Talk:Ali/Archive 3

message: It's hard to step back and see it but ... usually when there's intense partisan skirmishing over the exact wording of a sentence or two, that means that the sentence is taking more weight than it should have to bear. Probably the topic deserves a breakout article, where both pro and con views get to have their full say, instead of having to compress everything into subtle nuances of word choice. 
"The Shi'a view on Ali ibn Abi Talib" is a bad choice of title -- it screams POV fork, disallows criticism, and is ungrammatical to boot. But this article could be the place to have FULL discussion of Shi'a claims for Ali, with the Shi'a getting to put in all the hadith refs and the academic historians getting to say "medieval fable". Zora 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, the "x view of" concept has precedens, you are not getting ridd of it. But suggestions are nice. Further, you have not presented one single academician saying "mediaval fable", we only have your personal view. If you manage to make any of the points contested with sourced and relevant information, i could consider not having it on the main page, however, you have not. Zora pov is personal pov is irrelavant to WP . --Striver 01:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakout article 

message: Zereshk, please don't start copying Striver's idiosyncratic reference methods. Also, it would be good if you found some better references than URLs to "booksearch" results. Those are likely to be unstable.
I moved your arguments out of the main section and down to the Shi'a section. They're still there. I was having edit conflict troubles, so you should check to make sure I got the references correctly. Zora 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the instability: if the link ever breaks, I will replace it. I monitor the page and its refs. Or..., I can provide the link to an LOC entry, instead of BN and Amazon. But I find BN and Amazon pages to be more informative about the work. As for the "idiosyc" thing, that is your opinion. Au contraire, I consider it aesthetically suitable. Especially where controversy is the order of the day.--Zereshk 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Striver 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think the caption needs to be a bit modified. I realize that many dont approve of imaging of sacred figures. But specific imaging is not a Shia thing, and it isnt new. The manuscript here fully depicts Muhammad and it dates from 1494 (when Iran was predominantly Sunni):
I have a few other similar images of manuscripts as well.--Zereshk 21:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The image of Ali

message: FIRST MUSLIM: *ALL* Muslims agree that the very first MALE to have accepted Islam is Ali bin Abi Taleb.  The Sunni-Muslims claim that the first MAN is Abu Bakr.  The difference between the first MALE and first MAN is that Ali was only 10 years old when he accepted Islam.  Nevertheless, Ali accepted Islam before any other MALE.  You might disagree but are you the guardian of Islam or an Islamic scholar??
: One of the first historians, Tabari, doesn't agree. He gives three traditions. Hence your statement re ALL Muslims is demonstrably wrong. 
KAABA BIRTH: I have verified that the overwhelming majority of Muslims recognize that Ali was born in the Kaaba.  God willing, I will soon publish documentation about this.
: Have you conducted a survey of all the world's Muslims?
"Is this what Shi'a Islam stands for? Lying?"
Please cease and desist.  You are engaging in slander and defamation.  Please stop doing that and remove your offensive comments.  I also recommend that you deal with others more gently.  It very much look like you are too quick to condemn others.  You are not an Islam expert, yet you want to intervene in important public Islamic documents.  This not fair, to you that is, and to others as well.
: I suggested that Shi'a scholars MUST have higher standards than those being displayed here. I just wish that some of them were here.   I think I'm showing some faith in the Shi'a. Zora 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that any and all discussion of what "all Muslims" or "all Muslim traditions" believe should be removed from the article. That sort of unanimity does not exist in the real world, it is imagined up by the faithful of every tradition who fantasize about the unity and homogeneity of their people. Those sorts of absolutes belong in statements of doctrine by religious leaders, but not in encyclopedias. Babajobu 13:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Babajobu|, "all Muslims" does not belong in the this particular context, but it does in others. For example, it is correct to say  "all Muslims belive in God". Further "all Muslim traditions" is' correct in regards to the Kaaba narration. That is a fact. --Striver 13:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Striver, even "all Muslims believe in God" is inappropriate. It is certainly possible (and possibly certain) that some people who identify themselves as Muslims do not believe in God. You can say, "ah, but then they are not Muslim", but this statement makes a number of assumptions about the nature of religious or communal identity, i.e. that a person cannot define their own religious identity for themselves, that they must accept certain fundamental tenets of the faith to claim the identity, that a person who suffers from a crisis of faith has temporarily ceased to be a member of that faith, and so on. Perhaps all these things are true, but they are not so clearly true that Wikipedia can state them and assume them as simple fact. I really find it very unencyclopedic. If someone said "All Christians believe Jesus was a good man" I wouldn't even accept that, either. Speaking about what "all" members of any group believe is not the language of an encyclopedia, because in reality we can never know what all members of any group feel about anything. To claim otherwise is a statement of faith, not fact. Just my two cents. Babajobu 13:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, is see your point and agree. You are right. However, the article says nothing of the sort, so the point is irrelevant to the revert war, but it was a good point. --Striver 14:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol, well yeah, i guess I got a little side-tracked there. I also have problems with "all Muslim traditions", but that point is more complicated and I'm feeling too tired and lazy to argue it. Another time. Babajobu 14:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora, helping you find the truth 

message: Zora, quite it! It is NOT your job to judge whether it is true or not. You can contribute by saying what scholars (not you) say about this subject, so we can quote them. That is all. You judging whether it is true or not is the very definition of original research! --Striver 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 
In other words: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE SUBJECT!
--Striver 18:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zora

message: Thank you Zora, this was a informative talk page contribution where you explain your motives. More of this!
You wrote: 
:I again tried to strip out argument and exaggerated claims for Ali and keep the article as neutral as possible. This included removing material that I had previously let stand. Now that I have copies of Watt's books, it's easier to see what is from the earliest sources (Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and Waqidi) and what is later hadith material.   (Watt relies almost exclusively on the earliest sources he can find, and treats hadith as unreliable.)
Sister in humanity, Watt is Watt. Watt is not a representative for the non-Muslim view, any more than that the Montgomery is a representative for the non-Muslim view (remeber the Umar quote?). in fact, Your previous oftern quoted wilfered madelung in the preface of his The Succession to Muhammad (book) refuted Watt:
:"work with the narrative sources, both those that have been available to historians for a long time and others which have been published recently, made it plain that their wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified and that with [not without] a judicious use of them a much more reliable and accurate portrait of the period can be drawn than has so far been realized."
So this means that one scholar (Watt) not liking hadith, rather going for early sirats, does not warant to expunge all hadith material from all Islamic articles, in fact it does not warant more than mentioning just that and nothing more in the appropriate article. 
If you relly want, we can start each article with:
:Note: Watt rejects hadith, while Wilferd refutes him.
And then continue the article with saying what comes from Haidh sources and what comes from sirat.
And you know what? Now that you have becom such a big fan of Watt and Tabari, i guess you will agree to include the tabari part where Aisha is quoted as saying:
: Kill the old fool (Na'thal, ie Uthamn) for he is a unbeliver (kafir)!
Or does that not qualify? If not, how come?
Actually, what the "early" scholars did is nothing more than collect hadith. For some bizar reason, Watt belived that the less isnad they recorded, the more credible they where. He is entitile to that view, but that is not a representetive view.
:Ali's bravery at Uhud isn't found in the earlier sources, per Watt. Neither is Muhammad's declaration, said to have been made before the departure to Tabuk, that Ali is to him as Aaron was to Moses. That's hadith material, not repeated in Watt. 
So what? Are you seriously proposing that we exclude everything Watt does not like? Wilfered uses Hadith literature, and so does 'all Muslim scholars. And yes, they are scholars, they are not biased goofs only because they are Muslims. 
This does not warant to expunge the hadith texts, only to be more carefull with sourcing it to hadith, and then in the Western view of Ali have a go at it and explain what Watt belives and why. In fact, ill do that right away.
:I had previously thought that the Shia view of Ali ibn Abi Talib article was useless, but perhaps it might be the place to expand on some of these contentious matters. 
Its not a "contentious matter" that Muhammad said he was like Araon, neither is Alis bravery at Uhud. We only have Watt making sweeping alegations of fabrications against all hadith. 
I really dont understand why you dismiss everything you dont like as Shia pov. It is beyound me. All Sunnis agree that the Aron quote is authentic, but you want to shuv it into the Shia view article. Well, that belongs to the Non-Muslim view article, in the same way that when the Shia reject some naration, they get to do it in the Shia view article.
This means nothing more than Watt can have a section in Western view of Ali where he can say he hates hadith and dosen't belive in any of them, and then repeat that those parts are in the hadith literature. That have nothing to do with either the Shi'a view of Ali, nor Sunni view of Ali, since all Muslims and a portion of the non-Muslims dont rejet hadith. You can also have Qur'an only Muslims view of Ali, where they can explain that there is no reason to belive anything about Ali, no mater where it is narrated, sira or no sira. If we are going to follow your logic, then we should start by expunging everything "Qur'an only Muslims" muslims reject, since they are the most "strict"/"demnading" group. 
It is enough that it is understood that Quran only Muslims dont follow Hadith & and Sira, it does not need to be repreated in every article. Same with Watt, there is no need to repeat everywhere that Watt reject hadith, it is enough to state it in the "non-Muslim view of" article.
:However, Striver and Zereshk are going to have to allow some critical views in that article too. Sunni Muslims criticize the Shi'a for ignoring Muhammad and treating Ali as the central figure in Islamic history. Those views should be there.
Yes, that is a part of the [Sunni view of Ali]] to explain in detail why we are mushriks for saying "Ya Ali", the Salafis can have a big section for making takfir on me. And of course, we can mention it breifly in the main article together with a link to the main article. And of course, also having a short section where Shia can refute the non-sense of holding Ali higher then Muhammad, peace be upon him.
:I understand that this is extremely painful for the Shi'a here. 
Not one bit. I love to have huge articles where we can expose the Salafi filth they spew, and also some of the normal clear headed arguments of good normal Sunnis like User:BYT. And the Shia answer to it.
:The more I delve into these matters, the more it seems to me that popular Shi'a Islam is based on the mythologizing of history. I'm not saying that this is ALL there is to Shi'a Islam -- if it were, Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan, who follows the Western academic tradition, would not still be Shi'a. Christianity survived its collision with higher criticism and I suspect that Shi'a Islam will survive its collision with modernity too. 
You are entitle to your pov, and there is no problem as long as you can remeber it is your pov.
I am not trying to REMOVE the Shi'a POV, as Striver and Zereshk keep saying -- I only want to make it clear that it IS a Shi'a POV and not universally accepted. Zora 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strivers commnets

message: Zora, William Edmundson gave his view of the Shia-Sunni debatte, and you came in and claimed both are wrong. What does that have to do with what he wrote?
He wrote that both Shia and Sunni agree that Muhammad said "homsoever im Mawla of, Ali is Mawla of", and the Sunni interpretaition of that is strnage - You answered that some Non-Muslim dont belive he said that. SO? What does the non-Muslim view have to do whith what he wrote, he wrote about things that Shia and Sunni belive are authentic and how they evaluate it, not a word about Non-Muslims.
And by the way, let me remaind you again, we are not here to figure out what he said or not said, only to report on what people belive. --Striver 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strivers answer to Zora

message: Zora reverted and wrote:
:rv -- this is NOT a hagiography of Ali; promulgation of Shi'a doctrine is NOT OK
i reverted back and wrote:
:What shia pov? What hagiography? What are you talking about?
--Striver 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are BIASED, Striver. You can't see your bias. It just seems like TRUTH to you. I'm probably biased too -- but at least I believe in trying to step back and present both sides. Or all sides, since there are often more than two. Zora 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im am not intrested in your sweeping allegations, comment the problem, not me. --Striver 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shia pov

message: Step 1
William Edmundson adds long comment to Talk page: 
Step 2
Zora answers right in the comment of William Edmundson and butchers it in the prosses:
Step 3
Strivers makes a copy of William Edmundson comment as it looked before it was butchered by Zora, and adds it above Zoras butchered version, he also adds "Zora choped up William Edmundsons talk page contribution, so i restored it." :
Step 4
Zora writes: "rv - Striver, you are not supposed to edit other people's talk page contributions. STOP IT!" and reverts Striver, removing Strivers copy of  William Edmundson comment:
Step 5
Cool Cat writes: "RV, Id call that vandalism please do not remove other peoples comments no mather how "ridiclous" they may feel." and reverst Zora, reinserting Strivers copy and comment:
Is this behavior ok? --Striver 01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocracy

message: Striver, now I see that you're reorganizing the whole dang talk page into Striver-defined categories. STOP! You don't have the authority to do that. You are messing with other people's comments. Zora 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it was better when you edited in the middle of others comments, without me correcting it? --Striver 14:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, im not. I have no promblem with you indenting. But i have a problem with you un-doing my edits, saying i should not edit other peoples contribution, when you did excatly that five minutes earlier. --Striver 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striver, STOP 

message: Zora wrote:
:I just revised the article -- AGAIN -- to remove all the Shi'a POV material recently introduced, and to correct all your misspelled and ungrammatical English. There was so much that was biased that it is hard to make a catalogue.
This is a good start.
: It is not fair to the Sunni to give YOUR version of their arguments, and then immediately follow with a Shi'a rebuttal. You're setting up straw men and knocking them down. 
What do you mean "my version"? What does it matter who writes it? Either its pov or not, dont give me non-sense as "you version". If its pov, then point to exactly how and why its pov, im not satified with sweeping arguements and accusations.
:Not only that, the Sunni and Shi'a sections blurred into each other. 
You are correct, we can leave the rebutals to the main article, or just have a very breif mentioning of them.
:You keep putting in YOUR preferred version of the Ali birthplace issue and taking out the article I started. Your version has little material, an ungrammatical title, and gives no space to criticism. The two articles should be merged. 
Your version is original research, uncourced and unsourcable. Ill give you a example:
*"No academic historian supports the Shi'a claim.". 
As if Shi'a scholars were not academics.
*"One hadith accepted by Sunni Muslims states that Hakim ibn Hizam, a rich Meccan convert to Islam, was born in the Kaaba. However, this claim does not seem to be widely accepted or publicized."
And that is all about Hakim ibn Hizam in your version.
*"However, most Sunni historians, if they mention the matter at all, say that Ali was born in his mother's house, as one would expect."
unsourcable original research.
Your article simply does not cut it. On the other hand, my article does not take the pov stance of having the Ali birthplace as the center of the article, and mentioning the other guy "by the way", but gives both narrations the same amoung of atention. Further, it sources most claims.
:It is not fair to say that if there are no alternate traditions as to where Ali was born, therefore he must have been born in the Kaaba. We don't know where most of the figures in early Islamic history were born, or even WHEN. 
Strawman argument, my article does not claim he was born there. The conclusion "therefore he must have been born in the Kaaba" is entirly your own, i have never formulated such a thing. However, "there are no alternate traditions as to where Ali was born" is factual and relevant.
:It is not right to include grandiose claims for Ali's bravery without cites. 
You are reffering to a section in the "Muslim view" section. Are you claiming that it is unsourcable?
"He is also recognized for courage in battle, seen as one of the greates war heroes of Islam, single handedly killing multiple enemy heroes and countless soldiers in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Khaybar. He is also reqonised for as a striver for peace and unity among Muslims, initiating in peace talk before battle, as in Jamal and Siffin."
There is not a single word in that section that you can challenge.
:Ali's bravery is NOT the main impression that one receives when reading the early materials. He isn't described as a coward, but other men are described as taking the lead in battle.
I dont care for your and Watts dear "early materials", that quote goes under the "Muslim view" section, so "early materials" is totaly irrelevant.
:The quote from a Shi'a newspaper saying that the UN has endorsed Ali is pointless puffery. For one thing, that article doesn't say which other figures in early Islamic history were quoted. If there were six quotes from Ali, how many quotes from the Qur'an? Muhammad? Umar? 
None. Zero. I have the PFD, you want it? Furhter, who cares about "other figures in early Islamic history", this is about the Ali article, not the Sahaba article. If you want to figure out if Umar was quoted ther, be my quest, but it is totaly irrelevant to this article.
:Again, that's just part of the problem. Ali is a sacred figure to you and when you edit the article, you turn it into hagiography. This is not a Shi'a tract; this is an encyclopedia. 
I dont agree with you. Every thing i add is either sourced or sourcable. You belive its not neutral? well, take and ADD other material that makes it neutral, you dont solve that by deleting material untill it fits your notion of neutrality. Fact talks for it self. If facts make him look good, well, though luck, maybe looking good is neutral and suits him. If you claim my additions are unfactual, then challenge that, dont delet "to achieve neutrality".
Now, take and respond to my responses in a factual and relevant manner, dont give me sweeping non-sense like "you cant write", " you are ungramatical", "you have secterian bias" and other non-sense. You have isseues, do like you just did, bring them and i will answer them. --Striver 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strivers respons

message: ----
: Striver, just because something CAN be documented doesn't mean it should be included in an article. If I, as a non-Muslim, say that an fulsome Shi'a article about Ali being quoted in a UN document should not be included in the non-Muslim section, you have to pay some attention to my views. YOU are not an expert on what non-Muslims believe. 
: To continue the same theme, you keep demanding cites when I say that academic scholars don't accept Shi'a views re Ali being born in the Kaaba. I say that they discount the tradition by not mentioning it at all. You say that if I can't come up with quotes, that's just "my personal opinion". You clearly haven't read any of the material save Madelung (you must have gotten a copy of it recently, as you're now quoting from it). Yet you're presuming to doubt my reading, of which I have given ample proof. You really MUST let non-Shi'a speak for themselves. You often give your own summaries of what Sunni and non-Muslims believe and when you are told that your summaries are biased, you go on the attack. Look, Ali's birthplace is not mentioned in Madelung, Watt, Crone, Berkey, Donner, Shaban. (I'm still waiting for Hugh Kennedy's book, which I ordered on dgl's recommendation). Those are major sources. 
: I just now went to my Questia account and search for any material on the birthplace of Ali. Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned. Here are the first two paras from a recent biographical dictionary (The Rise of the Medieval World, 500-1300: A Biographical Dictionary, Jana K. Schulman; Greenwood Press, 2002):
‛ALĪ  IBN  ABĪ  TĀLIB   (600–661).  ‛Alī is the son-in-law and paternal first cousin of the prophet Muhammad as well as the father of Muhammad’s grandchildren, Hasan and Husayn. Questions about ‛Alī’s position in the early history of Islamic rule led to the division of the Muslim community into Sunni and Shiite factions. Whereas Shiite Muslims recognize  ‛Alī as the first imam (the legitimate religious and political leader of the Muslim community), Sunni Muslims consider  ‛Alī the fourth and last of the so-called rightly guided caliphs.
‛Alī ibn Abī Tālib, born around the year 600, competes with Abū Bakr al-Siddiq, the first rightly guided caliph of Sunni Islam, over the claim to be the first male convert to Islam after Muhammad. ‛Alī’s father, Abū Tālib, had taken care of Muhammad after the latter lost his parents and his grandfather. Although Muhammad is about thirty years older than ‛Alī, early sources describe the relationship between the two as being very close. 
It mentions the dispute re priority, but NOT the claims to birth in the Kaaba. 
: You have some standing to speak for the Shi'a (though I suspect that many Shi'a would not agree with you), but you really shouldn't insist on defining the conflicting traditions. Zora 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoras respons

message: Thanks yet again for a productive reply. Here i go:
You wrote;
: Striver, just because something CAN be documented doesn't mean it should be included in an article. If I, as a non-Muslim, say that an fulsome Shi'a article about Ali being quoted in a UN document should not be included in the non-Muslim section, you have to pay some attention to my views. YOU are not an expert on what non-Muslims believe. 
sorry Zora, but im pretty sure you have the minority view here. UN is one of the bigest organizations in the world, and it addresing, even quoting large part Ali's letter specificaly (not inderectly) is noteworthy. UN does not quote 700 centuries people every day, and specialy not in their role as Muslim Caliphs. Specialy not when doing so in a atempt to influence its membembers. They doing it is extraordinary and meets every qualification of notability.
This information needs of course to be represented in the Ali article, and since UN is a non-Muslim organization, it has only one section where it belongs: The non-Muslim view of Ali.
:To continue the same theme, you keep demanding cites when I say that academic scholars don't accept Shi'a views re Ali being born in the Kaaba. I say that they discount the tradition by not mentioning it at all. You say that if I can't come up with quotes, that's just "my personal opinion". You clearly haven't read any of the material save Madelung (you must have gotten a copy of it recently, as you're now quoting from it). Yet you're presuming to doubt my reading, of which I have given ample proof. You really MUST let non-Shi'a speak for themselves. You often give your own summaries of what Sunni and non-Muslims believe and when you are told that your summaries are biased, you go on the attack. Look, Ali's birthplace is not mentioned in Madelung, Watt, Crone, Berkey, Donner, Shaban. (I'm still waiting for Hugh Kennedy's book, which I ordered on dgl's recommendation). Those are major sources. 
Zora, i dont demand you to give me quotes proving what you said, i belive you and take you on your word. I wrote that "non-Muslim scholars are skeptic and dissmissive" of the narration. That is the best you get from silence, you dont get "they deem it to be a fabrication". "skeptic and dissmissive" is a good deal. That is what they do, dissmisse it from their books, and you interpret it as a skeptical aproach. Acctualy, "skeptical" is to much without they expresing skepticism regarding it.
:I just now went to my Questia account and search for any material on the birthplace of Ali. Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned. Here are the first two paras from a recent biographical dictionary (The Rise of the Medieval World, 500-1300: A Biographical Dictionary, Jana K. Schulman; Greenwood Press, 2002):
You should take that "Nothing. Tradition is not even mentioned." as a proof of lack of alternative narrations of his birthplace, you know that non-Muslims would be all over it if it existed a alternative narration.
:‛ALĪ  IBN  ABĪ  TĀLIB   (600–661).  ‛Alī is the son-in-law and paternal first cousin of the prophet Muhammad as well as the father of Muhammad’s grandchildren, Hasan and Husayn. Questions about ‛Alī’s position in the early history of Islamic rule led to the division of the Muslim community into Sunni and Shiite factions. Whereas Shiite Muslims recognize  ‛Alī as the first imam (the legitimate religious and political leader of the Muslim community), Sunni Muslims consider  ‛Alī the fourth and last of the so-called rightly guided caliphs.
:‛Alī ibn Abī Tālib, born around the year 600, competes with Abū Bakr al-Siddiq, the first rightly guided caliph of Sunni Islam, over the claim to be the first male convert to Islam after Muhammad. ‛Alī’s father, Abū Tālib, had taken care of Muhammad after the latter lost his parents and his grandfather. Although Muhammad is about thirty years older than ‛Alī, early sources describe the relationship between the two as being very close. 
That article let a pov slipp in, it gave Abu Bakr the honorific "al-Siddiq".
:It mentions the dispute re priority, but NOT the claims to birth in the Kaaba. 
It also did not mention that Ali broke the door of Khaybar with his own hands. Im not surprised. In fact, it dint even mention that Ali was the only one that dared to face the hero that jumped over the moat in the Battle of the trench. Or that he followed in all the battles, exept the one he was promoted to guvernor of the capitol city. It didnt even mentin that he warrior. However, it does not mean that Jana K. Schulman was "skeptical" or even "dissmisive" regarding Ali being a warrior or that he regards everything he did not report with a "skeptical" or even "dissmisive" view, even less that his exclusion can be interpreted as he branding it as fabrictation. 
However, a patern of Non-Muslim Islamic scholars not addresing the narration of Ali being born in the Kaaba warants "dissmissive". "Dissmissive" of the born in the Kaaba is a fair catch, i even throuhg in "skeptical" in the deal, that is more than fair.
:You have some standing to speak for the Shi'a (though I suspect that many Shi'a would not agree with you), 
I have only seen one single Shi'a not endorsing everything i have writen, that was outside Wikipedia in a swedish forum, but he didnt bother to comment what he thought could be improved, after me asking for his involvment. Two, if you include my father giving me advice of things i plan to include. 
That is a good record, not a single Shi'a Wikipedian editor has questioned anything i have writen or done, talk page included. One actualy gave me a Barnstar for representing the Shi'a view, another told i represented 100 000 Shi'a. I see no reason for questioning the validity of my ability of representing Shi'as. 
:but you really shouldn't insist on defining the conflicting traditions. 
You have no problem in doing so, and i see no reason to give upp my right of representing views i do not endorce, while you retain that right.
If you feel that i represent them in a inacurate way, then i invite you to share that, so we can see what argumets are most firm, and everntualy reach consencus.
Having that said, i feel that i have responded to your concerns and given satisfacory justifications for my stance, and are now going to restore my prefered version.
I appreciate your raising the concerns you raised, and i await your repons to my respons. Peace. 
--Striver 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strivers respons