Talk:Muqtada al-Sadr

message: Can we have sone consensus on what Shi'a ought to be called? We use any of the above three with apparent abandon - ought to be only one since they're pretty much equivalent. Graft 21:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever seen shi'i. Might be a typo if it exists. Shi'a and shi'ite are both fine words, as far as I can tell. Why can't we use them both? It gives some variety, like calling the Republican Party the "GOP". --LeeHunter 01:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shi'i is singular of Shi'a, counterpart to Sunni. Since we don't say Sunnite, we ought not to say Shi'ite. It's like using 'colour' and 'color' in the same paragraph. Graft 02:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shi'i (شيعي) is singular of Shi'a (شيعة) but where did shi'ite come from? Probably derived from the same plural form (Shi'a شيعة), some Arabic words that end with "ة" are pronounced with "T" if they are adjuncts. eagleamn 02:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a, Shi'i, Shi'ite 

message: The following discussion was moved from comments in the article itself, regarding the claim "After the 4 June truce with the occupation forces, al-Sadr took steps to disband the Madhi army."
:Is this true? How effective were these steps? (written by Quadell)
:Clearly, these steps were ineffective, since the Madhi army is in no way disbanded.  al-Sadr violated the truce agreement, and proved himself to be a liar. (written by Jimbo Wales)
To this I would add, the Mahdi army could easily be disbanded, and then reformed, within days. All the weapons were owned by the militia members themselves, and the members are not paid. If they went home, the army would be "disbanded". If they took to the streets again, angry about the arrest of Sadr's aid, then they would be "reformed". I just don't know whether the militia was ever disbanded or not. I'd like to know, if anyone has a cite. Also, every decision-maker in this situation, from Allawi to al-Sadr to Rumsfeld, has said things that have contradicted previous statements. Most influencial world figures, from Martin Luther King to Abe Lincoln to Bush to Kerry could be considered "liars" by this strict definition, but the inflamatory label doesn't really help to understand the person. Quadell (talk) 14:01, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I would like to add that the truce did not require the Mahdi army to disarm immediately (see my edit above) but for the armed resistance movement to be transformed into a political movement i.e. party.pir 14:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from talk 

message: The article makes the following claims:
:This viewpoint has been questioned, with a US-sponsored poll from June finding that 67% respondents support him (32% "strongly support", 36% "somewhat support" him). In the poll, he comes as the third most popular political figure, behind Ali Sistani but far ahead of interim PM Iyad Allawi who is opposed by 61% and supported by only 23% of respondents.
This is misleading or simply inaccurate:
* The poll was taken May 14 to May 23, according to the first MSNBC article, whereas the WP article states the poll was "from June"
* The article refers to Allawi was "interim PM", but the poll was "taken just before he was named to head the new interim government" (according to the MSNBC article), let alone before he assumed power. It's questionable to what degree the poll data reflects the relevant popularity of the two men in Iraq at the present time: since the middle of May a lot of events have occurred in Iraq, Allawi has actually taken power, the situation with al Sadr has changed substantially, and so on.
* The article fails to note that the same poll indicates that only 2% of respondents would vote for Sadr as president. This is surely worth noting.
Any comments on the above? Barring any objections I'll edit the referenced paragraph to make it less misleading and IMHO closer to NPOV. Neilc 08:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: About the date of the poll; it was first reported on in June, so that's probably where the mistake comes from. I'll change the article. It's also important to note that, according to Juan Cole (an expert in the region), Allawi's popularity has decreased since taking power, and al-Sadr's has increased, since even people who were never that fond of him respect him for (as they see it) standing up to the occupiers. And yes, most Iraqis don't want al-Sadr to be president. Oprah Winfrey is very popular here in the states, but few want her to be president. Cole's take is that the Shias see al-Sadr as a religious leader, not a secular leader, and the Sunnis see him as a gutsy rebel, but not exactly presidential material. Quadell (talk) 15:05, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Who did the poll?  What were the questions?  What was the sample size?  Who paid for it?  The US has a group called the International Republican Institute that does phony polls in these types of situations, so I think my questions are valid.  71.36.238.145 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity - misleading? 

message: I'm going to edit the article now, because my concerns have not yet been addressed adequately.  But I wanted to be clear that I am editing as an editor, like anyone else, and my changes are not decrees.  I say this because I so seldom edit and because I do not want my edits to receive special protection, but rather to stand or fall on their own merits.  Jimbo Wales 12:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I really appreciate you saying this. Quadell (talk) 15:07, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
One little change that I made which may warrant some explanation.  I removed a link to an editorial at greenleft.org.au, because first of all an extremely POV anti-US editorial is not a proper citation for fact.  Greenleft in particular is not a credible source.  Jimbo Wales 12:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I regularly read Greenleft, and I find them to be a credible source of information. The way they seem to function is that they have a mailinglist on which members post news articles from mainstream media. The editors then write articles that are digests based on this very broad source of information and often include information that's underreported in the mainstream news. I included the link because the information was apparently based on the Aug.3 Finacial Times article, which is unfortunately subscription-only. Of course we may disagree with their politics and their world view (socialist, anti-imperialist, feminist, ecologist)- as I do to some extent - and I find the characterisation "extremely POV anti-US" very unfair. But their information is accurate and they don't make anything up. - pir 14:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I am only an ordinary editor

message: I made some changes to the text to reflect the situation as it stands today. One thing that is missing from this article is mention of the extent to which Sistani and other Shia leaders effectively abandoned Sadr to punishment from American forces. This is not a universal view but I think it should be at least mentioned as being widely held. Something that I have included is mention of large losses by the Mahdi militia. This is associated with a widely held view that Sadr's forces fared rather badly in combat with the Americans and began to suffer manpower and morale problems. Added to this is the fact that U.S. forces used the main gun of the Bradley fighting vehicle in fairly confined residential neighborhoods while confronting the Mahdi militia. This evidently led to pressure on Sadr from residents of the area to bring the hostilities to a halt. Whatever one may think of the American tactics or the degree to which they showed good faith in dealing with Sadr, it's very hard to escape the conclusion that the Mahdi militia could not stand up under the level of military pressure that was applied to them. This is undoubtedly what has led to Sadr's recent adoption of a much less confrontational posture. I have refrained from going this far in the text however. --Wtmgeo 10:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes related to ceasefire 

message: Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style Hojatoleslam to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.
Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for Pope Benedict XVI) but not for others (such as Muqtada al-Sadr) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. Whig 04:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefixed-Style of Formal Address 

message: Shouldn't this be named "Muqtada as-Sadr?  I believe "al-Sadr" is technically not correct (even though it may be more popular on google).  csloat 01:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very common in English-language scholarship on the Iraq Shii over the last 20 years. I've dug through a number of indexes looking for al-Sadr and have yet to find as-Sadr instead. --Vector4F 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: this is one of the cases where poor translation is used and not corrected due to popularity. In Arabic, any 'Al' (means the) followed by a 'shamsi' letter the L in AL is pronounced as that 'shamsi' letter. S is a 'shamsi' letter, hence 'al-sadr' should be prononced as 'as-sadr'. Maybe we should mention that both spellings are correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.191.169.114 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Coolhunter, you added al-Sadr's DOB as August 13, 1973.  I would be very interested to know your source, as I was under the impression this fact was generally unknown.  Thanks. --Vector4F 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found what I think is a good enough source for his birth date of August 12, 1973.  Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia, and in particular infoboxes; every time I tried to add this source as a citation for the date of birth given in the infobox at the top, it messed up the infobox.  Can somebody please do this however it needs to be done?  Thanks! Kier07 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth? 

message: Where is the citation for the claim that: "On December 30, 2006 people loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr infiltrated the security detail for Saddam Hussein's execution, chanted 'Muqtada' and taunted Saddam, and got it all on film, which then circulated on Arab television and the internet."  All of the media, both Western and Middle Eastern, reported that the execution was performed by the Iraqi Government.  IMHO, absent a citation to a credible source to support the dissenting view that al-Sadr infiltrated the security detail for Saddam Hussein's execution, this claim should be removed.
sounds completely reasonable to remove it. Murderbike 09:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hear this on PBS' Bush's War (Part Two), chapter 11, 4 min in. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muqtada al-Sadr infiltrated the security detail for Saddam Hussein's execution? 

message: Here is the link to the story stating al-Sadr has fled to Iran.  —  MichaelLinnear 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the debate about whether he fled (vs. left without coercion) or is it about whether/where he actually went?  The AJ article cited elsewhere on the page  also says "Al-Sadr left Iraq at the end of 2006, according to his movement, and had reportedly been pursuing religious studies in the Iranian holy city of Qom." --Jhfrontz (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fled 

message: In islamic understanding there exists no "cleric". This is a christian approach and shows a severe misunderstanding of Islam. All islamic "cleric" reputation and formal shia ranks (like "Hojatolislam") depends on studies and abilities to speech about islam. 217.187.191.112 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "cleric"?

message: I'm a little surprised there's nothing here about the attempt on al-Sadr's life in 2004, described here. I'm not suggesting using this as the sole source, although Cockburn's reporting is some of the best coming out of Iraq. I'm sure lots of other sources for this can be found. Anyone want to do this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about assassination attempt against al-Sadr? 

message: Shouldn't the intro paragraph say that he's the leader of the Mahdi Army and maybe that his political party has a good number of seats in the Parliament? I think the focus on who he's related to now is a bit odd. 140.247.237.161 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  His political/militant status is very important, but so is the fact that he was related to an Ayatollah.  Cream10152 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Considering that even Muqtada himself does not regard himself as a mujtahid, how can it be appropriate to describe him in the opening as a "theologian"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe him as a "religious and political leader" and leave it at that?
Winterbadger (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly my opinion.  The man is no theologian, although he is working to become one. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  theologian? 

message: Where we see "In his sermons and public interviews al-Sadr has repeatedly demanded an immediate withdrawal of all US led coalition forces, all foreign troops under United Nations control, and the establishment of a new central Iraqi government, not connected to the Ba'ath party or the current Allawi government" -- does this mean "demanded withdrawal of all foreign troops under U.N. Control" or "demanded that all foreign troops be under U.N. Control"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo3sampl (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: "Please enter a comment below."  You got it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see there's a photograph now.  I might delete this section in the future because if the photograph stays, there will be no need for the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no photograph? 

message: Why isn't there any information of him after the United States Army left Iraq? The war is still technically going on and he is partly responsible. --203.206.73.28 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --Cerebellum (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-U.S Withdraw 

message: >> Iraqi cleric Sadr announces retirement (Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello,
I'm a new user, but I served in Iraq from 2005 and 2007-2008. Also have an associate in Political Science. I erased two "citations needed" as they were pro-Mahdi...if you will. Sadr means "back" in Arabic....also added the link above to the 2004 year, and erased Bio template. I like it how it is(concerning Prose), please make sure I wrote citation 11 fine, or if you can make it better, please do.Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Peer Review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Muqtada al-Sadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080317071257/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/30/wiraq130.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/30/wiraq130.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I changed the line that said the 1st Cavalry Division broke the back of the militia to the 1st Armor Division breaking their back.  I was in Baghdad when all this happened.  The 1st Cavalry Division replaced the 1st Armor Division and the Generals used the 1st Armor Division to go after the militia, instead of sending us home.  We had already been in Iraq for a year when this happened.  HEre are some sources to back this up:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/22/20040622-113720-3352r/?page=all
http://www.stripes.com/news/1st-armored-division-s-iraq-timeline-1.24297  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.102 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Muqtada al-Sadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2069/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235814/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=14419 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=14419
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F08%2F30%2Fwiraq130.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a statement that says, "As a result of this, al-Sadr claims for himself neither the title of mujtahid (the equivalent of a senior religious scholar) nor the authority to issue any fatwas."   Yet, later on the page speaks of Sadr, issuing a fatwa.  There needs to be consistency in the page, or the content and accuracy of it, will be in question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.243.190 (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONFLICTING STATEMENTS 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The lede contains some text that the US news media suspects him of ordering the assassination of Abdul-Majid al-Khoei. Considering this is unverified and he denies it, it seems these sorts of rumours do not belong in the lede (but I agree it should be mentioned in the text somewhere). Is there any objection to removing this text from the lede? Ashmoo (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassination accusations