Talk:Ali/Archive 4

message: Zora, i apologized to you here. However, that issue had nothing to do with this article, but you reverted me without responding to any of my latest answers (now in Archive 3). So, i aske you: What is the justification for you omitting so many things? --Striver 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zora

message: I don't want to go into this beyond the simple: Wikipedia doesn't do pov forks. There can be no articles about "Shia views" or "non-Muslim views" about anything. These titles are to be redirected to this article. Sorry, that's simple policy. If you want to branch out sub-articles, pick sub-topics, but give a balanced picture of various views on each one. You can take the material from the forks' history and compile them into something like Criticism of Ali or Criticism of Shia if you like, presenting all sides. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. We have had vfds about the issue, and it suvived. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab --Striver 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The deletion process is highly skewed in favor of keeping articles. When you have a claque of Shi'a voting as a body to keep Shi'a-POV forks, voters who feel intimidated by what seems to them a specialized subject, and no indication that this one article is part of an overall scheme to set up a POV fork for all major figures in early Islamic history, then you're going to get AfDs that fail. An AfD that grouped all the POV forks that Striver and Zereshk are creating might have a better chance of success. Zora 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, the vfd failed since the "X view of Z" format has existed long before i even came to Wikipedia. Anyway, there is to much material to have in one single article. --Striver 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: X view of

message: Dear Administrators:
It is first unlawful to out the shia view first
Sunni islam is 95% ( by antimuslems istimates) while shia are 3% and offshoot shia( non shia in shia view) are 25( Ismaili, etc)
Here most the editors are from the offshoot like Striver a nd Botonov, etc.
This absurd.
If you want to look your self in the mirror and see how beautiful you are then do that, but if you want to know the truth( encyclopedia) then you should not delete my editing which was reasonable ( if you really bothered to read) ( anon or adnanmuf)
If you keep reversing my editing I will contact other media resources to devaluate your encyclopedia.
As of now, the encyclopedia concerning Islamic topics should be named
exotic and occult views of the world, not encyclopedia.
for example 
The name of Ali is derived from God name?
this is absurd
I put that most names of God could become human names if you just take the Al- from the beginnings
for example
Halim is a man name
Al-Halim is God name
Ali is a man name ( by the way it was a name very prevelant in Arabia before Islam used by Infidels!!
What about the topic Born in kaaba?
Is Ali's all about just these few things you put.
Please purge the Encyclopedia fromthese perversions, or I will see to it that your site is devaluated
: If you think that some statements are presented as "accepted by all Muslims" when in fact they're only Shi'a beliefs, let us know. They'll be marked as Shi'a beliefs. We're not going to censor the Shi'a -- their views deserve to be there too -- but we don't want to misrepresent Sunni beliefs. Also, there's an on-going edit war between a few Shi'a editors and some non-Shi'a editors, over what should be contained in the article. You may have seen the article when it was in its "Shi'a phase". Speak up, or do some editing yourself. Most of us here want to be fair. Zora 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article and all other islamic encyclopedia are written by Shia ( even the Sunni view) 

message: Hi Zora,
First of all, Merry Christmas!
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali : “most famous collection of Ali's speeches and letters is the Peak of Eloquence (Arabic: Nahj al-Balāgha).”
I did a quick search and find out that “surely, the likeness of this world is that of a snake: it is soft to touch, and deadly poisonous. The ignorant child is distracted by it, and the one with understanding and intellect is cautious of it. So turn away from what fascinates you in it, for how little of it stays with you. “ is quoted from the Peak of Eloquence, letter no. 68. It is a pretty famous saying of Ali and deserves to be included. 
Would you please let me know what your concerns are regarding the quotes from Ali? Is it just the sources?
Thanks.
P.S. I didn't delete Mazar-i-sharif reference. Somebody else did it. There can be more than one anon :)
:An anon added a bit re Ali teaching a certain spiritual practice. I don't think that this can be stated as fact. From what I've read about Sufism and other such spiritual practices, a great many traditions trace their practices back to Ali -- however, since the practices became widespread many centuries after Ali's death, academics believe that it is much more likely that they are late inventions. Perhaps we should have a section on Sufism and Ali, in which both opinions (practices taught by Ali and practices merely attributed to Ali) can be laid out. Zora 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali as spiritual teacher 

message: Fix double redirects.
Shinobu 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some work for someone with too much time on his hands

message: Please do not move the page without discussion.  In English, he is almost always referred to simply as "Ali".  The patronymic only adds confusion, since it is almost never used in English, and is unnecessary - there is nobody else who is commonly known as simply "Ali".  john k 05:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Location 

message: I rewrote more extensively. How's that? Zora 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another try 

message: This may be completely trivial to most people(!), but at least it hopefully isn't contentious, unless you want to argue which system is best for Arabic transliteration. I don't know if there is a policy on this (though from browsing Islām related pages there doesn't seem to be), but I think, after the Arabic script might be `Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib; as per the Prophet's page, or something to that effect if I am mistaken in my transliteration. Khiradtalk 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add it. I'm just starting to learn Arabic. We have relatively few Arabic-speaking editors on board. If you folks started some kind of Arabic language project to pick a system of transliteration, and make sure that all relevant words are properly given in Arabic script and then transliterated, that would be GREAT! Zora 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: This page is awful. It said that Abu Talib died so Muhammad was forced to live with Abu Talib. It's as if someone purposefully wrote nonsense. KI 15:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did it say that Abu Talib died? Muhammad's father and grandfather died, but they weren't Abu Talib. Zora 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual inaccuracy

message: Please Zora. See how many sunni books mention Karram-Allah-u Wajhahu and them remove it.
YOu have really to take it in good faith. See for example Miftah 
those are actual books you can buy.
always look  for  كرم الله وجهه because not all of the seraches necessarily have the whole honorific as such.  The Peace WorshipperTalk to TPW129. 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all Sunnis believe that Muhammad and Ali were hanif. There are too many hadith and passages in the sira relating to Muhammad's participation in pagan worship. Ali, as a member of his household, would have taken part. Zora 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karrama Allahu Wajhahu 

message: Zora, can you please explain why you removed the following from the article. Thanks
Shia sources report the following quote attributed to Ali as a response to the people of Medina who asked him to accept the rulership  http://quran.al-shia.com/en/lessons-from-the-quran/imamate.htm  http://www.al-islam.org/lessons/5.htm:  
: I swear by the Creator of this Universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me; had they not manifested profound gratitude for my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; and had Allah, the Almighty not taken a promise from the learned to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of Oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and downtrodden, and had He not made it incumbent upon them to secure back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful oppressors, I would even now have left the rulership of this State as I did earlier and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos. Then you would have seen that in my view the glamour of a vicious life of your world is no better than the sneezing of a goat.
--Aminz 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: It has been proven that Ali killed thousands of iranians that stood in his way, well you have to assume good faith, they probably deserved it for not forgetting about their language and culuture and converting to islam. But he didn't seem to mind having more than 150 persian wifes, well then again perhaps they liked him for the man he was. --Spahbod 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --Striver 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Bahram Moshiri has proven it several times in his television programms, but hes far from the only one with the proofs in his hands, it has been proven a long time ago. Its ok tho, it was not only him, almost every arab including the Imams that walked in persia in the time of the conquest has killed some persians and have had some persian wifes. So the shias don't have to worry about getting all the credit. Ironically it was the Caliphes that limited the amount of persian wifes an arab citizen could have, and if they had not done so there would be no persian women left after a few generations, so you have to give them some credit for thinking about the future. --Spahbod 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, i propose you specify your sources better than "he said it in his show" and then add it to non-Muslim view of Ali. --Striver 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i didn't say "he said it in his show". I said he has proven it over and over by showing parts of historical books and documents that proofs it. However you make a good point, i will have to buy his book Two Disasters, "Two Reflections, describing Mongol and Arab attacks on Iran and their consequences." to add the proof here. I suggest you buy it too. To see, well i was gonna say the truth, but you have to judge for yourself of course. --Spahbod 06:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange 

message: As a Muslim I'm ashamed to see this article is so weak. I scanned the talk page of this article. It's terrible. You always have editorial war and somebody does authoritative edits. But the article is very weak. There isn't reference for most of the article. It is weak and it is defective. Why this article should be so terrible although most of the Muslims accepts Ali's position even Tabari has written a book about Ghadir!!!--
I've worked for 2 weeks on 2 controversial articles: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and Hezbollah. Please go and look at them. Although there was diversity of opinions but it was useful and editors could comply on the text. But I don't see such a thing here.--Sa.vakilian 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, that's why I added the tags. I'm not familiar with sources and I was hoping someone would be inticed to fix it up. It appears that this page has been mostly abandoned. There is almost a constant stream of Shi'a style vandalism. Cuñado  - Talk 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article so weak

message: ::I added a quotation from Tafsir al-Mizan which is a valid source and --Sa.vakilian 12:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tafsir Almizan

message: This site  is reliable among Shiites. According to it "This Center whose goal is to spread the Shi`ite culture through the WEB and create a kind of strong relation between the theological class and the public, is being managed under the supervision of the office of His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (may Allah protect him)." So we can refered to it.--Sa.vakilian 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-shia.com

message: I suggest moving this to ‘Ali. I have been trying to format Arabic titles to be the correct transliteration and include the ayin character. It's the way Britanica does it, as well as any other academic sources. Cuñado  - Talk 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, PLEASE, do not do that, per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/names!--Striver 01:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  change of title 

message: Anons and new editors keep adding Shi'a polemic garbage. Things like this keep sneaking into the article: 
:"Hazrat Ali is the lion of Allah and all muslims love him and trust in his teachings. He is the leader of all Sufies and the true leader of muslims after Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H)."
I seem to be the only one who cares, and I'm not even a Muslim. If anyone out there can start watching this page, I would appreciate it. Cuñado  - Talk 21:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a bias 

message: We can use Ali's quotations to complete this article. For example we can use " Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah" to complete Ali's life after Rasoolallah.. Fortunately this site debates about the trustworthy and validity of sermons. If you agree, I can say each sermon or letter is suitable for which issue.--Sa.vakilian 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We can use [[Nahj al Balagha]]

message: Few years ago a collection of Ali's quotations was find in the VAtican library. But I find a reference for it in Persian. So what we do?--Sa.vakilian 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can't use it unless it's verifiable in English. But you might want to check on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cuñado  - Talk 06:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another book

message: Although there are too many similarities between Sunni and Shiite about Ali but I propose adding one Shiite and one Sunni reliable reference in each case.--Sa.vakilian 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunni and Shiite viewpoint

message: This sentence is wrong.
"The Kaaba is said to have cracked open so that Fatima bint Asad, Ali's mother, could enter, then closed behind her." 
Ali's mother like others entered from the door not the wall.--Sa.vakilian 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's wrong, that concept comes from Shi'a ahadith traditions and you can see some an an example -xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 04:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is showing the extreme mythical stories that have been created. See Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib for references. Obviously the Kaaba didn't crack open, and he didn't come out of the womb speaking, but we put those in to comment on the phenomenon of myth-making that Shi`ah have participated in about Ali. Cuñado  - Talk 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a mistake

message: Precise dates are given in this article for Ali's birth and death according to the Muslim (lunar) calendar. I understand that this "moves" in relation to the Julian solar calendar. Is it possible to give precise dates according to the Julian calendar for Ali?--Iacobus 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali's birth date 

message: User:Cunado19: Please tell me why did you delete the role of Ali in the "Battle of Uhud" and "Battle of trench" and  reverted Ali#Ali in Medina.--Sa.vakilian 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restore whatever I changed. Cuñado  - Talk 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a myth. Sunnies do not agree with such a claim. --Islamic 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Ali in the battles(Gazw)

message: It was nineteenth of Ramadan, while Ali was leading the morning prayers and was in the second Sujud of the second Raka'ah that Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim's sword fell and the life of the greatest warrior saint was taken away to his merciful Lord. 
There is too much poetry and not enough information in this passage.  Remember, non-Muslims come here, too.  Let the contributors think like journalists: Who, What, When, Where, and Why
The Sanity Inspector 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the last sentence is biased:and the life of the greatest warrior saint was taken away to his merciful Lord--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Death of Ali

message: I this articile should be changed, it shows only the shia veiwpoint of Ali. Bazel 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an OK article at one point, and it took endless vigilance to keep it that way. I'm short on time and energy and the Shi'a have turned the article into a religious tract. Bazel, if you go back half-a-year, you can find a version that is more balanced. Zora 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for that is because the Sunni viewpoint did not have any sources. We can't have unsourced material in this article.--Sefringle 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong Sefringle. I disagree with you. I think Shia and Sunni narrations are similar from historic viewpoint. But they're different from theological viewpoint. I mean both Shia and Sunni agree with events but they have different interpretations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shia veiwpoint 

message: As this is an article about a person, are there any pictures or paintings of Ali which we can add to this article?--Sefringle 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just imaginary portrait and I disagree to add such portrait. It's not verifiable. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Shi'ites view it to be haram to imagine the physical features of Ali (as) in any way, shape or form... Ahmad Husseini 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored--Sefringle 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia isn't a battleground either, and isn't the place to show material that is offensive to others, especially when that comes to race, or religion. Ahmad Husseini 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion--Sefringle 04:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are discussing isn't a criticism of our religion, it is something that people regard as good but we regard as bad. That is like me saying (hypothetically speaking) let's put a video of Holocaust victims in the process of being burned in the crematories. It would offend some people. But if you said, There are videos of holocaust victims being burned, that wouldn't offend some one. Putting a picture is Haram, please understand, and don't take this argument any further. Ahmad Husseini 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This portrait is imaginary and contradict with historical narrations. In addition I can upload other imaginary images which contradict this one. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: painting

message: Brothers, I would like to address the "desendants" of our blessed Prophet section. The Term Sayyid is applyed in Lebanon to many families like Moussawi, Nasrallah, these families are relatives of the Blessed Prophet, not just el-Husseinis, Ahmad Husseini 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Off Topic) In accordance to the Shi'ite council of Lebanon, it is haram to show Imam Ali(a.s)'s face, does anyone here follow this principle? Have you guys all ready discussed this before inserting the picture of the Imam near the bottom? Ahmad Husseini 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As-Salam 3laykom wa rahmatol'llah... 

message: In the many rewrites this article seems to have gotten, the chronological list of his life and actions seems to have left out actually mentioning him becoming Caliph.  It jumps directly from talking about before he was Caliph to talking about him dismissing provincial governors as Caliph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.180.88 (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Break in Narrative 

message: I have added these two sections but dont know how to make them under sunni view rather than a whole seperate section.--Rami.b 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: # 4.2 Innovations # 4.3 Ali’s sayings

message: There was an orphaned page called "Early religious history of Ali ibn Abi Talib," which was an obvious POV fork that has barely been looked at since it was created in November 2005.  I moved it here with a "totally disputed" tag.  It's under the "Early life" section of this article.  Here it at least has a chance of being sorted out.  I have no relationship with this article; I found it in the Uncategorized backlog.  Fishal 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New disputed content

message: We should have something on the religious commemoration of Ali's birthday.  Thanks.--Pharos 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday 

message: Recently, a number of changes have been made to the Inheritance section without any discussion.  While this normally wouldn't be an issue, the neutrality and factual accuracy of the section are both under dispute, hence the totally disputed tag.  The best way to handle this situation is to discuss the issues so we can all reach a consensus and ultimately resolve both disputes.  Edits such as this one are not only unhelpful but also blatant violations of the the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline and the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies.
The whole matter really shouldn't be that complicated, it just looks to me like no one has made the effort to discuss the problems with this section now.  I would ask that if anyone seeks to make major changes to a totally disputed section again, they discuss it here first so all interested parties can work on it together and reach a consensus. MezzoMezzo 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a vested interest in working towards a neutrally accepted version of these events so would like to help out in understanding what the points of contention are and work towards a consensus. I have copied the section below and would like to hear the various point of views and hopefully we can come to an agreement. MezzoMezzo, could you put your views on what is under dispute please first. → AA (talk) — 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help AA.  I'm only on for a little bit so i'll have to save going through the whole section until later.  However, my main point of contention was just that the disputed tag has repeatedly been removed without discussion, which I felt was inappropriate.  In a day or so i'll go through and state what I think of the section, and hopefully soon we can get input from other interested parties as well. MezzoMezzo 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed section 

message: I believe there are certain sects that may fall neither under Shia or Sunni category and they consider Ali as an incarnatiion of Allah. Need to get more info on this and add a mention of this in the article. Wikion 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ali as deity