# Talk:Sahifah of al-Ridha

Copied from User talk:Pgallert
Hello. It is my honor that you like this article! I've rewritten the first paragraph of lead. Is it possible that i know your opinion about this changes? I removed the sentences that make misunderstandings. Can i ask you that give me more time to find a person who help me at doing copyedit? Thanks!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Samaneh-davoudi! I think it is already much better now. I tweaked again the lead and the first section. I stopped at When Haroon died, the strife was appear because I am not quite sure what that means - did they quarrel, have an argument? Would be great if you could clarify this.
Sorry for the late response, I am very busy at the moment. I'll soon make a turn at the article again to copyedit the other sessions as well. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. There is no problem. Thank you for your help. I removed the ambiguity at the  When Haroon died, the strife was appear sentence. I hope to change better.  Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, Samaneh-davoudi! When looking at the "Collectors" section today I had trouble understanding the two phrases by chain of narrators and by chain of historian. They are grammatically odd, but without the meaning I cannot correct this. It would be great if you could help out again. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! As you know, this Scripture was not conveyed from Al-Ridha to Shaykh Saduq or Yahya ibn Isma'il directly (and without intermediaries). So there was people that conveyed Scripture from Al-Ridha to Shaykh Saduq or Yahya ibn Isma'il.  I thought that it is appropriate to describe these people by chain of narrators or chain of historian. I try to make clear my mean, but if you need more explanationو Please Notify me! Can i ask you removed this tag disambiguation needed from Narrator's section?Thanks! Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Samaneh-davoudi, sorry for the long wait, I have been a bit busy in real life. Unfortunately I haven't got much knowledge about this topic, that's why I ask such simple questions - If I get you right, the Scripture was orally transmitted via the chain of narrators? Or was the book copied in writing? Or was it completed over time, with more narrators adding verses? The  tag is there because you link to Amin but there are many such people. I had a look at the page Amin and at the page Amin (name) but I do not see a good candidate. Is a surname known? Thanks for your patience, all the best, Pgallert (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a small add-on: I think the timing (AH / CE) should be consistent throughout the article. I have added both calendars with links in the first sentence. Would it be appropriate to use AH dates in the rest of the article, as it is an article on a religious topic? --Pgallert (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pgallert! Thanks for your help. the topic isn't complex. The scripture was orally transmitted via chain of narrators Or was the book copied in writing. Both of them is possible. In  Hadith studies, one of the factors that indicates the reliability of the hadith. In another word chain of narrator are set of people. I would just like to confirm the main point we discussed. For muslims, chain of narrator is a specific word. I think that it's better to describe the chain of narrator in the Parenthesis, like this: chain of narrator (set of people that conveyed hadith from Al-Ridha to another people) or refer it to Hadith studies page! Is it good? I am to be eager that know your opinion!
Unfortunately i forgot checking the time. thanks for reminding me. Best Regards!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Samaneh-davoudi: The description in parentheses looks good to me. If chain of narrators has a specific meaning, would it make sense to create a redirect? Possibly to Hadith studies? In this case, the phrase could be linked, so that non-Muslim readers also would have a chance to see that it has a special meaning. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pgallert::By mistake i wrote to you one unfinished sentence: In  Hadith studies, one of the factors that indicates the reliability of the hadith is  The chain of narrators. I create a redirect for chain of narrators. Do you want to use the description in parentheses too? I think it should be, but  the final decision is yours!
About chain of historian, that is Similar to chain of narration but that isn't specific term for shia. My mean of "chain of historian" is a set of people that confirm  Yahya ibn Isma'il or Hussein ibn Ali Juvayni narrated Al-Sahifat al-Ridha. we couldn't use redirect for this case, but according to your opinion we can use the description in parentheses.
Excuse me, i forgot to tell you. I demystified Amin and refer this word to Al- amin page. Is it time to remove the tag? Best RegardsSamaneh-davoudi (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Samaneh-davoudi: I think we are now getting there :-) Please check that my explanations of the chains of narrator / historian are correct, and correct the wording if necessary. There is still one sentence that I don't understand: In part that is related to Ahl al-bayt, is discussed separately on each of them in the second lead paragraph. What would also be great is if the references could all be brought into the form of the current reference 7... this is not a Did-you-know requirement, but for good article status it will have to happen, anyway.
There is also still the issue with the hook phrase. I can attempt a re-phrasing, or I can suggest a new hook. Does the reference in the 'Manuscript' section confirm all five versions, or just the last one? If it mentions all five, a hook could be written mentioning that there are 5 surviving copies - that would be quite remarkable for a book more than a thousand years old.
Oh, and one last question: How can the first manuscript have been written before al Ridha was born? Thanks a lot for your effort, cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Pgallert. I checked it and they were true. About that sentence: Ahl al-bayt is called to 14 persons and my mean of this sentences is that at this book is discussed about all of them. Is it clear? I should point out that Ahl al-bayt is specific term for shia. So thanks for reference, but i can't got your mean actually. do i add more information of reference?
Yes. The reference in the 'Manuscript' section confirm all five versions. I'm sorry, this isn't clear for me the issue with the hook phrase? A bout your last question, why do you think that? I checked all of time in article. Al-ridha born in 148 AH and narrated Ahadith for Ahmad in 194 AH. First manuscripts of the book have been written in 761 AH. I hope to make clear it for you! Best RegardsSamaneh-davoudi (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Samaneh-davoudi: Thanks again for your explanations. I tried to clarify the text of the article, considering your insights as shared here on my talk page. If you allow I would like to copy our conversation here to the talk page of Al-Sahifat al-Ridha so that editors that may join us in the future have a chance to see why the article developed in that way. The date question was a misunderstanding on my side, I was confusing AH and CE dates. I will now ask for another reviewer of the DYK because the things that I originally complained about are no longer there, but as I have made many edits to this article I am no longer sufficiently uninvolved to give the check mark myself. I'll be watching the article and the DYK page in order to help out again, should that be necessary. Thanks for your patience in this matter, and I hope to read many more of your articles. All the best, Pgallert (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pgallert. Thank you so much for your help. No problem. This is great and useful for others. please copy our conversation here to the talk page of Al-Sahifat al-Ridha. So do i wait that you introduce another reviewer? does it take more time? any way no problem. the important matter for me is improving of the article and you helped me at  the best. In shia, when some body help us, We ask God to make him successful (doa). So i ask Allahe to make you successful in your real life. Is there any thing that i do for article? Thanks for your wish.
Another thing, i see that you suggested another hook, but i the source of the hook is in persian. I think it made a problem.  best regards Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samaneh-davoudi: Thank you very much for your blessing. A source in Persian is no problem for DYK: Either a reviewer comes along who is literate in that language, or the reviewer will simply assume good faith that the source really verifies the statement. The new review is going to take some time again, but hopefully not weeks but days. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an uncommon work so checking this is hard, but the present name is almost certainly not the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH one. Leaving aside the as-/al- issue, leaving aside that Imam Reza is more common and just going with Ridha because that's where his page currently is... Just looking at this page's sources, all the Arabic/Persian ones are given without the initial al- (these guys omit it as well); the Arabic at the top doesn't seem to have a terminal t and most of the Arabic/Persian sources also give "Sahifa" or "Sahifah" instead of "Sahifat"; both of our English-language sources call it The X of Y. One is The Sahifah of Imam Reza and the other The Sahïfa of al-Rida (i.e., The Sahīfa of al-Rida). This site and this site also copy The Sahifa of al-Rida. This site has Sahifa of Imam Ali Al-Rida. 
Regarding sahifa not being anything like "scripture", see, inter alia, p. 14 here. — LlywelynII 18:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: you are right. According to WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH, the article name should be the sahafah of al-Ridha. I  have used al for sahifa by mistake, but according to sources al is necessary for Ridha. Do you agree that i change the article name from Al-Sahifat al-Ridha to The sahifah of al-Ridha? Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In the 2nd sentence, you say "sahafah" and, in the 4th, you say "sahifah". You meant the second one, right?
Per WP:THE, "the sahifah of al-Ridha" should be located at sahifah of al-Ridha; "the Sahifah of al-Ridha" should be located Sahifah of al-Ridha (which is really the same thing); The Sahifah of al-Ridha is the only one that should be at The Sahifah of al-Ridha (although you can include a redirect from that name to the page). In all three cases, though, the first sentence would start with a "The ..." — LlywelynII 10:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I meant sahifah.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I think the way forward is to realize this isn't really a title of a single book but the name of a text: It is the Salifa or Salifah of al-Ridha, also known as the Salifat of al-Reza. We keep the 2nd word in italics because it's a foreign term and we're leaving it untranslated but the rest isn't italicized. I'll go ahead and move it. You go ahead and change the name in the hook. — LlywelynII 12:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The EI has "Abdallah ibn Aḥmad ibn Amer". Fine. The English translation of the 1921/1922 printing of these Hadith, however, lists the second in line from the imam as "Ibrahīm ibn Ju'da", who received it in Basra. Now, I'm not that great on Islamic names, but my understanding is that someone with ibn Ju'da in their name generally isn't the son of someone named "Abu al-Qasim 'Abd Allah ibn Ahmed ibn 'Amir al-Ta'i". Are they really aliases? or is the EI quoting a separate line of authority for these hadith? If so, why isn't "Ibrahīm ibn Ju'da" mentioned among the "separate narrators" provided elsewhere in the page? Which edition is the EI (the article's main secondary and RS) using, if not the one we have an English translation of? — LlywelynII 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, I answer your question by referring to this reference Sahifat Al-Redha by narrative of Shaykh Saduq and sulami.
Ibn Babawayh stated four chain of authority. One of them is this: Abu mansoor Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Bakr al_khu'di (by mistake in text "Al_Ju'di"), who received it from Abu mohammad zeid ibn mohammad Baghdadi, who received it from Abu al-Qasim 'Abd Allah ibn Ahmed ibn 'Amir al-Ta'i, who received it from received it from Ali al-Ridha, who claimed his father Musā claimed his father Ja'far claimed his father Muhammad claimed his father 'Ali claimed his father Husayn claimed his father 'Ali, son of Abū Tālib, had heard or witnessed its contents in the company of the Prophet Muhammad. Is it clear?
unfortunately i can't understand your mean by "EI"!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
1) EI is just shorthand the Encyclopedia Iranica, whose entry on al-Ridha is your article's primary scholarly, secondary, and reliable source both on al-Ridha's life and the broad strokes of the text.
2) The grammar isn't perfect but I know you're trying : ) I do think I understand, but do you see how (unless Abu Mohammad Zeid ibn Mohammad Baghdadi is the same person as Abdallah ibn Aḥmad ibn Amer) that introduces problems rather than resolving the old one?
2a) You're telling me that the chain of authority for the version printed in Egypt is completely separate from the version which derives its authority from Abdallah ibn Aḥmad ibn Amer (the EI version). Instead, someone named Abu Mohammad Zeid ibn Mohammad Baghdadi separately received these hadiths from A.i.A.i.A.'s father. The Egyptian version doesn't derive any authority or have any connection with A.i.A.i.A.
2b) Are you saying the Egyptian chain of authorities is the same one as that listed in note a as deriving from Sheikh Saduq? But he doesn't seem to be included in their chain of authorities at all. Did his chain of authorities branch of somewhere? If so, where?
2c) You're telling me that the chain of authority claimed by the version printed in Egypt completely omitted someone claimed by Shaykh Sadiq. The version printed in Egypt explicitly states "Ibrahīm ibn Ju'da" personally received it from Abu al-Qasim 'Abd Allah ibn Ahmed ibn 'Amir al-Ta'i in Basra. Now you're introducing a new figure (Abu Mohammad Zeid ibn Mohammad Baghdadi) in between them. Is there some source or discussion somewhere about this discrepancy?
2d) If you have the other chains of authority, we should include them.
2e) The EI entry (and our current article) explicitly links this text with A.i.A.i.A. and not with any separate chain. Is that wrong? or does the A.i.A.i.A. version have some special status?
 — LlywelynII 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this section? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the chain of authority for the edition presented here. When did these people live and who are they? Are they the chains of authority for the other surviving MSS listed below? If so, which is which? and how do they differ? What are their chains of authority: Are they separate transmissions from the imam? or do all of them trace back to Abdallah ibn Aḥmad ibn Amer but differ in some way from the chain traced by the Egyptian edition? If so, where do their chains differ? They need to be traced back to the point where they diverge from the one presented here unless this article is solely about the Egyptian edition of the collection.
Are they completely separate works or traditions that happen to quote (and therefore to some extent verify) the hadith presented in the Salifa? If so, how much do they quote or support? Are there notable differences?
As a side point, why do we care that one of them fought in the Battle of Nahrawan? Does it have anything whatsoever to do with his connection to this collection of hadith? — LlywelynII 04:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this article overstating its case? or should it now be added to the Shia section of {{Hadith}}? Review #Name above before adding it, though. — LlywelynII 04:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're aiming for GA status, you'll probably want to move the citations out of the lead and into the main body of the page if you can. Don't remove the citation for the hook at DYK, though. — LlywelynII 04:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:your mean is that there is no need to use reference for lead's sentences?Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Samaneh-davoudi, not exactly. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a quick summary of the article and its relevance. Therefore, it should mostly be repeating things found in the body of the article. There's a general policy that the citation for a fact should be in the main body of the article and not clutter up the lead section when it's repeated there. There are exceptions, but it's something many GA reviewers will check for when they review an article. If the lead is the only place where you talk about some fact, you keep the citation there (never remove them unless they were a bad source to begin with); but some GA reviewers will insist that you simply copy the fact into the appropriate part of the main article and place the citation there instead. — LlywelynII 10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

At reference part, reference and notes were mixed together and I thought the reader will be confused. because of that i added new section as Note.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but stop including the "note" concerning the chapter of the pull-quote. The chapter is already given and the "title" you're using isn't actually in English. There's no need to correct it, either: "Chapter V" is more than enough. — LlywelynII 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the one about the importance of breakfast since it seems completely unsupported by the text we have. (Maybe it was one of the ones removed by the Cairo editor as spurious and is available elsewhere, but we'd need a source for it.) The jihad passage is important both because people will be curious what the jihad chapter said (and that's it in its entirety) and because of the amusing nature of the narrator's response to the tradition's longwindedness. (Also a good example of a false or confused tradition, unless there was an earlier Dhāt al-Salāsil.) The others could be anything. Are any of these sayings well known or important?
This source is too hagiographic and untrustworthy to use for information but the only hadith it even mentions in relation to Imam al-Ridha—that he "several times" related that "a black negro slave can be better than a person from my own family if his deeds are better"—seems to be completely unmentioned in this, the main body of hadith connected with al-Ridha. I used the quote that seemed closest, but was the one about slaves being better than imams removed by the Cairo editor or just in a different place in al-Ridha's works? — LlywelynII 21:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more hadith. They are good and have popular topics. I added one hadith about breakfast because i thought that is interesting for every body. I checked and found it in translation from the Hejazi in page 52. but i couldn't find ENGLISH VERSION of it. About "a black negro slave can be better than a person from my own family if his deeds are better", i couldn't find it in every version of sahifah. If your mean is the hadith number six that you stated it as first Quoted hadith, i saw it in cairo version and translation from the Hejazi. Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

At this article,we see a lot of Wikipedia:Red link. As we know, red links in Chain of authority part is not necessary. They are name of people who aren't important or do not play a major role. I removed them.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sahifah of al-Ridha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello!  I will be reviewing this article.  --Cerebellum (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here is the review!

External links all work.
Prose is good, I just made a couple of changes.  There seem to be some grammatical errors in the extracts from the Sahifa, for example I think the one about dates should read "sends [them]", not "send [them]".  However, if it's an error it comes from the source, so I don't think we should change it.
References look good.
Only one image, the calligraphy of Al-Rida's name, but that's unavoidable if there are no pictures of manuscripts.
I was surprised that there were no links to this article in other languages, but I checked the Arabic and Persian Wikipedia and I don't think they have articles on this work.
So, the article is good, and seems to be comprehensive even though it is short.  I am happy to pass as GA.  Sorry you had to wait so long for this review!  --Cerebellum (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cerebellum: Thanks for considering the article and passing it. No problem with waiting, it was worthy. Mhhossein (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)