Talk:Ali/Archive 1

message: Do NOT put picture please.
Why?--Zereshk 20:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon editor didn't explain, or sign, but I'm guessing that he/she feels that it's wrong to put up images as if they're to be worshipped. Is this another difference between Sunni and Shi'a? I know that many Muslims feel that ANY realistic art is wrong, but I didn't think that there were sectarian differences in the matter. Zora 11:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Is Islam iconoclastic, and is there hadith that forbids or discourages pictures of imams? I have seen paintings of Hussein, though not in the context of an article. --Jake Land 19:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend moving the picture down to the legacy section since... that is a modern rendition and definitely reflects how he is seen recently... I think it's fine to have the image... and I'm not sure we need to go to the extent not to offend as they did on Bahá'u'lláh... I think it's more unencyclopedic to not show an image because of some objections... gren 21:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Other than the Prophet, of course. Or is this (as might be expected) a controversial point?
Nop, ther is no controversy, it was Ali.
--Striver 01:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt this claim that Abu Bakr was first or second male convert to Islam. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Bakr was around 20th person to accept Islam. Were all previous 20 converts women? I suggest we remove that claim of being first convert. It's clearly disputed in some sources OneGuy 19:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid suggestion. Speaking for myself, I will research the subject further and introduce findings in Talk and article edits hopefully on Feb 13 or 14.--A. S. A. 19:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
First Converts to Islam (consensus knowledge among both Sunni & Shia scholars):
1) First women convert = Khadija w/o Prophet. Then the only wife of Prophet.
2) First child convert = Ali ibn Abi Talib. He lived under Prophet's guardianship.
3) First male adult convert = Abu Bakr Al Sideeq. Prophet's closest friend.
These converts were also in the order as mentioned above. I am not sure if these were the first 3 converts.
--Atif.Hussain
Just deleted an absolutely absurd and illogical comment which was posted without reference or signature. --Ishq Ali 14:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought Abu Bakr was first male to embrace Islam? 

message: That sentence doesnt belong here. Based on the following reasons:
#Irrelevancy. Just because the word "Sunni" is mentioned in the article doesnt make Sunni opinions about Shias relevant inthis article. This page is about the Biography of Ali. Your claim should go on the "Sunni vs. Shia differences" page.
#It is baised: The sentence is clearly promoting Sunnism by its "Not so in Sunni Islam" reference. If you insist it belongs here, then you must change its pro-Sunni tone. 
#It is inaccurate: If you still insist on keeping that, then you must also add the Shi'a answer to your claim. In the Shi'a view, as far as ordinary people, the "Sayyed" is only a nominal designation. Very similar to the British title of "Knighthood": It is only a title. Shias do not "enjoy special privileges" as you say, in their societies. It is only a designation for respect.--Zereshk 23:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sayyed debate

message: After a great deal of fruitless googling, I found a source that stated that sharif and sayyid were simply two words for the same thing, in Arabic and Farsi respectively. Because Shiism is strongest in Iran, Shi'a naturally tend to use the Farsi word. Given that many Arabic rulers boast of being sharifs, I really can't agree that Sunni Muslims reject distinctions based on descent. The section on Muhammad's descendents in the Muhammad article conflates sharifs and sayyids, and no one has objected. Therefore I changed this section of the article. Zora 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the one lone link is testament enough that this is not reliable information. While Sharrif  are somewhat of synonyms, they are not the same. Also, Sayyed is an Arabic word which made its way into Farsi and Urdu due to Quranic influence. --AladdinSE 04:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)and Sayeed
I would like to correct Zora, Shiism is not strongest in Iran, correct it is around the area, but I need not remind you that Shiism is even stronger in Iraq, a arabic speaking nation. Secondly a Sayyed according to shia terminology if you will, is a title that implies direct relation to one of the 12 imams and consequently Ali ibn Abe Talib. You people need to wake up, with all due respect, many Sunnies to this day have issues with someone saying they're a sayyid, its like wow oh my no way, while they have no problem with calling King Hussein and his Son Sayyeeds... hmm I think we need to open our eyes a little wider, as far as AladdinSE, I'd like to ask you are you a linguest? Because you seem to like to talk as though you are, the pharasee word for sayyid is Agha.  
----
Given that:  
* the statement that sayyid and sharif are synonyms has been  included in the Muhammad article for months
* ditto, statements re Muslims as a whole respecting descendents of Muhammad (which is not to say that they all share Shi'a beliefs) 
and that none of the Sunni editors have  complained, I'm not sure that I understand your objections. Exactly HOW are sharif and sayyed different? I'm not an Arabic speaker -- are you? Is there anyone else here who is? 
As for all your other reverts -- you seem to be really really attached to your prose, Aladdin, even when it's not the best English. For example -- your insistence on using the word "convoy" for the pilgrims. Convoy is usually used for vehicles, like trucks or ships travelling together, or for the physical act of protecting a gaggle of travellers and their vehicles ("We convoyed the trucks across the pass."). Using it for a party or band of pilgrims on foot, camels, or  horses just plain gives the wrong image. Ditto for other constructions you've used -- they're verbose, circuitous, or misleading. Am I going to have to fight to modify each one, as you defend your ego and your prose to the death? 
I don't think my prose is always perfect, and I've often been corrected by other editors. Usually I look at it and recognize that they've made the original wording clearer, simpler, or more precise. That's what we want in Wikipedia. Clear, simple, and precise. You don't get that by blindly reverting to your own version when anyone else makes an edit. Zora 05:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect due sharifs/sayyids 

message: Ive read the "revision". These problems still need to be addressed:
1. The article still uses the pro-Sunni word "Shura" to describe the decision of first caliphate, without ever mentioning the equivalent Shi'a word of "ijma" anywhere. There's a slight but crucial difference. 
2. The word "Election" is still used objectively in the article to describe the first Caliph's coming to power. It titles a section.
3. The article claims Qadir i Khumm as the only event Shi'as use to back themselves with. This is not true. Nothing is mentioned about Shi'a fundamental claims such as Hadith-i Thaqalayn or other similar hadith and events. Or at least, a link should be provided to Succession to Muhammad in the text.--Zereshk 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV 2.0

message: I worked hard to do a Shi'a/Sunni neutral revision and Aladdin reverted it. When I have time, I will go at it again, piecemeal this time. Zora 08:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision repealed 

message: I haven't completely de-Sunnified the article, or so it seems to me, but I have changed a few things. Instead of referring to Abu Bakr's election, I've referred to his succession. I've changed wording that suggested that Hassan ibn Ali renounced the caliphate and said that he refrained from publicly advancing his claims to it. I don't think Shi'a would agree that he did renounce it, or that he could have renounced it, since in their opinion, he was imam by God's will. I've removed a bit re Ali being Abu Bakr's closest advisor -- Madelung says that this is Sunni propaganda. Abu Bakr distrusted him to an extent, and kept him at arm's length. Ali, however, did not intrigue against Abu Bakr. All this could be argued at length, but it seems easiest to delete the questionable claim. 
Someone changed the bit re the Hashemites to include other "royal families". I tweaked that a bit and removed the "praise be upon him". The usual Muslim interjections are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Zora 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt 

message: An anon editor keeps removing an Iranian picture of Ali; Zereshk keeps adding it. 
The anon editor doesn't explain why he removes it; possibly he feels that picturing Islamic figures is shirk, and possibly he dislikes the Iranian origin. Or it could be that he sees no value in a picture that is purely imaginary. 
I don't care whether the picture is there or not. I'm staying out of this one. Zora 02:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture 

message: An anon editor changed Ali's birth year, and added a birth date. He/she didn't give any reason for this. I've left it, since I don't know that it's wrong, but I'd sure like to hear from other editors as to accepted dates. Zora 10:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali's birthdate 

message: An anon editor changed the wording of "most Shi'a accept Hassan as the second imam" to "all Shi'a ...". I'll leave it like that for now, since I can't find the reference, but I'm fairly sure that there was a reference somewhere, in an academic history of Islam I'm reading, to a sect of Shi'a, now extinct, who accepted Hussein as the second imam. That's all, just me being nitpicky. Zora 16:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, that's useful if true, but I can't confirm it. Can you direct me to some online resources that would confirm it, please? Zora 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Shi'a -- All Shi'a 

message: Striver removed my contribution (a quote from Nahjul Balagha), saying it's a Sunni POV.  As he mentions in his own comment, it's from a Shia book.  How he can even begin to bring up Sunni POV when all the external links are Shia based, I don't know.  In fact this article is more Shia POV than Sunni.  Striver, don't do it again!
--GNU4Eva 19:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Asalam aleikom GNU4Eva.
It was abvious that with that Nahj al-balagha referens you wanted to covertly claim that Ali does not like shias. That is not the case. I do agree with the statement you quoted, and in my POV it is obviously talking about people that deidyfie Ali, like the alawis. 
If you insist in qouting that part of Nahj al-Balagha, then also quote this part to balance the POV: 
Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)[2] dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.
Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.
(ref)
Here is the rest, i add it for your education:
It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.
Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group[4] and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth[5] like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.
At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:
That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones.
(Qur'an, 28:83)
Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.
(It is said that when Amir al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)
So, if you want to give some sunni POV ref from Nahj, then dont forget to bring this one to.
Ma salam
--Striver 21:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striver, why delete my contribution? 

message: An anon added a list of Ali's best-known sons to the article. It was INFO, and I didn't want to delete it, but I could also see that it could metastisize (sp?) and eat the article. So I moved it to an new article, Descendents of Ali ibn Abi Talib. I think all his wives and descendents, at least down to grandchildren, should be listed. That would help make sense of some later Islamic history, for one thing. I don't have the time or resources to do the research, but I figure other editors here should be able to supply what's needed. Zora 14:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that list, (hey what's with the anon title! ;-) ) but unfortunately I have not been able to find a list that names all his children. It was, more than anything, a stub.  What I'd liked to have happen was that each child could be listed (birth info if available) and to which mother s/he belonged to.   I like the idea of listing all his descendants to his grand children.  Now if only all the information could be located!! --GNU4Eva 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I didn't mean to slight you, Mr. Emacs enthusiast <g>. Chalk it up to writing in the wee hours. I'm glad you like the idea. I'd bet that some of our Shi'a editors could fill in the info. Zora 20:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Ali's descendents 

message: Given the historic, age-old bitterness of the debate over image-making, and the likelihood of ongoing Sunni vandalism at Islamic pages featuring images of prominent Islamic figures, might it make sense, purely from a logistical sense, to delete the image of Ali?
Not condemning anyone, or calling anyone a heretic, or anything like that. Honest. Just thinking of all the reverts required... Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 21:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Bracing self) 

message: I reverted some outright vandalism. I removed Striver's hadith dump. I also took the para re pious interjections and moved it to a new Veneration section. I am not quite sure of the edits there, and would appreciate some help. 
When people speak, do they append these pious interjections in Quranic Arabic, or in the local dialect or language? What do these interjections sound like in Quranic or classical Arabic? Do Muslims use the acronyms (like PBUH and SAW) when speaking? Or is that only in writing? What are the acronyms used specifically for Ali? Do Sunnis say "Honored be his face" -- or whatever it is -- or is that only a Shi'a practice? Finally, there are some websites that do the PBUHs and SAWs in beautiful, teeny-tiny Arabic calligraphy, so that the interjection looks like a smudge. Can we have some of those copied en large and inserted here? Zora 07:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various edits 

message: Here is Alis answer to Abu Bakr according to Tabari. He did not mention vers number:
Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance.  Al-Abbas came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance.  Ali came with them.  Thereupon Abu Bakr said, “The Apostle of Allah said, “We leave no inheritance, what we leave behind us is sadaqah.”  I shall make provisions for those for whom the Prophet had made.”  On this Ali said, “Sulayman (Solomon) inherited Dawud (David), and Zakariya said, ‘He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Yaqab (Zachariah and John the Baptist)’”.  Abu Bakr said, “This is as this is.  By Allah!  You know it as I know.”  Thereupon Ali said, “This is the Book of Allah that speaks.”  Then they became quiet and retired.  (page 393). 
But it is the following verses: 
[27.16] And Sulaiman was Dawood's heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.
[21.89] And Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: O my Lord leave me not alone; and Thou art the best of inheritors.
--Striver 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora added regarding Quran rebutal 

message: Who put that crap about Shirk up there in Ali's picture caption?
Shirk comes opposite to Tawheed. Nobody prays to Ali or the painting of Ali, be they in Iran or Pakistan. This is one of the misconceptions about The Shia that I tried to address in the article Academic Bias against The Shia (which is about to be censored, as is the norm). Shias and Sunnis alike pray to the one God. Ali's picture is not God's replacement (na'udhu billah), as the caption implies. Therefore the comment about the painting being shirk is BS, because the imaging of Ali is merely analogous to keeping a picture of a loved one, like your mother or father. I suppose Sunnis do keep family photos? That caption needs to be changed.--Zereshk 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The captions to the picture

message: I changed the wording. "Stabbed in the head" suggests sudden death. When you STAB something, the blade penetrates a considerable distance. Mortal head wound is better phrasing, IMHO. 
I also removed a para that someone snuck in there re some agency recommending that Muslims imitate Ali. It was in the wrong place and it's not especially encyclopedic. Zora 18:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's recent edits 

message: Striver, no reputable historian of Islam accepts the stories that you are trying to insert. Those stories aren't in the earliest texts and they show every sign of being later fabrications. You are trying to insert them as if they were fact. 
We give enough links to Shi'a sites that if a reader wanted to explore further, he/she would certainly read those stories and hear those claims. 
It is not up to me to show that they are fables, it is up to you to show that they are not. Cites from Peshawar Nights are particularily problematic, since the text has been shown to be a Persian forgery. Zora 19:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of Shi'a traditions as fact