Talk:Muhsin ibn Ali

message: I must say im surprised, i thought this article would be a Vfd the same second you saw it, dissmised as "non-sense shia pov proletizing bs"... i was wrong! You actully contributed to it and even added some shia pov! wow, cool...
--Striver 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: This article is has POV written all over it. How about the sunni view! According to the sunnis this never happend. Muhsin ibn Ali died in his infancy. --Imranal 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got sources? And again, do not remove material. And do degenerate the article by removing all sections. --Striver 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: What is the point of the image of the ambigram of Muhammad Ali?  How does it contribute to the article?  While the article has many stylistic and POV problems, the removal of this image should be a no-brainer.  It is a good example of an ambigram and would definitely be more appropriate on that page.  Kajmal (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambigram? 

message: The book is a Pen-USA finalist and has been praised by many including Professor Wilfred Madelung
page 71
page 72
«Short of actually following through on his threat and killing all of Muhammad's closest family, Omar was left, as he saw it, with only one option. If Ali would not come out, then he, Omar, would have to force his way in. He took a running leap and threw his whole weight against the door, and when the latches and hinges gave and it burst open, all six feet of him came hurtling through, unable to stop as he slammed full force into the person who happened to be on the other side of the door at that moment. That person was Fatima, several months pregnant with the Prophet's third grandson. Some say she was only badly bruised. Others that she broke her arm as she fell. But all agree that even Omar was stunned by the sight of the Prophet's heavily pregnant daughter doubled over in pain at his feet. As Ali bent over his injured wife, Omar retreated without another word. He had made his point. A few weeks later, the fragile Fatima gave birth to a stillborn infant boy. Nobody was sure if the miscarriage was a result of her being knocked down by Omar or whether she was so frail that it would have happened regardless. Either way, some overture might have been warranted from Abu Bakr, or at least from Omar, but there was none. Indeed there was less than none. To add insult to the injury that had already been done her, Fatima would now lose the property she considered hers. Soon asfter her miscariage, she sent a message to Abu Bakr asking for her share of her father's state -date palm orchards in the huge oases of Khaybar and Fadak to the north of Medina. His response left her dumbfounded. The Prophet's estate belonged to the community, not to any individual, Abu Bakr replied. It was part of the Muslim charitable trust to be administered by him as Caliph.»
page 73
«she never did recover from her miscariage or from the bitter argument with Abu Bakr. But perhaps most painful of all in those months after the loss of her third son was the ostracism she suffered ordered by Abu Bakr to force Ali into line. [...] When she knew death was close she asked Ali for a clandestine burial [...] Abu Bakr was not to be informed of her death she said. he was to be given no chance to officiate at her funeral.»
((We do not have heirs, "he said Muhammad had told him. "Whatever we leave is alms." Fatima had no alternative but to accept his word for it. Abu Bakr's reputation for probity was beyond question, whatever her suspicions. Sunnis would later hail his stand as affirming the supremacy of the communicty over individual hereditary rights. "You are not the People of the House," Abu Bakr seemed to be saying. "We are all the People of the House." But the Shia would be convinced that Muhammad's closest family had now been doubly disinherited or cheated as the poet would havi it: Ali out of his inheritance of leadership, and Fatima out of her inheritance of property. There was no denying the populist appeal of the message Abu Bakr sent by denying Fatima's claim: the House of Muhammad was the House of Islam, and all were equal within it. But as ever, some were more equal than others. Even as he turned down Fatima, Abu Bakr made a point of providing generously for Muhammad's widows - and particularly for his own daughter Aisha, who received valuable property in Medina as well as on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, in Bahrain. )) pp. 72-73
Kazemita1 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam  By [[Lesley Hazleton]], pp. 71-73 

message: This article is extremely off topic. There is more information about Ali, Abu Bakr etc. and about their struggles to find the righteous successor if Muhammad than about Mohsin ibn Ali.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.64.67 (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic? 

message: Does he have sons?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: so I presume not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Muhsin ibn Ali's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Madelung":
From Husayn ibn Ali: 
From Umar at Fatimah's house: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Muhsin ibn Ali]] 

message: Is this even sufficiently notable to merit an article rather than simply being a redirect? Looking through the references, I'm having trouble finding significant coverage of "Muhsin ibn Ali" as a subject rather than the incident itself, which already has its own article. --tronvillain (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it's definitely notable, as Muhsin ibn Ali is one of only three grandsons of Muhammad. There are also some mentions of works that focus on Muhsin, such as the page titled "Mohsin b. Ali - A Victim of Terrorism" in the "Further reading" section. In addition, Muhsin is included in many of the sources that discuss the event. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability isn't inherited, so being a grandson of Muhammed is completely irrelevant, and being mentioned in sources that discuss the event doesn't establish notability or a need to have anything beyond a redirect to the event itself. --tronvillain (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the two pages and Umar at Fatimah's house seems to be a WP:CFORK(this article is older); there is no additional information(not surprising in these circumstances) that justifies a standalone article. Umar at Fatimah's house should probably the main topic. However, a merger should be done with all due care; the subject seems to be disputed.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like Umar at Fatimah's house is meant to focus more on the event, as it discusses the aftermath (Fatimah's death) and gives more detail of the event from Sunni sources. I think that more information could be added to this article, however, to better distinguish it from the aforementioned page. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Update: I updated the introduction to state that Muhsin is considered as a martyr by Shia Muslims (with a reference). Hopefully this helps with the notability. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's potentially something, but it's not a terrible to simply be featured in an article rather than being the subject. As it was, the article was nothing but background and the incident that Umar at Fatimah's house, and it's not much more than that now. At least this was a merge and redirect, if there are going to be disputes they could be limited to one place rather than two. The current state of the references doesn't make this easy, but then most of them aren't supporting coverage of the subject anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like combining this article into Umar at Fatimah's house would reduce the visibility of the part about Muhsin ibn Ali, as Umar at Fatimah's house also contains information about events like the issue of Fadak. There are a lot of pages that link to this page with the intention of linking to Muhsin ibn Ali, but if a user clicked a link to "Muhsin ibn Ali" and was presented with a page that talked about Fadak, for example, that may break Wikipedia's redirect guidelines. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be reduced slightly, but then the subject appears to be only be known for two things: being conceived by Ali and Fatimah, and dying. It could be a redirect to a subsection of any of the relevant pages. --tronvillain (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This page doesn't reflect it (probably because of POV-related concerns), but Muhsin is an important figure in Shia Islam; he is remembered in at least one Shia supplication, for example, and has been mentioned in lamentations (such as those relating to the Mourning of Muharram). He's also respected by Muslims from other sects as well; his status in Islam has made "Muhsin" a relatively popular name among Muslims. I'll try to find more references for this and add it to the page so that there's a better distinction between this and Umar at Fatimah's house. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I see we have an edit war on this page.
Mainly about this attempted insertion of material:.
Not good. Please cease edit warring immediately.
And now I want to hear some explanations.
Why should this be inserted into the article?
and...
Why should this not be inserted into the article?Lurking shadow (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is inserting that comment at odds with the policies of Wikipedia? It seems to be an attempt to follow Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Could be. Do you have any sources outside of these from the Shia belief(biased sources, anyways, but there is very likely nothing based on sources that are not biased) that say that the miscarriage happened?Lurking shadow (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a quote in the article from Waafi al-Wafiyyaat (which is by a Sunni) that's directly in the article, for example, that states, "Umar hit Fatimah (sa) on the stomach such that child in her womb died." Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I now agree that this addition should not be performed.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Safadi's al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyat was misquoted though. He was citing the views of Ibrahim an-Nazzam and he censures Nazzam for holding such views. Clearly shouldn't be used to claim a Sunni support for a Shia narrative. We need other sources, preferably secondary sources. Wiqi(55) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on the page 

message: According to Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd edition, Vol 7, p.468) existence of this character is indeed disputed. As such, addition of "alleged" is justified. In addition, Snowsky mountain's version contained tonnes of primary, polemic, unscholarly sources (which he always uses copiously to give an impression that material is well cited) such as "Al-Masudi", "Al-Sharastani", "Sibtayn International Foundation", "Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal", "mohamedridha.com", "Tafsir al-Kabir", "Sahih Bukhar" are only a few examples. The article tries to portray that "Muhammad announced Ali's caliphate, and Umar et. al recognized him as such, but after Muhammad's death resorted to violence to deprive Ali of what was his divine right, in so doing they killed the boy. This is perfectly fine for religious blog entry. For an encyclopedia? Certainly not. Muhsin's entry in Encyclopedia of Islam (written by experts in the field and as a matter of fact balanced in all respects) consists of four short paragraphs with all focus on his reputation and reverence among the Shiites. Here it is the other way around. All focus is turned to prove that he was killed by Umar et al. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Considering the tense subject matter, I highly doubt that the two or three of you battling it out here is likely to be an effective strategy towards actually achieving a consensus. I think it might not be a bad idea to hold an RfC and advertise it at WikiProject Islam. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing the history, I do not think even rfc will serve any purpose. The best way is to leave the article esoecially the lead into previous consensus state, which is it currently in. As of now prople ard not even allowing removal of uncited content and addition of cited content.--1.39.167.245 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC?

message: Feel free to carry on edit-warring, but please leave my edit, which has nothing to do with the dispute, out of it. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added cn tag to the long-standing non-referenced sentences. BTW, why only selective/partial removal of part of the non-referenced sentences?--Fztcs 18:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I found that to be the most dubious part: Shi'is mourning his death and reciting eulogies for his mother (رضي الله عنهما), and both schools revering him, are at least plausible statements, even if there are no sources at present. (I have no objections to those being removed if someone else wishes to do so.) It's not as clear, however, that this, necessarily, is why the name محسن has become so popular; at least in my personal experience, most people I know choose the name for its intrinsic meaning.If you really felt that I inappropriately selectively removed content, though, then the solution would have been to remove the rest; restoring the text without a reference is disallowed under WP:BURDEN. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of name 

message: I had originally removed this edit because I did not see the benefit of adding the opinion of yet another writer or historian, which would not make any meaningful contribution to the article. I later realised that these were supposed to be the opinion of Sunnis, which in this context made the edit be worth a second look. However, I am now seeing some issues which may make its inclusion problematic. For instance, both citations used are ancient primary sources which lacked a reputable publisher, therefore violating WP:PRIMARY. In addition to this, the writers do not seem to have been especially notable and are far removed in time from the occurrence of the described event, having lived nearly a thousand years after both it and the lifetimes of every other historian mentioned in the article, thus leading me to question whether including their opinions has any meaningful benefit.Alivardi (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: the opinions of al-Maliki and al-Shami

message: There doesn't seem to be a need for primary sources, even al-Tabari. There are enough good secondary and tertiary sources on this topic, like Khetia and Soufi's theses. I'm planning to hopefully edit this article and will summarize the key changes here. Albertatiran (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing primary sources