Talk:Ali/Archive 2

message: There' s an important message for you there that I think will make life a lot easier for everyone. Striver has made a very generous and graceful suggestion. BrandonYusufToropov 19:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakthrough -- Zora please check your talk page 

message: Zora, what are you doing? Manny of the things you removed wherent even Shia pov, and the ones that where clearly stated that they where traditions accepted by shia. Please explain how you motivate each single ommision. --Striver 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to elaborate the Shi'a view of Ali, do so, and I will copyedit. But the Shi'a-POV stuff, like the born-in-the-Kaaba, the dinner party, etc., don't belong in the main narrative. Zora 04:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you remove the non-Shia narrations? I really have a problem with you reverting everything when you dont like a potion of the edits. Ill remove the narrations that you call "Shia narrations" to a "shia view" article, untill i find the Sunni referens for them. --Striver 13:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora 

message: Im letting everyone know this before I make changes:
Ali was not "one of the first..." to convert to Islam.
He was the first man to convert to Islam.
The first BOY, the first man is Abu Bakr.
There are numerous sources corroborating this. Some from the top of my head:
*Dhakha'ir al-'uqba, p.58
*Manaqib of Khwarazmi, p.16-22
*Yanabi' al mawaddah, p.68-72 & p122
*Irshad of Mufid, p 4 
*Shiite Islam, Tabatabaei, SUNY Press, New York, 1979, p191.
--Zereshk 20:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by the way, now she is insisting on removing everything i have added, factual or not, as shia pov, without having any idea of what she is doing. Remindes me of her removing my statement regarding Ibn Abi Bakr being burned in a donkey hide as Shia pov, a some month ago, only to add it as fact after having read her precious madelung... --Striver 22:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is my third entry regarding zoras latest revert: She commented "Removing Shi'a belief presented as fact" . I did not find any such thing and are going to re insert her blatantly Zora povish delitions. When she gets real, she can start to question some or all of the points, and we can have a discusion and consensus regarding the issue. --Striver 00:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Zora, i removed "This edict prevented Ali's angry followers from torturing the assassin to death." since it implies that they where going to do so, if it where not for the verdict. --Striver 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Zora keeps reverting without one word here... Fourth atempt to comunicate... --Striver 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Look, hundred year-old quotes do NOT represent current Western academic opinion
well, that is your statement, not the articles. The articles simply states that Simon Ockley held that view, nothing else. No, as for your comment, please prove that by refering to three western scholar that:
*A) Gives a alternative birth place for Ali
or
*B) Rejects the notion that Ali was born there.
If you bring three western scholars that make one of the above claims, i will either find one that dissagres or remove the quote.
(end of talking to myself)
--Striver 02:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: inaccuracy

message: Statement of invalidity of old quotes is made
:Zora, a 100, 300 or even 1000 year old quote is beter than what you are presenting: NOTHING. 
:You claim that quote does not prove that SOME scholars hold that view, however, you have not presented a single scholar arguing the opposite, not Western, not even a Sunni scholar refuting it. --Striver 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old quotes

message: Ali was the first to convert. No ifs, ands, or buts.
In addition to Ali having stated it himself in his own Nahj-ul Balaghah, and Nasr (which Zora amusingly dismisses as unrelaible), it is even stated by Zora's own references:
It is clealrly stated by Ibn Ishaq in p114 where he says: "Ali was the first male to beleive in the apostle of God, to pray with him, and to beleive his deivine message..." This is given in p153 of Muhammad and the Origins of Islam by Peters, F. E, 1994.
--Zereshk 23:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No more wasting time with Zora

message: For any arbiters,
I dont have time to go around and debate in cycles. Sources claiming Ali as being the first male to convert to islam FAR outnumber sources claiming otherwise.
So please tell these partisan editors to stop messing with the page.
I've outlined some sources: 
*Ibn Ishaq in p114 clearly says it. And he is considered by western academics as one of the safest reporters. I can quote, if needed.
*Peters, F. E says it in p153 of Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, 1994.
*Nasr asys it in Expectation of the Millennium: Shi'ism in History.
*Karen Armstrong says it in Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.
*Betty Kelen says it in Muhammad: The Messenger of God.
*The Sunni reference al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112, says it.
*The Sunni Ibn Hisham records it: Vol1, p245
*The Sunni Tabari says it: Tarikh al-Tabari, v2, p65
*The Sunni Khateeb al-Baghdadi says it, in: Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v4, p333
*Ali says it himself in his own Nahj-ul Balaghah in 3 places.
*There is a whole bunch of other hadith that I can provide from the Shia side. But the aforementioned shouyld suffice.
However, if needed, I can continue quoting more academic books again and again and again and again and again, until the page overflows with references.
So this is clearly not a mere Shia argument.--Zereshk 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop the Sunni Partisan editing

message: Statement of Ali compiling a Quran is being made. NOTE: This was not stated in the reverted version made by Striver.
The Quran Compiled by Imam Ali (AS)
There is no dispute among Muslim scholars, whether they are Sunni or Shia,
concerning the fact that the Commander of Believers, Ali (AS), possessed a
special transcript of the text of Quran which he had collected himself, and
he was THE FIRST who compiled Quran. There are a great number of traditions
from Sunni and Shia which states that after the death of the Holy Prophet
(PBUH&HF), Imam Ali sat down in his house and said that he had sworn an
oath that he would not put on his outdoor clothes or leave his house until
he collects together the Quran.
Sunni references:
- Fat'hul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v10, p386
- al-fihrist, by (Ibn) an-Nadim, p30
- al-Itqan, by al-Suyuti, v1, p165
- al-Masahif, by Ibn Abi Dawud, p10
- Hilyatul awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v1, p67
- al-Sahibi, by Ibn Faris, p79
- 'Umdatul Qari, by al-Ayni, v20, p16
- Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v15, pp 112-113
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, Section 4, p197
- Ma'rifat al-Qurra' al-kibar, by al-Dhahabi, v1, p31
--Zereshk 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran Compiled by Ali 

message: Statement of it being obligatory to love Ali is being made. 
Ibn Abbas narrated: When the above verse (42:23) was revealed, the companions asked: "O' the Messenger of Allah! Who are those near kin whose love Allah has made obligatory for us?" Upon that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Ali, Fatimah, and their two sons." He (PBUH&HF) repeated this sentence thrice. 
Sunni references: 
Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Part 27, pp 165-166 
Tafsir al-Tha'labi, under the commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran 
Tafsir al-Tabari, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under verse 42:23 
Tafsir al-Qurtubi, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran 
Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, under commentary of verse 42:23 
Tafsir al-Baidhawi, under the commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran 
Tafsir al-Kalbi, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran 
al-Madarik, in connection with verse 42:23 
Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, p25 
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p259 
Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Hakim Hasakani, al-Hanafi, v2, p132 
Many others such as Ibn Abi Hatam, al-Tabarani, etc.
--Zereshk 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligatory to love Ali 

message: Anything more? Can we revert back now? --Striver 02:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here (diff) is what is was working on before they concluded its a lots of Shia non-sense. --Striver 03:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, is that it? Only Zora that want to defend the claim that my version was POV? Nobody else? --Striver 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done? 

message: If you place poorly written substantive edits on this page, and you cannot be bothered to a) get compositional help from native English speakers or b) discuss your edits on the talk page ahead of time, you should not be surprised when your edits are reverted. Once problems with very-low-quality English prose are addressed, other content discussions can take place. BrandonYusufToropov 15:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, ill fix that before reverting back. Nothing more? --Striver 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Remains to be seen, Striver. BrandonYusufToropov 16:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a major article; this is an English language encyclopedia 

message: My brother in Islam BrandonYusufToropov wrote:
:Building consensus on the language will be more difficult if we persist in this courtroom-debate format, which I personally find not only stilted but slightly arrogant. 
:Ok, how do we make it less arrogant, but keep a short ant explicit notice of the outcome of the debate, and keep the debates separated, to ensure clarity? Lol, when i think about it, courtrooms are made in that format since they belive it to be the ultimate way of solving a deep conflict, and that is why we have here, not only one, but multiple deep conflicts that need to be separated, as to not have them munged (word is curtsy of Zora) together. I'm open to constructive sugestions! --Striver 18:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose we start with an easy issue and move forward from there. On this "born-in-the-Kaaba" issue, what kind of language do you suggest? Let's look at it together and see if we can come up with a draft that works for everyone. I'm willing to help build this part of the article with you. Tell me where you would begin in terms of a draft of this sentence. BrandonYusufToropov 18:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We're so close to actually working together to develop article content. Let's do that first. BrandonYusufToropov 18:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  courtroom-debate format 

message: Then, as to prove the contrary, i quote witness-pioneer.org, a 100% sunni site:
:Birth of Ali
:Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother.
:The Name
:Fatima wanted to name the child "Asad" after the name of her father. Abu Talib wanted to name him Zaid. When the mother and the child came home, the Holy Prophet, and Khadija came to see the newborn child. Since his birth, the child had not opened his eyes, and that worried Fatima and Abu Talib. As the Holy Prophet took the child in his lap he opened his eyes. The first person that Ali saw after his birth was the Holy Prophet. When the Holy Prophet was asked whether he approved of the child being named as Asad or Zaid, he said that as the child was born in the House of God, he should be named Ali, the word Ali being a derivative of Allah. Ali had thus the distinction of being named after Allah. No person before him had ever been so named. The name acquired further sanctity as it was proposed by the Holy Prophet.
So, having that said: i repeat my question:
:All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam; however, non Muslim contemporary academic historians choose to not mention it. One historian, Simon Ockley, retold it as a "strange" narrration History of the Saracens page 331.
Are there any relevant and sourced arguments against having that line?  --Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No more objections to this issue? The line is aproved by silence? --Striver 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 100% sunni 

message: ... would it be encyclopedic if it were?
To address that question, let's consult:
PRINCETON
http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/ali.htm
COLUMBIA
http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/Ali.html
BRITANNICA
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354999
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ORIENT
http://i-cias.com/e.o/ali.htm
BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK. Another approach. Forget whether Kaaba thing is true... 

message: BrandonYusufToropov wrote:
:Re: "You have been warned" -- this is provocative, totally unproductive language.  Make two rakaats or something, then come back to working on the article, ok? 
:We are trying to work content questions out as people who respect each other's work. If you plan to file some kind of administrative action against me or User:Zora, I for one would urge you to do so and stop talking about it here, because any such action would have very high entertainment value, and would only illustrate your propensity for instigating needless conflict.BrandonYusufToropov 16:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Salaam -- did you somehow not get the gist of my message? File it, stop talking about it, and please file it against me first, because I agree with her on this. BrandonYusufToropov 11:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding Zora

message: Tabari, that is NOT a book published by a contemporary academic historian. It seems to be a self-published book, available as POD (print-on-demand) or downloadable as a PDF. It has not been reviewed in any reputable academic journals, and received a scathing review on Amazon.com. The Amazon reviewer said that it was badly written and full of Islamic fables presented as fact. Zora 09:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Jubouri 

message: []
Curious yet again, and eager for anyone's explanation, BrandonYusufToropov 11:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, then maybe they can speak for themselves and clear up the matter. It's suspicious when a user's very first edits instantly and seamlessly go to one side of an ongoing debate. BrandonYusufToropov 15:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I now wonder who this OTHER [[sockpuppet]] is, whose outlook is strangely reminiscent of the last one 

message: Tabari, if you want to replace the Carlyle quote with Madelung, go ahead. But only one laudatory quote, dang it. A bouquet of praise is hagiography, lives of the saints material, and it's not appropriate in an encyclopedia. There are NO such quotes in Buddha, nor in Jesus, nor in Muhammad. 
I will remove all the extra quotes tomorrow, if you or someone else hasn't done it by then. Zora 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to that, you have my silent consent, first since we have not talked about the amount of western quotes that are appripriate, second, i dont care much for the current version, as im going to revert to Talk:Ali/Drawing board as soon as all objections to it are resolved. Peace! --Striver 20:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encomiums not appropriate 

message: Striver, please stop inserting the "academic line" bit in the Ali article. I have a suspicion that this is all part of a plan to link the Shi'a ulema directly to Ali and Muhammad, through an unbroken line of scholarly transmission, and it just won't do. Ali was not a scholar, he was not a member of the ulema. The ulema as an institution evolved slowly over the course of the Umayyad dynasty, instead of springing full-blown from the head of Muhammad, as Athena is said to have sprung from Zeus. Zora 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali as member of the ulema? Not!