Talk:Ismah

message: Somebody has suggested that The Fourteen Infallibles is merge into Ismah. It's like to merge Twelve Imams into Imamat. Ismah is a concept and The Fourteen Infallibles is not. So it's not acceptable.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fourteen Infallibles

message: Why no mention of the Ismailis and their Imam here?The Lesser Merlin (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shia Islam

message: Donaldson mentioned in his book namely" the Shiite religion; the history of Islam in Persia and Irak" some reasons on inerrancy of prophets both by designation and by reason in page 321. who would like to complete it?m,sharaf 13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: request of partner

message: I think this section is not coherent and it needes some changes such as deleting the repeatitions and changing the place of material and also formal edition...--Salman mahdi (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is trying to prove the infallibility of Fatimah (a.s). Right? Mhhossein (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I  with you. This paragraph is about opinions of other Muslims about Ismah. Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

text: they are not the same. The materials which are quoted from "Concept of Ismah" are reasoning why the infallible does not perform any sins. It is a clarification! but the second one is just saying that they don't perform sins. In fact, it is trying to quote the idea of shia texts and scholars. Mhhossein (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: so the opinions must be narrated in its own section.Salman mahdi (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Concept of Ismah

message: This section needs to be modified. It contains Qur'anic arguments rather than a concept of Ismah of prophets. In this section, I think,  we should try to explain what the Ismah of prophets is! Mhhossein (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ismah of prophets 

message: There is Dabashi's description about khomeini's theory in the last paragraph which is one POV and we should add the other POV which is explained by Algar. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this description is not related to this article and should be deleted.Hum?--Salman mahdi (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. We can even make a section to explain different ideas on the expansion of the infallibility to Faqih which completely relates to the theory of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. As you may know some Shia scholars agree with this theory while some other disagree with it and there is controversy over it in Iran.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   I also think that we refer to all views in any way.. different ideas cause us to explain them to put away any adherently situation.--m,sharaf (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Khomeini's theory

message: Dear ,   With thanks for your copy editing, why you have deleted the note after Murtada al-Zabidi (Tāj al-ʿArūs (Arabic: تاج العروس) is the second most frequently cited dictionary of Classical Arabic by Murtada al-Zabidi (after Lisān al-ʿArab by Ibn Manẓūr). please before deleting the material, you ask them in the talk page.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it because (1) it's an inappropriate detail for the article (i.e. if one wants to know more about Zabidi or Taj al=Arus, one can just click on the wikilink; and (2) the sentence was not english=and did not make sense.  What are you trying to say? That it is the second most cited dictionary of classical Arabic whose author is Zabidi? Or that Taj al-Arus is the second most cited dictionary of classical arabic of all the dictionaries cited by Zabidi? I think it's the former. Regardless, to my mind, this isn't the type of edit that needs a talk page discussion before making it per WP:Bold. Bapehu (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reason of Deletion

message: Dear , In copy editing you have mad an error and have changed this sentence (Zayn al-Abidin regards Ismah as "a quality which enables a man to seize firmly the strong lifeline from God that is Quran" and both of them are not separated until the Judgment Day) to this one ( He states that each of the Fourteen Infallibles are not separated from each other until the Day of Judgment). Quran and the Fourteen Infallibles are not seperable.--Salman mahdi (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Copy Editing

message: I've removed the following sentence because it is WP:NONSENSE as it stands. Don't revert until you've fixed it or I will need to seek dispute resolution:
Tabatabaei says Ismah has two forms with regards to revelation: first, it stipulates that the prophets must be free from sin in the reception of revelation, in its preservation and in its propagation, which are three principles of ontological guidance, so error by Allah in existence is meaningless; second, in the addition the previous, the Ismah implies protection from sin, on the basis of the prophets' own will and knowledge.
Specifically, parts (1) "it stipulates that the prophets must be free from sin in the reception of revelation, in its preservation and in its propagation", (2) "which are three principles of ontological guidance", and (3) "so error by Allah in existence is meaningless."
Part (2) claims that part (1) are "principles of ontological guidance". If that is the case, then what is it about part (1) that qualifies it to be "principles of ontological guidance"? Secondly, "ontological guidance" is nonsense; explain it in other words or link to an appropriate article. Thirdly, part (3) claims to be a consequence of part (2), but it isn't; it is a non-sequitur. Fill in the missing logic or drop part (3) from the sentence.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. When God desires to guide the people to the right path or belief, He does not err in His will as He has enough knowledge and power; so, to guide the people, there should not be any thing wrong with getting and understanding the revelation and propagating it by the prophet because He has desired so. This is called ontological guidance.Salman mahdi (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ismah is concerned regarding to God and the Infallible. God by His eternal knowledge knows that these 14 people do not disobey him, so by endowing them tawfiq (a divine help) preserves them from committing error and sin. But ,on the other hand, the infallibles because of their knowledge about the consequences of the sins and because of their love towards God, they never even think about the sins. It means that if every other one had the potential of not committing the sins, God would bless him/her the attribute of ismah. At last, it is a tawfiq by God which the infallibles deserve and the infallibles own endeavors. Is it clear? Salman mahdi (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, "ontological guidance" is the principle that God does not err in guiding those he desires to guide, because of his omnipotence and omniscience? Is that correct?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  What is the original Arabic term for "ontological guidance"?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ontological= Takweeni; Guidance= Hedayah;().Salman mahdi (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix nonsense 

message: Assignment has been used in this article at least in three different meaning.
*  they could not be Kafir before or after their assignment and also they do not commit other sins intentionally Assignment does not mean Be'sat (بعثت). 
*  Allah must assign someone similar to prophet in his attributes and Ismah as his successor to guide the people and to interpret the Quran I prefer designate in this sentence.
* He said: The meaning of “stern and strong” is that the angels are committed to the assignment given to them by Allah. Here obligation looks better.
This term looks wrong at least in some cases, however I am not a native speaker.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   According to Quranic translations and Lane, () is translated to ″send″; But I don't think we could use the word here; but by adding the prophecy to the assignment (their assignment to the prophecy), perhaps it would be clear; but designation is not used for this meaning as I saw in Corbin's book. 
* I agree with the third.Salman mahdi (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, responding to a query by @Seyyed. I'm not sure I have proper context for the discussion yet - is this about modifying existing wording in the article or about providing an original translation by editors? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: bonjour, I think that we could rely on the translation of some authors like Nasr , Izutsu and the like..any view?--m,sharaf (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:MezzoMezzo, Unfortunately, the readers can not understand these technical phrase easily. In this case, we've used assignment in three different meanings?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with your sugestions, Seyyed; there are plenty of possible terms in English. Plus, you know my position: not everything needs to be translated literally, word-for-word; sometimes phrases can be used for a concept instead. However, by leaving the first instance as assign, and then using designate and obligate, it seems that the problem would be averted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You two are experienced so please do as it is better.Salman mahdi (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  assignment

message: * The material of footnote N. 1 in the source is as follows: Please help to clarify the tag: The word `isma, translated by Wensinck in MC as impeccability, by Miller in BHA as "immunity to sin" and by W. Ivanow as "infallibility", needs further explanation in view of its doctrinal importance in Shi`itic literature. The root `asama, ya'simu, `asman, means according to Lane, prevented, hindered, protected, defended, preserved, withheld, etc. And `isma is prevention, hindrance, defence, protection; its primary significance being trying or binding. عصمة الانبیاء is explained in Taju 'l-Arus as God's preservation of the prophets, first, by peculiar endowment of them with essential purity of constitution; then by the conferring of large and highly-esteemed excellences; then by aid against opponents, and rendering their feet firm, then by sending down upon them tranquility (as-Sakina, Qur'an 9, 26, etc.) and the preservation of their hearts or minds, and adaptation to that which is right. Whence we have "a defence from the state of perdition" and finally, "a faculty of avoiding acts of disobedience, with possession of power to commit them".   Salman mahdi (talk) 08: 41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:@User:Salman mahdi In my view, you can clarify the terminology by adding more information from the above text. I suggest to check the other sources as well. For example, please add Nasr, Algar and the others translations to this section.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Salam Alaykum, Can you please explain about your suggestion.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: There was a sentence, added last October by User:Salman mahdi , saying that "Ismah is translated by Wensinck as impeccability, by Miller as immunity to sin, and by W. Ivanow as infallibility", sourced to "al-Shaykh al-Saduq (1982). A Shiite Creed. Fyzee (3rd ed.)". The ultimate sources (Wensinck, Miller and Ivanow) weren't further specified. In July 2015 User:Dhtwiki  expanded these names, turning "Miller" into "Frederic P. Miller", but still without further specification of the precise sources and without explanation. Today, User:MaxBrowne removed the reference to Miller, saying in his edit summary that "Frederic P Miller" from VDM Publishing is not a proper source for anything" . Indeed, one "Frederic P. Miller" occurs as an alleged "editor" in one of those serial rip-off schemes that sell collections of Wikipedia articles as print-on-demand "books" on Amazon. Could Dhtwiki please clarify here why (s)he thought the Miller mentioned by al-Saduq was "Frederic P. Miller"? In fact, the original source in al-Saduq says "[translated...] by Miller in BHA" . This, in the context of this book, apparently refers to an edition of a text called al-Babu'l-Hadi 'Ashar, translated by one William McElwee Miller in 1928. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: William McElwee Miller looks like the one. Don't know anything about the topic myself, I was just looking for and removing mentions of Frederic P. Miller from various articles, since we obviously can't use wikipedia dumps as a source. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As for my part, I think that, when I was copy-editing, I searched Google similarly as I just did now, with the search string "al-Shaykh al-Saduq  miller" and came up with this Google book as the second hit. So, eager to have the text give more than just a common last name, I inserted Frederic P. Miller, without actually having read that book to confirm that it contained the purported translation of Ismah. So, I guess I was a bit sloppy. Of course, I wasn't cognizant of Frederic Miller's low standing with Wikipedians. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Miller?