italicize.
 * Kufah --> Kufa; al-Qadisiyyah --> al-Qadisiyya; Mu'awiyah --> Mu'awiya; Al-Medinah --> Medina.
 * Abdullah ibn Aamir --> Abd Allah ibn Amir
 * "Abdullah ibn Aamir, now again governor of Basra,..." Have you mentioned before this that he was the governor of Basra before? If not, drop "again". <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is done. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes. I think the article is imropving nicely. BTW, pings only work on new line (i.e. no notifications for pings made in any exiting line) ;) <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Death and burial
 * The year of his death is not mentioned. The section should start with a statement like this: "Hasan died in the year XXX AH (YYY CE) [if month and date unknown]/ Hasan died on XXX AH (YYY CE) [if month and date known]. Several early sources report that he was poisoned by ..."
 * "He was 38 years old when he abdicated the reign to Mu'awiya, who was 58 years old at the time ... Mu'awiya would not have hoped that Hasan would naturally die before him." Attribute this to the author who wrote this. It unlikely that Mu'awiya had plans for Yazid this early.
 * "Hence, Mu'awiya would naturally be suspected of having a hand in a killing that removed an obstacle to the succession of his son Yazid." This is a declaration in Wikipedia's voice. Attribute to authors.
 * "The burial of Hasan's body near that of his grandfather, Muhammad,..." Drop "his grandfather".
 * Cemetery of Al-Baqi --> cemetery of al-Baqi; Banu Umayyah -->  Banu Umayya; Abu Hurairah --> Abu Hurayra [This bit is irrelevent though];  Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah -->  Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya
 * "...she lived in.[134] ibn Abbas, condemned...": Ibn Abbas
 * What mischief you bring about, one day on a mule and one day on a camel!  --> de-italicize, +Quotation marks
 * unless you fear evil. Ditto
 * "And so the body was carried to the Cemetery of Al-Baqi." --> "The body was then carried to the cemetery of al-Baqi."
 * "In 2016, Burke et al, published an original research article ... primarily responsible for the murder of Hasan.[141]" --> "In 2016, Burke et al, published an original research article based on the medieval documents. Using mineralogical, medical, and chemical facts, they suggested that mineral calomel (mercury(I) chloride, Hg2Cl2), originating from the Byzantine Empire, was the substance primarily responsible for the murder of Hasan.[141]"
 * "This substantiating evidence shows that Mu'awiya (son of Abisufyan) was involved in plotting the murder of Hasan." If the authors of the above article says this, attribute this to them i.e. "According to the authors,...", and add citation. If not, remove. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It is done. I hope you are notified in this new line;) Ghazaalch (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got the notification;) But I was busy IRL for a while. Comments on the remainder of the article follow. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * God bless you IRL Ahmad.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Family life
 * "It is said that Hasan spent most of his youth ... in serious enmities." This was said by Lammens in Encyclopedia of Islam First Edition, and the quote of "making and unmaking marriages" is also his, and not Donaldson's. Here you should cite him directly, and attribute: "According to Henri Lammens, Hasan spent most of this youth ... in serious enmities.[Lammens' EI-1 ref here.]"
 * "Matthew pierce believes that these accusations was proposed by later Sunni writers"--> accusations were; also accusations aren't proposed, they are made.
 * "The number ninety, first spread by Muhammad al-Kalbi and was picked up by al-Mada'ini, however, according to Madelung, al-Mada'ini was not able to name a single name more than the eleven he mentioned, five of which must be considered as "uncertain or highly doubtful"" --> According to Madelung, the number ninety was first mentioned by Muhammad al-Kalbi and was picked up by al-Mada'ini, but the latter was not able to name more than eleven, five of which must be considered as "uncertain or highly doubtful"
 * Ḵawla --> Khawla; Manẓur --> Manzur; Ḥasan --> Hasan
 * "...he gave his nickname, "Abu Muhammad", to his first son..." : He certainly didn't name his son "Abu Muhammad", but "Muhammad". What is of significance here, is that he adopted his [i.e. Hasan's own] kunya "Abu Muhammad" after this son of his named "Muhammad".
 * "and three named concubines;[153]" --> period instead of semicolon
 * "as follows" should be followed by a colon, and the list to which "as follows" refers, should come immediately after it; there shouldn't be anything else between "as follows" and the list. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you discuss each of his wives in some detail later in this section, better is to remove this list entirely.
 * Ja'da bint al-Ash'at --> Ja'da bint al-Ash'ath
 * "Thus, Hasan in this context is described as mitlaq, meaning the one who is "ready to divorce on insubstantial grounds."" You've already mentioned mitalq thing before. --> Remove.
 * "... which made Mu'wiya to give her up." Redundant, remove.
 * "Thus Hasan was her third husband." Ditto.
 * "...none of whom have had children." --> "...none of whom had children."
 * "Umm Abd Allah who married Zayn al-Abidin and Muhammad al-Baqir, the fifth Shai Imam, was born from her;" --> "Umm Abd Allah, who married Zayn al-Abidin and bore him Muhammad al-Baqir, the fifth Shi'a Imam." Also standardize Shia/Shi'a.

Appearance and morality
 * Rename to "Personality".
 * "Hasan is described as a personage who most closely resembled his grandfather, Muhammad" --> "Hasan is described to have most closely resembled Muhammad". Add here the context of resemblance: physical appearance, nature, both?
 * "...inherited from one of his uncles". This statement is technically incorrect. You don't inherit any biological trait from the siblings of your parents. Remove.
 * "...Hasan have humiliated Muslims by giving in to Mu'awiya." --> Hasan had
 * "According to Vaglieri, the hadith: "This..."" Remove colon.
 * "... accordingly could be purported to justify..." --> "... accordingly could have been purported to justify..."
 * Better restructure whole sentence like this: "According to Vaglieri, the hadith attributed to Muhammad–"This my son is a lord by means of whom God will one day reunite two great factions of Muslims"–accordingly could have been purported to justify Hasan's lack of resistance as a merit."
 * " among Shia Imams" : "among the"
 * "no one has been criticized": no one --> none
 * "; also for giving in to Mu'awiay without fight." --> ". The criticism is also directed at his giving in to Mu'awiya without fight."
 * "For instant," --> "For instance," This is unencyclopedic though. Remove.
 * "Having returning " --> "Having returned".
 * This section reads like a hagiography or rehabilitation project though;) Have a look into it (You will have to tune the language in which the material is presented)

Beliefs
 * "In Qur'an": This episode is discussed in the "Early life": Remove from here.
 * "In hadiths": Move these to respective religious positions. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 15:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The hadiths that are common to both Shia and Sunni should go to the section opener, those that are only found in the Shia canon should go to the Shia view section, those found only in the Sunni canon should go in the Sunni view section.
 * The hadiths that have been mentioed before, should removed from here.
 * "according to Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai, the Shia scholar, they were Imams, "whether they stand up or sit down",[w][180][38][181]" [38][181] are not Tabatabai's works. When you are citing an author by name, you should reference only his/her works. You can reference others if they have wrote the same thing regarding that particulat author, that you are writing.
 * Also, is this a hadith or an opinion of Tabatabai. If hadith, you should drop "according to Tabatabai". If Tabatabi's opinion, it should be separated from hadiths.

Views of Islamic religions
 * "More favorable reports reject this interpretation arguing that Hasan's abdication was the result of Kufans' mutiny,[191][192][193]" This sentence is continuation of Dakake's assessment. [192] and [193] are not Dakake's works.
 * "According to Shia sources, shortly after the migration to Medina, Muhammad told Ali that God had commanded him to give his daughter, Fatima, in marriage to him." This is context-free. Add here that Hasan is respected by the Shia also because he was born of the marriage that is held to have been divinely ordained.
 * "Sunnis, on the other hand, reject the doctrine of ... kin die like his sons?[205]" This is not an article about the debate between Shia and Sunni on whose position regarding Imamate is correct. This whole paragraph should be removed.

Bibliography That's all. Was an exhausting review ;) <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 18:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The section "Bibliography" is used either for listing sources consulted or for listing works by the subject of the article. That's not the case here.
 * There are three possibilities to address this. (i) There should be a section on the discussion about primary sources and religious sources. (ii) If that's not possible, or is too much, you should list notable primary works under the "Primary Sources" sub-heading in "References". It should come after "Sources", which should be then renamed to "Cited sources"/"Cited secondary sources". (iii) This section should be removed altogether.
 * "Among the works dedicated to the life of Hasan Mojtaba are the works entitled Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn,": Maqātil al-Ṭālibīyīn works are not dedicated to the life of Hasan.
 * In above: entitled --> titled.


 * Thank you very much Ahmad. I guess it is done.Ghazaalch (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I thank you again for reviewing this article that was not less than writing a new article. Can you nominate it now? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. No, you shoudl nominate it yourself. Just add to the top of the talk page. Further information can be found here. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pictures
Remove pictures of drawings 119.158.4.199 (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.WP:NOTCENSORED Nobody is forcing you to look at Wikipedia. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"According to"
I think all the "according to X" in this article make it somewhat unreadable. I understand the need to respect WP:NPOV, but "according to X" should be reserved for when there is disagreement among scholars. For example, the article previously stated that "According to Madelung, there are numerous narrations showing Muhammad's love for Hasan and Husayn". That Islamic traditions describes Muhammad as being fond of his grandkids is a fact, the "according to" is not needed. Therefore I changed it to "Muhammad was reportedly very fond of Hasan".VR talk 01:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you modify all of the "according to X" sentences, or I should fix them? Ghazaalch (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Personality criticism
I see you added that "He has been accused of being "uxorious, unintelligent, incapable and lover of luxury"; also for giving in to Mu'awiay without fight." I checked the source and it does say that. But the very next sentence says "" I think you should also include Shia responses to Western criticism. Also, criticizing someone of being "unintelligent" is pretty harsh. Do Shia theologians have any response in that regard? VR talk 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, what is the basis for which he is attacked as "unintelligent"? Either examples should be given, or this criticism should be omitted (as there are plenty of other lines of criticism of Hasan where the nature of criticism is detailed).VR talk 01:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look at the sources and see what I can do. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hasan as 'fifth' Rightly-Guided caliph
I see that you reinstated the paragraph I removed a while ago, without addressing the concerns I voiced in my edit summary. Donaldson 1933, p. 73 does not mention that Hasan was a Rightly-Guided caliph. He only confusingly (and I think confusedly) speaks about al-Suyuti's translator Jarrett (so not al-Suyuti himself! he has nothing to do with this) observing that al-Bukhari had said in some unspecified place that Hasan was a "rightful successor" of the prophet. Even if al-Bukhari used the Arabic word rāshid here (which is not at all clear), Donaldson does not conclude from this that according to al-Bukhari, Hasan belonged to the canonical Rashidun. All that can fairly be said is that almost a century ago Donaldson read in the work of an even older scholar that al-Bukhari regarded Hasan as a rightful caliph. We should not say "fifth", nor "rightly guided", and certainly not link to Rashidun. Also, al-Bukhari is not a "group of Sunni scholars", and the reference to al-Suyuti and al-Tirmidhi in the accompanying note are not supported by Donaldson 1933.

All in all, I stand by my earlier conclusion that Donaldson is by far too confused and unfocused to be used here. It is wholly undue, and should just be removed. We need a section on the Sunni view, but we also need a far better source for this. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation . Can you introduce some reliable sources on this and other issues related to the Sunni view of Hasan and help to expand this section of the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If I would know of reliable sources on this topic, I would already have added something based on them to the article. However, I do not, and I don't have the time to work on this right now. My concern at this time is the unreliably sourced information currently in the article. Would you agree, based on the arguments above, with removing it again? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the English language, being "rightly-guided" and the "rightful successor" are different things. The one does not imply the other.
 * The natural English expression "well-advised" means much the same as "rightly-guided", and means showing good judgement.
 * The term "rightful successor" means the successor according to law or customary practice. It is the opposite of "usurper".
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course "rightly-guided" (راشد) is also a specific religious term within Sunni Islam referring to those caliphs who were lead by the paradigmatic example of Muhammad, as well as a historiographical term referring simply to the first four major caliphs. Only the first meaning here would possibly be applied to Hasan by al-Bukhari, but I indeed do not believe this very likely, and in any case Donaldson 1933 does not establish this. I have removed the paragraph for the time being, as if flatly fails verification. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the source. Saying that Hasan was a rightful successor seems justified based on Donaldson and al-Bukhari seems to be a significant enough Islamic figure whose views would merit inclusion.VR talk 01:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that al-Bukhari (but only he!) viewed Hasan's short-lived caliphate as legitimate could in principle be added on the basis of Donaldson, but nothing more. However, I'm not sure how helpful that is. What we need is a comprehensible discussion of the larger Sunni view on Hasan, which would necessitate a source that also does just that. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Let me add, because there seems to be some confusion on this, an independent and therefore secular source, please. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, I just asked to use an independent source, and you go on to add a paragraph based on the Muslim historian, religious scholar and Islamist politician Ali al-Sallabi? I guess it's helpful to know where these claims about Hasan belonging to the Rashidun are coming from, but that is not a reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 03:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Politicians are not reliable sources, I agree, but if he is a historian and trained in religious studies, could he not be a reliable source? Anyway, I'm surprised to see you say that he's not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. al-Sallabi is pretty far removed from both Hasan, and the sources he's quoting (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ibn Kathir, al-Munawi, Qazi Ayyaz, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi). I see above you seem to equate independent with "secular". I don't think that's what independent means. Religious Muslims don't automatically have a WP:COI on Islamic studies.VR talk 03:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:INDEPENDENT: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. All religious scholars have a very strong vested interest in their religion, and they cannot at all be expected to treat topics relating to their religion from a disinterested perspective. Note that it's not being a Muslim that is the culprit, but being a religious scholar: there are many nominal Muslims who study history from a purely secular and academic perspective, but Islamic scholars obviously do not. Of course, that we're dealing with an Islamist only adds an extra layer of utter inappropriateness. @Vice regent: This is really reliable sourcing 101, and I'm baffled that I should be explaining this to an experienced user like you. I hope hope hope that you take this into account when evaluating edits in the future. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking the definition of "vested interest" too far. Policy specifically allows for WP:BIASED sources, which gives examples of common biases: "political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Plenty of academics have strong political leanings. I'm not defending al-Sallabi in particular, but I disagree with you that all religious Muslims are un-reliable sources on Islam. I also disagree with the implication that religious Muslims can't be academic: there are plenty of academic institutions in the Islamic world that teach Islam from an Islamic religious perspective (eg Al-Azhar university).VR talk 03:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Apaugasma: Finding a neutral source is always better but I don't think being independent is a mandatory requirement for reliable sources. You can also see WP:BIASED. -- M h hossein   talk 03:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course there are exceptions: biased sources may be used as primary sources (for straightforward facts about themselves, not for interpretation), or may be just-reliable-enough as a secondary source in some specific contexts. But yeah, WP:RS reads Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and independent means no vested interest and disinterested. The reason why religious scholars are by definition not disinterested with regard to religious topics is that, whatever their take on some religious issue is, for or against, their primary interest is always to frame the issue according to the strictures and preconceptions of their own religious denomination.

This is different from having certain leanings: there are, for example, often notable differences between the specific points of view taken by secular scholars who happen to be religious, and those who are not. But whatever their viewpoint, they share a wider secular framework and methodology, in which religion as such has no place. It is because their framework is non-religious that they can treat the subject of religion from a certain distance, however religious they may personally be. However, when the framework itself is religious, disinterestedness becomes impossible.

Compare it with us editors here: I am personally not religious, while some of you are. Apparently, that means that we have different leanings. However, the WP policies and guidelines by which we all abide, the whole method by which we work here, is completely non-religious. That is what makes us independent from the religious topics about which we write, however religious some of us may personally be. We need that in our sources too: they too need to abide by certain non-religious standards.

What is also glaringly obvious to me is that sure, we have now found at least one Sunni Muslim scholar who regards Hasan as having been a rightly-guided caliph: Ali al-Sallabi. But there is no reason to trust that he, as a religious scholar taking a very specific religious position, should be disinterested when he claims that we can conclude that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ibn Kathir, al-Munawi, Qazi Ayyaz, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi all happened to share his very opinion. This should be so obvious: of course he has a vested interest in claiming this, because it reinforces his own religious position. Only a secular scholar, who is not in the business of setting out or defending religious positions, can confirm whether this is reliable or not, point out contradictions, mention other Sunni scholars who have held other views, etc. We, on the other hand, should treat it as utterly unreliable. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 05:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Another source
For al-Hasan as the fifth caliph based on Safina's hadith, see The Rightly Guided Caliphs: The Range of Views Preserved in Ḥadīth by Christopher Melchert. Here is a quote: "There is also some ambiguity over the caliphate of al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī. Safīna’s ḥadīth report of thirty years sometimes mentions that ʿAlī’s caliphate was six years, sometimes refrains. ʿAlī was acclaimed caliph in 35/656, assassinated in 40/661, so it may have been felt that counting out a full six (to make a full thirty from Abū Bakr’s accession in 11/632) implied the caliphate of al-Ḥasan as well, which ended in 41/661. (Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī’s version anticipates the problem by expressly counting the caliphate of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar as twelve years and six months, so that al-Ḥasan’s six months are not needed to make up the thirty.51)" There is also a paragraph on the fifth caliph being Umar II. <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55) 07:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that's truly an awesome source! Thanks so much for this! I have added a paragraph based on it to the article. Unfortunately, Melchert 2020 doesn't elaborate on who exactly might have positively regarded Hasan as the fifth caliph (i.e., by whom it may have been felt that Hasan's caliphate was implied in the 30-year period), only mentioning by name a hadith scholar (Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, not to be confused with Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the more famous 9th-century hadith collector) who seems to have consciously avoided adding Hasan, implying that others (whose works are lost) perhaps did add Hasan. I'm still curious as to whether some post-9th century Sunni scholars whose works are still extant did make such a more positive affirmation. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall, a nice summary, although the two- and three-caliph hypotheses are not directly relevant to al-Hasan. I'd consider omitting them. In any case, could you please quote the part where Melchert discusses the two-caliph hypothesis as it pertains to the Shia? <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to mention the two- and three-caliph hypotheses in order to make it clear in what context the idea of Hasan as a fifth caliph may have existed, i.e., one in which there was a wide diversity of ideas about which caliphs were rightly-guided. Not mentioning this context would potentially mislead our readers into thinking that this is some kind of canonical opinion. I think that explaining this stuff is also just instructive for our readers, who may not be aware about the diversity of opinion in early, pre-canonical Sunnism.
 * As for the two-caliph hypothesis and the Shia, I'm not sure what you would like me to show. As I'm sure you've read too, Melchert 2019, p. 65 writes Kufa was a bastion of (proto-)Shi'ism in the 8th century, so anyone supporting the Umayyads there (like al-Sha'bi probably did) would be safer to just support Abu Bakr and Umar rather then Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (supporting Ali over Uthman would be quite unthinkable for a pro-Umayyad, but supporting Uthman over Ali would be outright dangerous). However, there would also have been a different class of people in Kufa who would have had reason to support the two-caliph hypothesis: the quietist proto-Shi'is who supported the religious authority of the Husaynid Imams in Medina but who did not support the active political resistance against the Umayyads (as led by the diverse other groups of Kufan proto-Shi'is). This quietist position would later also be adopted by Ja'far al-Sadiq towards the Abbasids, resulting in a large number of Kufan Shi'is who politically served the Abbasids (even taking high positions in the Abbasid administration) but in matters of religion followed the Husaynid Imams. Melchert does not make it explicit that the quietists he is talking about here were these quietist Shi'is, but given the historical context it's quite clear that this is what he is referring to. A good source for this is  ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree we should note the diversity, but this should be done without implying that those hypotheses were unique to Sunni Islam. They are relevant to most sects, including the Ibadis, the Mu'tazila (e.g., "Wasil acknowledges all four 'righteous' caliphs"), even to the Zaydi Shia: "This is commonly identified as the Zaydī position" (Melchert, p.67). It's misleading to present them as Sunni views or give them this much weight in a Sunni section. For your second point, see wp:synth for now. <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55)  22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That these hypotheses were not exclusive to Sunni Islam is a valid point, though I do not think that we were actually implying that. To explain that early Sunni commentators held a diversity of opinions in a section on Sunni Islam is not the same as saying only Sunni commentators did so. Moreover, the text as it stood was explicitly saying that some quietist Shias held the two-caliph hypothesis. But maybe it was a bit distracting to go to deep into that, and the text as you've changed it is more focused and has a much better flow, so I support the change.
 * I would, however, strongly disagree that using one's background knowledge to determine how to represent what a secondary source is saying would constitute wp:synth. I think you just kinda did that yourself by pointing to the fact that other reliable sources show that the two- and three-caliph hypotheses are also relevant to other sects. But in any case, see wp:notsynth: What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world, not that someone has gotten around to typing up a specific bibliographic citation in the article. [...] Likewise with very many unsourced statements, regardless of whether they could be deduced from sourced statements in the same article, we know the sources exist. [...] SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. If one's interpretation of a secondary source is guided by what other published secondary sources say (as I pointed to above), even if these other secondary sources are not explicitly cited, the fact that they exist and that the interpretation is based on them means that there's no original research, and so no wp:synth. If this would be considered wp:synth, we would never get around to writing the encyclopedia: it's impossible to correctly paraphrase secondary sources if one doesn't understand the wider framework in which they are writing.
 * For the future, please also beware of this bit from wp:notsynth: SYNTH is not a catch-all: if there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. But thanks for being so insistent with your critique: I think the text as you've changed it much better now. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Date of death
Hi ! There is an issue in date of his death by Islamic Calendar: (I've not yet looked into other bibliographical sources for this issues.) IAmAtHome (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Iranica mentions date 5 Rabī al-Awwal 50 AH》link
 * TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi mentions date 28 Safar 49 AH》link


 * Not a response but, to add to this confusion, the 7th of Safar is also commemorated in Iraq and Iran. Albertatiran (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * & I think its good to mention all the three dates (5th Rabī I, 28th Safar, 7th Safar) with mentioning their different historians as mentioned there. But sources are required. IAmAtHome (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's common for primary sources to differ on birth/death dates, and sometimes secondary/tertiary sources will only mention one of them, but a different one. In such cases, we should look if there is one date that is mentioned by the great majority of secondary/tertiary sources (like 4 to 1), or whether different dates are more or less evenly distributed in secondary/tertiary sources. If one date has a strong majority, we should only mention that one date in the lead sentence and infobox, and either leave the other date for the article body or leave it out entirely. If dates are evenly distributed, we should either mention all dates in the infobox and lead sentence (using "or"), or consider using something like "c. 669–670". ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Albertatiran's comment

 * Hi ! Sorry for the slow reply. Please don't consider this discussion to be in any way a criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and, in particular, Shia articles. The following gives a couple of examples to support my earlier comment. An earlier version of the Hasan article included the passage: "According to Madelung, Hasan criticized his father, Ali, for not doing enough to defend Uthman. Jafarian, however, writes that such reports about Hasan's alleged Uthmanid stance are not consistent with his widely reported involvement in Ali's military campaigns and the fierce opposition of the Banu Umayyad to the burial of Hasan next to Muhammad." The criticism of Ali by Hasan is derived from Sunni sources and, sadly, there is no western academic source that includes the Shia counter-argument, hence the use of Jafarian's Hayat-e fikri wa siyasi-e imaman-e Shia. However, this counter-argument was removed later in the process of preparing the article for GA. As another example, the current article includes the sentence "Hasan was present at the Battle of Siffin against the army of Mu'awiya I, though the former reportedly took no active part in the battle." Again, there is no Shia counter-argument and it's also not possible to remove the sentence from the article, considering that it comes from a reliable source, which was nevertheless heavily influenced by early Sunni historians. I guess my point is that 1) the GA process invites considerable attention and interest from (hopefully well-meaning) Sunni editors who rewrite the article from their own point of view without including the Shia views, and 2) this process is often irreversible. To summarize, if one's goal is to offer a fair and unbiased view of key Shia figures, then a GA article seems to fail to achieve that goal since the end product is more or less the usual Sunni propaganda. In any case, these are my personal views, nothing more. Thanks again for your contributions to Shia articles. Albertatiran (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I moved your comment here for further discussion. said previously that he do not consider Jafarian as a reliable source any longer, and I had to remove it from the article. Reading your comment however, made me think that we could at least add Jafarian's views as Shia views, and I did so. You have my consent to take your time and add more Shia content and when you are finished, I would ask AhmadLX to review the article again. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . Whether academic sources are influenced by Sunni sources or Shi'i sources is irrelevant. We write here based on academic consensus and not based on our our own preferred selection of RS. The academics with sound credentials may lean one way or another. We give survey of such sources. Rasul Jafarian, on the other hand, is a cleric trained in a seminary and his writings are very much colored by his seminary background (if his translated works are representative sample of his writings). My earlier view of him being RS was based on assumption that he is a university trained historian and I had not read any of his works. On the other hand, the OP I see has removed content from Vaglieri who was one of the foremost Islamicists of the 20th century and whose academic credentials are impeccable. I stand by my evaluation of Jafarian. If you plan to reinsert him or other sources like him, you have two option. Either I fail the review and you renominate it, or you find another reviewer for the current nom. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi ! At the moment, it doesn't seem constructive for me to edit the article. The comment about Jafarian was an example to support my view, not the main issue. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc
Albertatiran removed my edit saying "Hasan is the 2nd imam for most Shia Muslims. not every sub-subsect has to be taken into account in the lead or the short description". According to you, not every sub-subsect should be taken in the short description. First, I never mentioned any Shi'a subsect in the shortdesc. Secondly, there are many historical and huge Shi'a sects which deny Hasan's imamate. The Nizariyya, who are '15 million' in population, do not accept Hasan's martrydom. This historical '15 million' group is not just any small random Shi'a subsect. Per WP:NEUTRAL, the short description should be neutral since the Nizariyya are in fact Shi'a and denying this would just be biasness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.131 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)   ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! Nizariyya is a small subsect of Shia and there is no reason not to add their view to the article from a reliable source. At the same time, there is no reason to include their view in the lead or the short-description which are meant to summarize and highlight the key points. You're suggesting to remove the overwhelming majority's view for the sake of a tiny subsect (for your own Sunni agenda). A more accurate short description would be "Grandson of the prophet and Shia Imam except for a small subsect called Nizariyya." Hopefully you'd agree that this alternative poorly summarizes the article, hence my point about what should go into the lead or in the short description. Albertatiran (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying brother Albertatiran. First, the Nizariyya is not a small tiny subsect of Shi'a, as a I stated above, it has a population of more than "15 million". If 15 million is less for you, then the 150–180 million Shi'a is also a tiny little sect as compared to the 1.7 billion Sunnis, which is 85–90% of Muslims. Also, its not only the Nizariyya which dispute Hasan's imamate, numerous other sects have historically denied Hasan's imamate. There's also nothing Sunni-related in the short description so it would be equally fair to not include anything Shi'a-related in the short description. Also, I never said that to include Nizari in the short description as you proposed "Grandson of the prophet and Shia Imam except for a small subsect called Nizariyya". I just propose to have "Grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (625–670), that's what he's primarily known for around the world among both the Shi'a and Sunni and among non-Muslims. Hopefully, you would agree with all of these points. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.131 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)   ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ! You've been dealing with a disruptive user who has banned years ago and has since been editing through a ton of sockpuppet accounts and a number of IPs (see here). You can freely revert their edits (here and here) and ignore their input at talk pages (do have a look at WP:BLOCKEVASION though before you do). When in the future you hit upon an IP or account that you think may be them but you're not sure enough to file an SPI, feel free to e-mail me and I'll have a look. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)