Talk:Ali/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Ali. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Breakthrough -- Zora please check your talk page

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)

Zora

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)

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)

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)

inaccuracy

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)

Yes, i agree. And a lot of Sunnis. But not "someone", because she read that tabari had two versions, hence, its imposible to know. --Striver 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

This is my third entry regarding zoras latest revert: She commented "Removing Shi'a belief presented as fact" [1]. 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)

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)

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

Fifth atempt, still no contact... might just as well talk to myself:

She reverted the Simon Ockley quote and wrote:

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)

The very poorly written text...

... has been reverted. If anyone wants its guiding ideas back, please ensure that the next draft is written to encyclopedic standards, at which point we can discuss the (vast) POV problems that persistently creep into the article from this source. But embarrassingly bad prose is Job One. BrandonYusufToropov 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, lets cooperate to fix that. Could you tell me

A) wich parts of that section hade bad prose, or even better, help me fix it.

and

B) What of the claims where unfactual or pov, so we can balance it out?

Thanks and peace! --Striver 01:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited Brandon's version even further. I removed all but one of the fulsome quotes. This is just not encyclopedic. There seems to be a belief in some quarters that if the quotes are from Western scholars, I won't oppose them. Not so. It's a question of balance. This article is to give neutral information about Ali; it is not intended to praise Ali, or to convert people to Shi'a Islam. The claims re "born in the Kaaba" are better treated in the "Shi'a view" section. The hundred-year-old quote was deleted, because it doesn't prove a #$%@$# thing. I have seen enough shoddy hundred-year-old scholarship while proofreading for Distributed Proofreaders that I do not consider an old quote from J. Random Scholar as proving anything (unless it's a primary source, which this quote is certainly NOT). Zora 01:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, welcom back to comunication Zora, now i wont need to continue to talk to myself for a sixth time. --Striver 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dude....be kewl. She called you (and me) "mentally deficient and psychologically impaired". Me personally... I just ignore such belligerent people. The world is more peaceful without them. A Persian poetic proverb goes:

"That who does not know that he/she does not know that he/she does not know, shall remain in jahl (ignorance) until abad (forever)".

Just keep doing what youre doing, and youll be fine.--Zereshk 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem is that she keeps reverting even while ignoring the talk page, so i need to talk to myself everytime i revert back to my version, just to embarase her and force her to talk. --Striver 04:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Issues relevant to article

Western quotes

Statement of unbalances western quotes is made

It is neither biased nor un-neutral to claim that manny western scholars praised him to the heavens. What is unbalanced about that information? Is it unbalance scholars since some scholars downplaying his role or character? Which scholar? I have not seen any such scholar. In what way does it unbalance to present that he is highly praised among western scholars? --Striver 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Because he isn't. You're cherry-picking quotes. The academic material I read is neutral vis-a-vis Ali. Even Madelung, who often takes the Shi'a viewpoint, does not praise Ali to the heavens. As for the older Western scholars -- Madelung regards them as generally prejudiced against Ali. Lammens, he says, describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable". I am darn sure that I've read more academic material than you have and I regard those quotes as serious misrepresentations of the academic viewpoint. Zora 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Lammens, he says, describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable". Good, thats one quote. That makes it like 20 praisequotes vs 1 anti quote and x neutral quotes. Give me a few more neutral quotes... We are making progress. --Striver 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Now when i think about it, you stated: "Even Madelung, who often takes the Shi'a viewpoint, does not praise Ali to the heavens."

Then, what it this?

Wilferd Madelung:

"In face of the fake Umayyad claim to legitimate sovereignty in Islam as God's Vicegerents on earth, and in view of Umayyad treachery, arbitrary and divisive government, and vindictive retribution, they came to appreciate his honesty, his unbending devotion to the reign of Islam, his deep personal loyalties, his equal treatment of all his supporters, and his generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies." ^{The Succession to Muhammad pp. 309-310}

If that is not high praise, then what is? It is things like this that make me conclude that many things you say are based on nothing more than your personal views, explaining why you so seldom give counter evidence in arguments. Im "cherry-picking quotes"? Your own favorite author is a perfect example of my stance!--Striver 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, this quote does not belong in the article. "Favorite author" has nothing to do with it; this is hagiographic material. Please do not insert.BrandonYusufToropov 17:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It has to do with his legacy and the impresion he has made on the world. That is the importance. Not to mention that he is praised for his virtues among the majority of the neutral scholars is to ommit facts relevant to him. --Striver 17:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still disagree with you on this one, Striver. BrandonYusufToropov 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that we have a "Shia view" and a "Sunni view", but having a "Secula view" is not acceptable? Peace! --Striver 18:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I take that as silent consent, unless you give a answer soon. Peace, brother in Islam! --Striver 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ill take that is a silent way of saying you have no more objections to the issue.--Striver 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

NO it is not. You write copiously, move material, copy material -- it is very hard to keep track of what you are doing. There is NO @#$%$ silent consent to any of your edits. Zora 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Then dont be silent! This is a talk page, not a silent page! So, you belive there should be a "shia view", a "Sunni view" but no "non-Muslim view"? Why? Motivate. --Striver 04:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding unbalances western quotes is refuted

Old quotes

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)

Statement is refuted

Born in Kaaba

Statement of Ali being born in Kaaba being Shia only pov is made.

The born in the Kaaba part is not going anywhere, since both Shia and some Sunni belive in it, ie, its not a Shia only view.

I finaly found a source listing Sunnis beliving in it: [2]. That changes it from "some Sunnis" to "manny Sunnis belive he was born in the Kaaba" --Striver 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in the Kaaba. This should be mentioned at least as what Shias believe to be true. Furthermore, as far as Im concerned, the majority of western academia are ignorant about the Shia. Their view DOES NOT always equate to fact, as Zora is forcefully trying to impose. That's why I wrote Misconceptions about The Shia, to point just that.--Zereshk 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a Shi'a source claiming that various Sunni scholars believed that. Frankly, all such Shi'a claims are suspect. If the earliest sources we have don't make such a bizarre claim, then it's unlikely that later ones would be more reliable. Zora 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: Zora claimed Shias are unreliable, even when they refer to Sunni scholars that hold the same opinion.

Incorrect. The sources listed there are there for people to check. You have no jurisdiction on making judgements. You simply cannot call Shias liars and push your anti-Shi'i agenda. You cannot suppress the Shi'a voice.--Zereshk 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Further, it should be noted that Sunnis have no problem in belivin SOMEONE was born in the Kaaba, as their next-most trusted Hadith scholar says in his collection that the other guy was born there. How DO you dare to say "all such Shi'a claims are suspect" ?! --Striver 03:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The website Striver points to [3] is in fact very legitimate and reliable. Zora is trying to change history by claiming Shi'a sources are unreliable. She claims that the site, which is endorsed by these sources, i.e. 100 million Shia, is "frankly suspect". Interestingly, some of these soures are not even Shi'a.

Mas'udi does in fact say Ali was born in the Kaaba in his book مروج الذهب on page 2 of Vol 2. So does Sheikh Mofid in his ارشاد on page 2 Vol 1. The same is written in السيرة الحلبيه in Vol 1 page 139. The Diwan of سيد حميرى which has been edited by شاكر هادى شكر and printed in Beirut even says it where he says: ولدته في حرم الاله و امنه و البيت‏حيث فناؤه و المسجد on page155. Also written in: مناقب Vol 2p174 by محمد بن منصور سرخسى.

Even شيخ محمد على اردوبادى has written an entire book discussing Ali's birth in the Kaaba.

I can bring at least 10 more other sources by historians that corroborate this. This page is inaccurate if at least the belief that he was born there is not mentioned. No ifs, ands, or buts.--Zereshk 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

One: What language do you think should be used to express this point?

Two: 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. BrandonYusufToropov 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a "courtroom style" debate to you, because of unilateral edits that entirely disregard other opposing viewpoints. When some editors try to impose their version of things, you can always expect reactions like this. We're not even talking about "language". We're protesting the complete censorship of this info from the text.--Zereshk 16:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement is refuted

Ali first to convert?

Statement of Ali being the first male to convert is disputed. NOTE: This was not stated in the reverted version made by Striver.

Ibn Ishaq gives two stories, one putting Abu Bakr first and one putting Ali first. Since none of these traditions were written down until Abbasid times, it is really IMPOSSIBLE to decide which story is true. That's why "one of the first" is accurate -- it doesn't decide on priority. Zora 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Aside the fact that you are incorrect (and I dont have time to teach you why), the point is that at least a statement should be mentioned that the Shi'as believe it to be true. Your suppression of this amounts to suppression of the Shia view, which is unacceptable.--Zereshk 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Acctualy, if there is no way to establish it, it should go to the "Shia view" article. However, SOME Sunnis agree that he was the first male, no matter the facts. Further, the ibn Ishaq version needs to be looked at in detail. For example, if one is about the famouse dinner hadith, and the other simply states that Abu Bakr was fisrt grown up, then that would put Ali as first male, no conflict. However, that needs to be looked at to determine. Conclusion: Ibn Ishaq having two versions does not necesarily mean a contradiction. In either case, i repeat: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VERSION MY VERSION! If no further points are raised, then please revert back to my version. --Striver 03:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is unanimously agreed by both Sunni and Shia that Ali was first. What Zora is pushing as fact is a view in overwhelming minority, pushed by some malicious modern Sunni revisionists. There are 4 lines of evidence that Islamic scholars both Sunni and Shia have given to prove Ali was first. There are literally hundreds of sources supporting it. In fact, Ali himself says that he was first, in one of his sermons where he says: انا عبد الله و اخو رسول الله‏و انا الصديق الاكبر، لا يقولها بعدي الا كاذب مفتري ولقد صليت مع رسول الله قبل الناس بسبع سنين و انا اول من صلى معه‏

And also it's in Nahj al Balagha, I think it is Khutbahs #187 and #127. What Zora is saying is that either Ali is lying or that the Nahj al Balagha is inaccurate.

So does Mohammad when he says: اولكم واردا على الحوض‏اولكم اسلاما علي بن ابي طالب

The late Allama Amini of Najaf in fact wrote an entire chapter listing sources supporting this fact in his الغدير See pages 191-213

Furthermore, Nasr and Tabatabaei support it in Shi'a Islam (Book), p191.

Nasr is the ultimate source on Islamic subjects, in the modern academia. Zora has no case here. Period. --Zereshk 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nasr ultimate source? Zereshk, that is SO wrong. I just checked -- of the fifteen academic works I have that MIGHT mention Nasr (as in, they were published after he started publishing), fourteen have NO mention of Nasr whatsover. Not in bibliography, not in index. Just one book, Esposito's Encyclopedia of Islam, mentions him on page 297, as a Persian philosopher. He's just one of a list of dozens of names of current Islamic thinkers. He may be recognized as a philosopher of sorts, but he is certainly nonexistent as far as historians are concerned.

Of course Shi'a thinkers would support this claim. Of course Ali would advance this claim. Your hadith (untranslated, unsourced) may or may not be useful evidence. If you cite in a language other than English, do you really expect to "win" on the grounds that you can read it and I can't? Ibn Ishaq dates from the early Abbasid period when both history and hadith were first being written down; if he gives two stories, then it's to be expected that there would be a number of hadith supporting BOTH stories. Zora 05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora: You are POV pushing BIG TIME, and you know it. You are ignoring what The George Washington University calls "one of the major intellects of our time."[4]

So, a press release advertising a lecture proves anything? A quick Google brings up numerous other people advertised as "major intellects of our time" or "greatest intellects" etc. How about Mindy Fullilove, Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Richard Dawkins, Rabbi Siegel Adin Steinsaltz, and Leonard Bernstein? Sorry, rep in the field is usually proved by citation indexes, not by press releases.

No Zora, you are wrong. In Islamic studies circles, Nasr is considered a super heavyweight. Everyone knows that. He has 500 published articles alone. Im not going to debate you on this. Your ignorance insults my intelligence.--Zereshk 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It CLEARLY says Ali was the first to embrace Islam on page 133 of Expectation of the millennium: Shi'ism in history / edited, annotated, and with an introduction by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr. 1989.

Well, yes, that's a Shi'a source, it gives Shi'a dogma.

To begin with, your desparate polemic proves nothing. I can name a dozen sources that do not mention your authors likewise. It proves squat. When Nasr says something, you'd have to have a lot of nerves (or an agenda) to refute or ignore him. He has in fact written many books on the history of Islam.

None cited in major works of Islamic history.

His PhD was on the History of Science in Islam. His title is "Professor of Islamic Studies", not "professor of Philosophy". PBS [5], or The UN selects him as an Islamic scholar, not a Shia one, to lecture on Islam at the UN [6][7], and you give yourself the arrogance to ignore him? His biography alone blows away the accomplishments of all your authors COMBINED.[8] There are entire books written in honor of him [9],

Yes, that's called a festschrift. It's an academic tradition. Many many scholars have had festschrifts dedicated to them.

entire conferences in honor of him [10]. --Zereshk 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, many scholars, living and dead, have been the subjects of conferences. Zora 21:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No more wasting time with Zora

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)

" You shall inform my nation about the truth and what they dispute after me": Sunni reference:

al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112, who wrote this is an authentic Hadith according to the stipulation of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim). [This would mean that the chain of narrators are considered to be authentic as stipulated by Bukhari and Muslim]

al-Hakim also narrated that:

Salman al-Farsi said that the Messenger of God said: "The first one of you to drink from the Basin on the Day of Judgment is your first Muslim, Ali, the son of Abu Talib." Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112

Ibn Hisham recorded that:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the first male to believe in the Messenger of God and that he prayed with him while he was only ten years old. Sunni reference: Biography of the Prophet, by Ibn Hisham, v1, p245

The famous Sunni Historian, al-Tabari also wrote:

The first three to offer prayers were Muhammad (PBUH&HF) , Khadija and Ali (AS). Sunni reference: History al-Tabari, v2, p65

Also Khateeb al-Baghdadi, in his book quotes Imam Ali that:

Ali said: "I was the first one to accept Islam at the hands of the Holy Prophet." Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v4, p333

Despite overwhelming evidence, Zora still refuses to give up. And I just used resources at my personal disposal. I havent even used our library yet. Thank God for American public schools. Truly a blessing. Enough for today. I'll let Striver hold the fort now...

--Zereshk 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the Sunni Partisan editing

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)

Conclusion of argument irrelevant for reversal to previous version.

It is has been proven that Ali was the first male in Islam.

Quran Compiled by Ali

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)

Conclusion of argument irrelevant for reversal to previous version.

Obligatory to love Ali

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)

Argument is not contested

Issues related to Shia viwe of Ali

Imamat Ali

Statement of the Imamat of Ali is being made . NOTE: This was not stated in the reverted version made by Striver.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whosoever wishes to live and die like me and enter that heaven (after death), which my lord has promised me, namely, the ever lasting heaven should acknowledge Ali (AS) as his patron after me, and after him he should acknowledge the sons of Ali, because they are the people who will never leave you outside the door of guidance nor will they let you enter the door of misguidance." Sunni references:

Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, p155, Tradition #2578 Also abridged Kanz al-Ummal on the margin of Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v5, p32

--Zereshk 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a trial and you can't constitute yourselves judge and attorney. You have to get real assent from other editors, not just write reams of free association and say "If you don't publicly disagree, I'll assume you agree". NO I DON'T AGREE. Zora 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You not agreeing about the factuality of the topic is irrelevant. If you find a sourced statement contesting a topic, that would be relevant. Zora pov is personal pov is irrelevant to WP.

Here, ill show you:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 728:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas:

Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah's Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, "O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah's Apostle this morning?" 'Ali replied, "He has recovered with the Grace of Allah." 'Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, "In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else ), And by Allah, I feel that Allah's Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah's Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us." 'Ali said, "By Allah, if we asked Allah's Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah's Apostle for it." Bukhari

Now, that hadith is a obvious forgery, for manny reasons, but that is not the point. The point is that the claim is now disputed by a RELEVANT AND SOURCED scholar. Therefor, it can not be included in the article as factual, untill consensus is reached. And it wount be reached, since Shia and Sunnis will never come to the same conclusion regarding this issue.

Zora, unless you can do the same, that is bringing a RELEVANT AND SOURCED statement, you oppinion is personal is irrelevant to WP. --Striver 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion of argument irrelevant for reversal to previous version.

Statement of the Imamat of Ali is disputed.

Ali being a scholar

Statement of the of Ali is being a scholar is being evaluated.

Zora wrote:

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)

I dont know what you mean bt "ulema", i dont care much for that word. There is no such thing as "uelma" in Islam, It is "Quran and Ahl al-Bayt", not "Quran, Ahl al-Bayt and the Ulema".

However, Ali was a scholar. Ibn Abbas was a scholar...

He is considered to be the most knowledgeable of the Sahaba in tafsir. A book entitled tanwir al-miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (Beirut, n.d.) is a complete tafsir of the Qur'an. all explanations of which are said to go back to Ibn 'Abbas. [Ibn_Abbas#Legacy]

..., and Ali was a greater one, and that is undiputed. As evidence of Ali being a Scholar, i bring forth:

Nahj al-Balagha

A whole book dedicated to Alis teachings: his sermons and letters.

Ibn Abbas being a scholar, and Ali being more knowladgeble than Ibn Abbas:

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198

Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124

al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319

Fath al-Bari, vol 8 p 485

Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

ref

We also understand that the Shiites gathered around Imam Ali, who was the gate to the city of knowledge, and he used to say to them, "Ask me about anything, for the Messenger of Allah taught me about one thousand [doors] of knowledge, each one of which opens one thousand more doors." [117]. But the non-Shiites gathered around Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan who knew little about the Prophetic Tradition.

Tarikh Dimashq, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 484

Maqt al Husayn, al Khawarizmi, vol 1 p 38

al Ghadir, al Amini, vol 3 p 120

ref

And of course, the famous one:

The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak al-Hakim, vol 3 p 127

Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Ali was a scholar of Islam, that is, the teachings of Muhammad. --Striver 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's a perversion of the term to apply it to Ali. Zora 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? Why is Ali not a scholar, but Ibn Abbas is? Or do you belive a Sahaba can not be a scholar? Explain, talk, motivate! Dont just state your oppinion and act as it matters. Oppinions do not matter to WP! --Striver 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Writing letters and giving sermons does not make one a scholar. Is everyone who gives a khutbah a scholar? The term, as used in English, refers to someone learned in reading and writing, familiar with written literature, skilled at comparing competing traditions, etc. Al-Tabari was a scholar. Ibn Ishaq was a scholar. Al-Bukhari was a scholar. Ali was a figure on the stage of history, not a historian or exegete.

I understand that both the ulema and the Sufis want to trace back to Ali (or Abu Bakr) to establish their own legitimacy, but in doing so, they distort the past. Zora 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If in nothing else, he was a scholar of reading and writing eloquent Arabic and Quran exegis. Shia or Sufis wanting to trace their scholars to Ali has nothing to do with it, they can do it no mater what you call or not call Ali. You didnt answer, is Ibn Abbas a scholar, yes or no? If yes, why is Ali not a scholar?

No it isn't. I contest it. Moreover, none of the Islam-related books in my library calls Ali a scholar. Zora 11:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to uppdate that. You did not answer the question, is Ibn Abbas a scholar? Isn't he a scholar in tafsir? --Striver 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, still waitning for an answer, is Ibn Abbas a scholar or not? --Striver 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali being a scholar of Islam is discused.

Done?

Anything more? Can we revert back now? --Striver 02:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is a mess. I will rewrite it in a few weeks time, after Im done with some other things.--Zereshk 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is a major article; this is an English language encyclopedia

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)

Sure, ill fix that before reverting back. Nothing more? --Striver 16:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Remains to be seen, Striver. BrandonYusufToropov 16:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

courtroom-debate format

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)

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)

Do i have permission to reorganize and archive some of this page? You can alway revert if you dont like it.... A test`?--Striver 18:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Just to be clear: I will not settle with ommiting everything that has been blatantly sweept away whitout proper justification and then start all over again. As soon as the issues raised against the previous articles are waved, i will revert back to it. Peace. --Striver 19:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

developing article content

Born in Kaaba

Well, my work is here (diff), and that is what complaints where made against and then was reverted (accutaly, before the complaints). The accuracy of the article was challenged, and in the above separate sections i defended the balance and accuracy of my article. Regarding the Kaaba, it says:

Shi'a Muslims and some Sunni believe that he was born inside the Kaaba, the Muslim holy place. -Striver

dichotomy

Now here's my question for you -- so many of these conflict-heavy discussions with other editors break down to this repetition of Shia vs. Sunni beliefs. Is that dichotomy absolutely essential? Are we quite sure we wouldn't be serving the article better -- and preventing future revert wars -- with something like the following?

Some early traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this view is not unanimous.

????????????????????????

BrandonYusufToropov 19:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are no EARLY traditions claiming Ali's birth in the Kaaba. The earliest written texts we have re Islamic history say nothing about this. It seems to me that if it had happened, it would have been noted by authors such as Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. The tradition seems to be a late invention. Therefore I object strongly to BYT's proposed compromise. Zora 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- easy enough to revise:

Some traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this view is not unanimous.

Question still stands for Striver -- is it essential to posit Shia vs. Sunni in this and other controversial passages, or would we be perhaps serving the article better with a formulation like the one above? BrandonYusufToropov 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I could live with that. I can elaborate on the Shia and Sunni view article. --Striver 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, i take that back. First fo all, there are no traditions of him being born elsewhere, second, nobody refutes him being born there. "Some traditions relate" imply that others relate a alternative version and "this view is not unanimous" implies that somebody refutes it or does not accept it. I have not heard any scholar refuting it, all scholars i have heard of either accept or keep quite about it. --Striver 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What about this:

All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although non Muslim contemporary academic historians choose to not mention it.

--Striver 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora

Striver, they aren't keeping quiet about it. It's too silly to refute. Anyhow, here's one Sunni site that claims Ali was born in his father's house, as one might expect: [11].

You're operating from the assumption that any claim is true unless refuted. OK, I claim that I can levitate. Nobody has refuted that. Therefore I levitate. Hmmmm? Zora 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is YET another case where you see things you want to see, like demanding archealogical evidence for people pasing by a pond. Have you even read what you linked to?

It is an undisputed historical fact recognized by all historians that the Holy Ka'bah is the birthplace of Ali bin Abi Talib (A.S).

All traditions and historians are unanimous in saying he was born in Kaaba. You calim they are wrong, the burden of proof is upon you to prove them wrong, they have the evidence in their history.

As for "It's too silly to refute", we still have one direct quote from a admited western historian that agrees to it- Yet again, Zora pov strikes! Zora, pleace, i beg you, stop with your orginal research! Give us sources, not random oppinions!

All you have presented is that you have have not read a modern historian give a opinion about it. That means absolutely nothing. For all we know, there can be plenty of modern scholars agreeing to it.

Even if not a single modern scholar mentions it, it means just that, nothing more, nothing less, any interpretation of their silence is up to the reader to decide not you.

You not reading about it does not mean that they belive its a fable. It only means that YOU have not read about it. It being a fable is a assumption from your part, original research, and has no value what so ever to WP. --Striver 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding:

"Some medieval Muslim traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this is not accepted by any contemporary academic historians.

"Some" is false, it "All".
"medieval" is missleading, as it gives the impression that earlier traditions do not. Zora claims no early traditions recount it, but its her oppinion and that has no weight in WP
"not accepted" is false, no one claims it to be false, we only know that those Zora read do not mention it. Nothing more, "Not accept" is Zora pov presented as facts.
"any" is false, she has not presented proof of that, not even proof of "manny". And we all know how accurate Zora can be, i can right away show tree occasions where where Zora has accused Sunni sites of being Shia sites.
Further, it is biased to Zora pov to not mention the one AND SINGLE quote we have from western scholars regarding the matter, the one explicitly saying he was born in it.

Zora, im starting to get enough of your non-sens. Persist and we will have someone someone decide whom of us is not using due prosses, logic and sourcing. I have warned you before, DO NOT PERSIST IN YOU UNSOURCED ZORA POV PUSHING!

--Striver 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: Striver is officaly warning Zora with Arbitration, starting with RFC, for the second time.

the topic

Ok, back to the topic:

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 their any relevant and sourced arguments against having that line? Zora, you have been warned! --Striver 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I have responded to that here -Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no challenge against the fact that Ali [as] was born in Ka'aba.

Another approach

BrandonYusufToropov wrote somewhere else:

OK. Another approach. Forget whether Kaaba thing is true, 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)

I reply:

First of all, al four are both POV and inaccurate, none of the have WP standard and would be slaped with a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag i no time and warrant a total and complete rewrite. None of them are acceptable ny any means:

This is POV:

With the death of Muhammad in 632, the Muslim community was for a short period without a leader, and without clear indications on how to chose the new leader

And this is inaccurate:

In 658, Ali gave in to Mu'awiyya's criticism, and established an investigation committee.

More Inaccuracy:

For most groups of Shi'is, the hope of a just ruling elite inside Islam, i.e. a just Islam on earth, disappeared after this.

Read: Mahdi

And that is only found in one of the four articles.

Second, they omitt information between themselves, they cant even agree as to what is relvant. Considering that, it is uterly non-sense to evalate if something is encyclopedic by seeing if they have included it or not.

Thirdly, our article have already information not included in any of them:

Ali was also prominent on the battlefield of Uhud. He is said to have received seventeen wounds in the battle.

"Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me."

All Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a alike, agree that Ali deserves these titles:

Now, after having refuted what you sugestion of consult those sources:

I take your sugestion as a way of diverting the issue, something not very uppright. I now that you did not mean anything bad. You know vey well that a persons place of birth is relevant to a biography, specialy when he is reported to have been born in such a unusual place. --Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

100% sunni

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)

No more objections to this issue? The line is aproved by silence? --Striver 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep using the talk page, working together, and getting feedback

The article will be better if we do. Please remember -- a good edit will stick around longer than a hasty one. So please be willing to step back and work slowly with other people on this article. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam brother. I repeat myself:

Just to be clear: I will not settle with ommiting everything that has been blatantly sweept away whitout proper justification and then start all over again. As soon as the issues raised against the previous articles are waved, i will revert back to it. Peace

Once again: I will not accept to fix a few sentences here and there, and forget about everything else that was deleted by the revertion.

The issue is not about me not liking a few thing in the present version, it is rather you that have a problem with my previous version. Let us disccus my previous version and make changes to it untill there are no more issues. We will have talks here, feed backs and then implement it in this temp file: Talk:Ali/Drawing board. When all issues on it are settles, then will bring it forth.

The present version contains almost nothing of the previous. I sourced everything well and i see no reson for you removing the information.

Im gona make a few changes to the previous on the drawing bord, to reflect talks so far, Peace! --Striver 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam. Any more complains to Talk:Ali/Drawing board, or can we revert back to it now? --Striver 15:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam. This is the second time im asking: Are there any more objections to Talk:Ali/Drawing board? Bad grammar was mentioned, as well as bad prose. I sugest that comments are made soon, otherwise i will take that as a silent consent to revert back to it. Ma salam and peace! --Striver 20:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

?

Striver,

When you delete my discussion statements, you are basically removing me from the debate. I assume that by doing so, you are able to handle the debate singlehandedly. All the better. :) --Zereshk 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear brother, when did i delet any of your statments? I did move some of them, if that is whay you are refering to, you will find them higher upp, in appropriate section of the debate, i did that to keep the topics from spreading, to keep focus on the debate :)

--Striver 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess was referring to this. BTW, tell these people that Ali1980 is not a sock puppet. Since all muslim admins are Sunni, I put a request on a Shia site, to have people come and help us out. My academic schedule is very busy these days. I dont have time to fight these revisionists.--Zereshk 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is a Sunni source, regarding the birth of Imam Ali in the Holy Ka'ba:

Hakim in his Mustadrak and nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh maliki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, Fasl 1, p.14, say: "No one before Ali was born in the Ka'ba. This was a distinction given to Ali in order to enhance his honor, rank, and dignity."

<Above comment posted by User:Ali 1980.

You know, we don't often get the same people who just vandalized the article trying to contribute to the discussion immediately afterwards. Do you have anything you'd like to share about why you just deleted all of the content not only of the article, but of the talk page you are now trying to contribute to? 23:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali is quoting from Peshawar Nights, Persian forgery, see this refutation [12]. A quote from this refutation:

"Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine to what extent they conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim, neither by the authors of these works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim wal-Anwa‘ (commonly known as Sahih Ibn Hibban), have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari and Muslim by documenting only authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which they abided by those criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure from later muhaddithin.

Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person suffers from one of two defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian attitude of the end—-in this case the conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnah—-justifying the means. Either of these defects is sufficient to disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist."

Not that I accept hadith, or the science of hadith, as authoritative unless accepted by those academic historians who study them (which is not all historians). Accepting 12th century evaluations of tradition is like accepting 12th century science or medicine: pointless and retrograde. Still, quoting da'eef hadith doesn't prove a thing. Zora 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who this sockpuppet is

[[13]]

Curious, BrandonYusufToropov 15:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to toss around labels or sterotype me and create bad karma unnecessarily .. i come in peace .. hence i won't retaliate and add any fuel to any fires .. lets work together rather than against one another .. Take care. DigitalMo

Hey there -- if you're a real new editor, my apologines. Please note that it will be easier for you to be taken seriously as an independent voice if you fill out your userpage [[14]] -- that way you will have a talk page people can leave messages on. BrandonYusufToropov 15:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Judging from the serious edition he made to Shia, i belive he is a new wikipedian. You know that i dont need suckpupets to just go and do as i feel is nesecary ;) --Striver 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "He who wants to see Noah (AS) in his determination, Adam (AS) in his knowledge, Abraham (AS) in his clemency, Moses (AS) in his intelligence and Jesus (AS) in his religious devotion should look at Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS)." Sunni references:

Sahih al-Bayhaqi Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, as quoted in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v2, p449 Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhruddin al-Razi, under the commentary of the Verse of Imprecation (Mubahilah), v2 p288. He wrote this tradition has been accepted as all genuine. Ibn Batah has recorded it as a tradition related by Ibn Abbas as is stated in the book "Fat'h al-Mulk al-Ali bi Sihah Hadith-e-Bab-e-Madinat al-Ilm", p34, by Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Siddeeq al-Hasani al-Maghribi. Among those who have admitted that Imam Ali (AS) is the store house of the secrets of all the Prophets is the Chief of Gnostics, Muhyiddin al-Arabi, from whom al-Arif al-Sha'rani has copied it in his al-Yawaqeet wa al-Jawahir (p172, topic 32).

OK. Another approach. Forget whether Kaaba thing is true...

... 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)

regarding Zora

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)

Dear brother in Islam. Peace.

I did not write that in thoughtless anger, nor in a state of furor. I made that statement to Zora as a informative gesture, so she knows my intentions explicitly. I made an effort to show her my determination in doing so, and i belive it was a fair warning. She WILL get a RFC on her neck the same instance she reverts any information with regards to "Ali being born in the Kaaba" without proving her case on the talk page - And she knows she has proven absolutely nothing. No reference, no quotes no nothing, only PURE oppinions.

I see no other alternative than threatening her with a RFC. She stubbornly refuses to give any sourceing of any kind, but still persist in editing in violation of given proof to the opposite. She persist in confusing her own personal conclusion with giving sourced statement; personal conclusions do not have a value what so ever to WP, but she refuses to recognize that and blatantly ignores due process. I will not tolerate any more of that and are prepare to go all the way to the Arbitration Committee if necessary.

Ma salam --Striver 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Wa aleikom salam wa rahmatullah, brother.

You missunderstand me. I do not want to file it, i hope it wont be necesary, i hope that the mere threat of it will make her alert enough to understand that she is acting on mere opinions. As for you, i have no quarell with you, you dont revert blind and you dont persist in her stuborn way. It does look like she has stoped givin pure opinions, so the threat did do what it was intendet to do. Lets hope it will be a permanent change in her attitudes. I have nothing against a good argumantation based on sourced evidens, but i do not appreciate a endless stream of original research misstaken as facts. --Striver 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Al-Jubouri

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)

I now wonder who this OTHER sockpuppet is, whose outlook is strangely reminiscent of the last one

[[15]]

Curious yet again, and eager for anyone's explanation, BrandonYusufToropov 11:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bro, i belive its preemature to call them sockpuppets, Zereshk said that he asked for help on a forum. --Striver 15:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Encomiums not appropriate

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)

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)

No "silent consent": Talk:Ali/Drawing board is Striver's personal version of this article....

... and I oppose any attempt to delete the current version in favor of it.

Striver, if you wish to make changes to the current version of Ali, which is not your personal property, please propose one change at a time and do not assume that you have sole right to rewrite the article as you see fit.BrandonYusufToropov 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bro, what are are you saying? I propose the entire article. You want me to take the entire article one sentence a bit? Be serious! Remember, it was you and Zora that reverted it! I did not object since i wanted to make a thorough argumentation about your objection, and now we have done that. Stop playing, do you want me to bring a copy of Talk:Ali/Drawing board to here? Just look at it and say if you have any problems with it. As is now, you are refusing it with no arguments whatsoever, except that i wrote some of it. Friend, you know very well that me writing it is not a argument for refusing it. if you have any reason for not letting me change to it, state it, so we can work through it. This is as cooperative as i can get. I have not even changed the article, only talked about you omitting and deleting my article for like 3 days now! Is this the kind of response i get? What more issues do you have with Talk:Ali/Drawing board? Look at the first line, that is my first suggested change. If that line is ok, then look at the second line. If that line is ok, look at the fourth line. Repeat that until you come to a objection to it, or you reach the end of the article. Then tell me what you concluded. I am getting really tired of doing childish reponses like this one, this is below our level!

--Striver 23:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali as member of the ulema? Not!

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)