Talk:Musa al-Kazim/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Will take this on with great pleasure and anticipation :). Constantine  ✍  15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lede
 * coming right after the information about his birth, this is odd, as if he was named this during infancy. I suggest extracting this into a separate sentence to come before.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lede
 * coming right after the information about his birth, this is odd, as if he was named this during infancy. I suggest extracting this into a separate sentence to come before.
 * Lede
 * coming right after the information about his birth, this is odd, as if he was named this during infancy. I suggest extracting this into a separate sentence to come before.


 * perhaps 'His father, the sixth imam Ja'far al-Sadiq' for clarity


 * the meaning of this may not be clear to the average reader.


 * Life
 * At this point, there was no distinction between Twelvers and non-Twelvers. So simply 'Shia', or even better, add a brief explanation about what the imamate was: e.g. 'His father, Ja'far al-Sadiq, a descendant... Al-Sadiq was widely accepted as the legitimate imam by many among the early Shi'a community, who rejected the ruling Umayyad caliphs as usurpers.' or similar


 * Note that Musa was a younger son of al-Sadiq.


 * Since al-Saffah did not really do that much, perhaps replace him with the Abbasid Revolution?


 * 'where he remained out of politics'?


 * Link Alid revolt of 762–763, Battle of Fakhkh to the respective events, vizier (Abbasid Caliphate), Fadl ibn Yahya at the first instance


 * Since the article deals with the early Abbasid period, this might be the place to introduce info about where the hostility arose from? I.e. that the Abbasids also came to power exploiting the popular support for a 'Rida min Al Muhammad' and were part of the wider Al Muhammad but that the Shia did not accept them as legitimate and favoured an Alid, etc? This would also help provide some context about the statements later on about Harun's reign
 * Excellent! Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * hmmm, I have several sources contradicting this. E.g. Daftary The Isma'ilis 2007 p. 88 saying "According to the majority of the available sources, he had designated his second son Ismāı̄l ... as his successor, by the rule of the nass. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this designation". Halm Shi'a Islam 1996, p. 24 "Ja’far’s son Ismâ’îl, who was evi­dently designated as successor, had already died ten years before his father, and Ja’far’s firstborn, Abdallâh, only survived his father by several months, leaving no heirs of his own" etc.
 * Would still suggest adding a brief mention to the succession in the biographic section, to the effect that al-Sadiq died without a clear successor, and that Musa was recognized by part of his father's followers. The Imamate section can and should go into more detail then. Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Albertatiran (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Albertatiran (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Death (799)
 * Be consistent between Yahya b. Khalid and Yahya al-Barmaki. Perhaps Yahya ibn Khalid al-Barmaki for the first instance?


 * Link Raqqa


 * Al-Tabari has already been introduced and linked earlier.


 * Mention that Kazimayn was named after him?
 * I can give you one: Heinz Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd Edition 2004, p. 33 "He [i.e. al-Jawad] died there in the same year and was interred beside his grandfather Mūsā al-Kāzim (al-Kāzimayn = the two Kāẓ ims)." Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can give you one: Heinz Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd Edition 2004, p. 33 "He [i.e. al-Jawad] died there in the same year and was interred beside his grandfather Mūsā al-Kāzim (al-Kāzimayn = the two Kāẓ ims)." Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * add dates or at least a century


 * would recommend not to use 'imam' here as it would confuse readers

Will continue with the remaining sections and a review of sources and images tomorrow. Constantine  ✍  20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Designation
 * Per above, AFAIK and the sources I've read, Isma'il was most likely the original designated successor, whether publicly announced or not.


 * 'progenitors' means ancestors in the physical sense usually, so perhaps 'predecessors' or 'antecedents'?


 * this is not correct: a) Muhammad ibn Isma'il is an extremely shadowy figure, so we don't really know when or where he died or what his followers did, and b) as far as can be reconstructed, until the schism of 899, the mainstream Isma'ili doctrine was that Muhammad would return as the Mahdi. Perhaps rephrase this as '...who for long expected Muhammad ibn Isma'il's return as the Mahdi, but later followed a line of imams who claimed descent from him, the Fatimid dynasty.
 * Suggest also Daftary 2007 here, he has an extensive account on early Isma'ilism at pp. 88ff. Constantine  ✍  08:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest also Daftary 2007 here, he has an extensive account on early Isma'ilism at pp. 88ff. Constantine  ✍  08:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The 'energetic opposition' to the Abbasids by the Ismailis belongs to the latter 9th century, much later than events here.


 * since the Fatimid Caliphate was not established until 909, perhaps 'at the turn of the 10th century'? And I would suggest mentioning both the Fatimids and the Qarmatians of Bahrayn by name here rather than MOS:EASTEREGGing the Fatimids only.


 * 'additional branches emerged after the death of al-Sadiq:[60][61][62]'?


 * Daftary 2007 p. 88-89p has some more details about the succession problems after al-Sadiq's death and the groups that emerged during that time


 * Representatives
 * would suggest simply mentioning the Maghreb, as this is what northwest Africa is, whereas Akhmim is simply a city in Egypt.
 * What is the significance of Akhmim? If no particular one, I would suggest leaving it out; just that his followers expanded into Egypt and the Maghreb is enough. Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the significance of Akhmim? If no particular one, I would suggest leaving it out; just that his followers expanded into Egypt and the Maghreb is enough. Constantine  ✍  08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Ali ibn Yaqtin's holding the vizierate likely reflects Twelver traditions, but it is not factual. Per Sourdel Le vizirat abbaside vol. I p. 120 he was simply keeper of the seal, and did not even remain in the post long as he was executed as a zindiq.
 * Hmmm, if this is referenced to Sourdel, then this is not correct: Sourdel does not mention him as being vizier at all. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if this is referenced to Sourdel, then this is not correct: Sourdel does not mention him as being vizier at all. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A more general comment: I am a bit uncomfortable with labelling the Abbasid caliphs as 'Sunni' without qualification at this point in time. Labels like this, as well as the ritual distinctions, likely reflect much later traditions than those current in the 8th century. A clear Shia-Sunni rift in dogma and ritual did not emerge until the 10th century. And the Abbasids did not become champions of Sunnism until that time as well, in large part as a reaction to the Fatimids and Buyids. The rivalry between Abbasids and Alids in Musa's lifetime was due to Alid legitimism rather than clear religious differences.


 * Link al-barid


 * Succession
 * If Muhammad ibn Bashir is worthy of an article, please WP:REDLINK him


 * if a date is available, please add it.


 * Ghulat
 * 'mainstream Shia' or 'Twelver Shia', as ghulat beliefs most definitely cropped up later, e.g. the Druze.


 * Descendants
 * Why is Donaldson's account preferred here over the others?


 * 'his' here appears to refer to Ali al-Rida, as he is last mentioned


 * Link Safavid dynasty


 * which brother?


 * Legacy
 * I think it should be mentioned that from al-Kazim on, all Twelver imams were held in captivity in Iraq, and their deaths are ascribed to assassination by the Abbasids in Shia martyrology.


 * Quotes
 * Indeed, this should be moved to Wikiquote.


 * Images
 * The map of the Abbasid Caliphate should be changed: first, the caption is misleading, since the Abbasids were not in power in 744, second, they never exercised any authority over the Maghreb (and in al-Andalus only nominally for a brief time, IIRC). Further, I suggest replacing the map itself with a better image, e.g. File:Caliphate 740-en.svg or File:Abbasid Provinces ca 788 improved.png


 * Sources
 * Sources are high-quality scholarly sources or specialist tertiary works.
 * Daftary 2020 is not used in the article. I would recommend using his 2007 edition of The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines as it has more detail on the post-765 Shia groupings.
 * I still see Daftary 2020 (as well as Halm 2004 and Sharif al-Qarashi 2005) listed as references; either remove them or move them to a further reading section. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still see Daftary 2020 (as well as Halm 2004 and Sharif al-Qarashi 2005) listed as references; either remove them or move them to a further reading section. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Halm in Shi'ism (2004) pp. 32, 40 points out that the Waqifites were the first to put forth the notion of occultation for al-Kazim, which then became part of Twelver doctrine when the Waqifites merged with them.
 * I agree it is likely too much to go into any detail here; my point was merely in the context of the impact of al-Kazim in wider Shia doctrine. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it is likely too much to go into any detail here; my point was merely in the context of the impact of al-Kazim in wider Shia doctrine. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall the article is, as usual, in fine shape and a considerable achievement. Looking forward to your replies! Constantine  ✍  08:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Have not done a spotcheck yet, will do so once the article is in a more or less final state after my comments above are addressed.

Sorry for the long delay. I have finally managed to do a proper read-through. Most of my comments above have been addressed. Some additional comments, mostly on new additions or changes:
 * perhaps 'devoted himself to religious teachings'? The current phrasing reads as if he was in a university department...


 * is said by whom?


 * he has already been introduced above, so perhaps 'Some other followers of al-Sadiq turned to Musa's younger brother, al-Dibaj,...'?

As I have said before, an excellent piece of work. Constantine  ✍  15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a spotcheck on the sources, nothing major pops out.
 * Albertatiran (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)