Talk:Ali/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


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

Another rewrite

It's funny -- for a long time, a Sunni editor named AladdinSE worked on this article and would not allow any Shi'a POV material at all. I had long arguments with him re the necessity of allowing Shi'a material too. Now the article seems to have been watchlisted by a large number of new Shi'a editors who are determined to turn it into a Shi'a-POV article. I keep trying to remove the pious veneration, and the Shi'a editors keep putting it back. Meanwhile, the Sunni editors are staying away -- possibly because they don't like struggles, and possibly because they're heavily involved with edit wars in other articles, with various anti-Muslim editors.

I'm guessing (though I don't know) that the Shi'a POV re Ali is all a number of the new editors know. They're probably being completely honest in adding what I'd regard as extremely doubtful or biased material. A lot of it isn't sourced at all. It is just repeated as "something everyone knows". Folks -- it's not accepted by everyone. Sunni doubt many of the claims for Ali. Academics doubt the claims for Ali.

There are extensive links to Shi'a websites here, so if readers want to find out what Shi'a think about Ali, they can go to those sites. As for this article, it has be NEUTRAL. NPOV. Not Shi'a. Please respect the purpose of this encyclopedia, which is to present all views and let readers make up their own minds. Zora 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Strivers respons

Zora, what "pious veneration" are you talking about? Stop giving vague accusations, if you have a issue with something, then bring it, stop giving random "Shi'a pov Shi'a pov" accusations. WHAT is Shi'a pov, and WHY?

The Sunni editor staying away should give you a hint!. Zora, dont be dense, you are the only one still crying "Shi'a pov, Shi'a pov", not a single editor supports your random accusations. Give specific issues, tell why your view is correct, source it and you will see you will get plenty of support. But you dont. You just go "Shi'a pov" and thats it, nothing more. And then you complain that nobody supports you.

Actually, I just got two barnstars from editors who think I'm doing a good job. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, you see, i dont do that. I have a good and relevant point by point list of every item i contest, and here it is:

  • Shi'a Muslims believe that Ali was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam. There is some argument as to whether or not any contemporary Sunni Muslims accept this. Most Sunni reject the claim, as do academic scholars.

There is no "argument as to whether or not any contemporary Sunni Muslims accept this"', i have given you a link of a 100% Sunni contemporary biography claiming he was born in the Kaaba [1].

I am not sure that I accept that site as 100% Sunni. It doesn't SAY that it's Sunni. It accepts some Sunni views and some Shi'a views. It seems like an attempt at being all-inclusive. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

" Most Sunni reject the claim" is uncourced and uncourcable. You have not quoted one single Sunni scholar rejecting it. And you know it. And you also know that you are not supposed to say things that are unsouced. I leave it to the reader to judge you for claiming a thing you know you have no ground for doing.

I have cited one Sunni website that says Hakim ibn Hazm was born in the Kaaba -- and no one else [2]. I believe that Islamonline is a major Sunni site. The complete lack of mention on other Sunni sites suggests that they don't accept it. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"as do academic scholars" is the same. You have not quoted a single scholar, Muslims or not, that rejects it. You only have Non-Muslim scholars not mentioning it. That does not summ to "rejecting", it is "skeptical or dissmissive", just as my prefered version says.

Oh, fiddle-de-dee. You haven't even READ any of those works and you presume to know what they mean? If they don't even mention it -- as they don't mention any number of Muslim myths, like the splitting of the moon, or the miracle of the birds and pebbles -- they reject it. It is not worthy of serious historical discussion. That's MY side in this conflict. Don't tell me what MY side believes. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

however, i do agree that a reference to Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib needs to be included.

  • First Muslim?

I agree that we need a reference to some people beliving it was Ali, even though it is not the Abu Bakr article. However, i object to puting only the Shi'a pov in bracers, either all views are in bracers or none.

  • They hired themselves out for labor and raided caravans.

"and raided caravans" is Non-Muslim pov. If you want, you can add it to the Non-Muslim view of Ali. Otherwise it will open the door to disputed events in the main article, and we have the x view of Ali article to avoid that. The Muslim view is that some Meccan caravans where raided after the meccans having been warned by a Muslim, and in the context of war, specificaly war for resources, not as a "casual" way of getting their hands on random caravans wealth. That is the view of some Non-Muslim, and belongs to the "view of" article. However, i could settle with stating both versions on the main article, since there is a considerable non-Muslims holding that view. However, I vote for omittig the whole issue in this specific article, since it is not directly relevant to Ali, and include it in the Battle of Badr article, since the caravan raiding is the prelude to the battle. If we are going to include both the Muslim and non-Muslim view here, then we need to do so in all Muslim biograpies, for consistancy, and that does not see optimal in my view. Otherwise, we could do a breakout article Caravan raiding befre Badr to exand on this particular issue, and link all Sahaba biographies to that article. But as i said, i belive the best is to included the non-Muslim view about the caravans in the Battle of Badr article, where it is already covered in great detail.

You admit it yourself -- they raided caravans. You just don't want it mentioned, because it makes the Muslims look bad. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Shi'a believe that Ali was also prominent at the Battle of Uhud, as well as many other battles."

Non-sense, that is Muslim pov. If you imply that non-Muslim reject that, please give reference.

I wrote the article on the Battle of Uhud, following Watt, and he doesn't even MENTION Ali. The heroes of the day were Abu Dujana and Hamza. In Ibn Ishaq's account, Ali offers water to Muhammad. Yet in the Shi'a account, Ali performs prodigies of valor. This is just part of a general trend to paint Ali as the perfect hero, head and shoulders above everyone else. You can't just assert that he was brave, as if everyone knows it; we don't. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunni sources:

Ali played the role of a hero in the battle. His services were highly appreciated by the Holy Prophet and the Companions. Some Muslim poets composed verses in the honor of Ali. Extolling his bravery one of the poets said: "There is no sword better than the sword of Ali; and there is no young man superior to Ali." [3]

Man, i hade forgot that quote, ill add it.

Again, that source may or may not be completely Sunni. Lots of Sunni sites mention Ali's bravery, but they don't exalt him above all the other early Muslims. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Entirely unaccaptable to do so without motivation.

It's Shi'a argumentation, that's what it is, and reliance upon a very suspicious-looking hadith, that shows all the signs of being a late fabrication. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • However, Umar, the caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr, did restore the estates in Medina to al-Abbas and Ali

Are you sure Madelung says that? What does he base it on?

Didn't you buy the book? Yes, I'm SURE he says it. I quoted it. He bases it on Bukhari, Khums, 2 [4], and Ibn Hanbal, Musnad.

Not that it matters, if he contest it, and several other non-Muslims scholars agree with him, then we will need to refrase it to include that non-Muslims belive that.

Given that I found it on a Sunni site, I think Sunnis believe it. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim view is that it was given to them only to govern as state property, not to own. And you know that. Ill remove your version of that until you have shown that there are more than Madelung holding that view, if he in fact holds it, and it is not your view of his view. I question your interpretation of his view, since there is no Muslim sources what so ever that claims it was given to them to own. If only Madelungs belives that, then it is no sufficient to have it as contested in the main article, we can in that case state it under the Madelung section of the non-Muslim view of Ali. Otherwise, we can start by saying Ali was, God forbid, a idiot, since lammens, and only him, belived so.

  • Some say that the sword that wounded him was poisoned.

I have seen no direct evidence for it being poisoned or not, so i have no stance in this issue. Ill stipulate that your prefered version is correct.

  • Treatment of the assassin.

Ill try refrase that so we both get satisfied with it.

  • Muslim view

You totaly decapitated it witout motivation. unaccaptable.

The supposed Muslim view was full of Shi'a-POV veneration of Ali.
  • Sunni view

You refreased the Uthman sentence. I support your version.

You also removed a big section from the Sunni view witout motivation. unaccaptable.

The Sunni view section is supposed to be for their view, NOT for you to set up strawmen and refute them. Also, trying to squeeze in ALL the arguments raised in the course of centuries of Sunni-Shi'a disputation is confusing. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Shi'a view

You remvoed sections from it witout motivation. unaccaptable.

Again, you were using that section for argumentation, not just stating the basic position. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-Muslim view

You added this:

Most historians of early Islam, however, are not interested in judging Ali's character. Contemporary historical approaches stress economic, cultural, and ecological issues, not the role of "great men" in forming history.

That realy is to ambigous to add. What is that supposed to mean? That Muslims try to determine if he was a "great man", but somehow the non-Muslims dont care if he was a "great man" or not? What is a "Great man"?

Are you implying that Muslims are not intrested in "economic, cultural, and ecological issues"? What does that have to do with Ali? "are not interested in judging Ali's character"? That is pure non-sense, of course they get a a psycological judgment on Alis person. Did you think that they will dedicate their time and effort on every single aspect of him without trying to judge his character?

Zora, what are you trying to pull?

That non-Muslims do psycological profiles for all men in History, but not Ali?

NO, that the Great Man theory of history is Carlyle, is 19th century, is not currently popular among historians. Sheesh, why are YOU, who don't know anything about the subject, trying to tell ME, who has done historical research in archives, who has read extensively in history, what historians do and believe? YOU are the one who interprets history solely in terms of personalities, judged as good or bad. Historians don't do that. They really don't. Stop trying to mangle the other POVs to support your beliefs. Zora 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that non-Muslims dont regard Ali's character as a source of emulation, that goes without saying, that is as superficial statment as saying that "non-Muslims dont follow Sharia" in the Sharia article.

What we do need to do, is to add in the Muslim view section that all Muslims belive Alis behavior is a source of emulation, Shi'a in particular.

Zora, disambiguette and motivate that line, then we can add it.

You also removed the UN section of Nahj witout motivation. unaccaptable.

It is patently ridiculous to cite a Shi'a magazine as proof of what non-Muslims believe about Ali. Again, stop trying to rewrite your opponents' views. Zora

That is all points i have changed.

See? No random accusationns of "<insert opponents belief> pov", a clean and precise reasons of why you are not correct. You should try that. --Striver 06:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Zora, do not revert without motivation.

Striver... I read both versions and I think on the whole Zora's version is better. I do need to read over it all again... but... Zora has a good academic tone... that is definitely superior in my book. I need to do more fact checking but from first glance she seems to approach this more neutrally. This is getting regrettably close a revert war. I would protect it right now but I won't since I wouldn't protect it on Striver's version and therefore my protection would be unfair. Striver, I think you're being less than reasonable in this. Witness pioneer isn't exactly the most reliable source... please... I think this whole thing is silly... and Striver, those sites... I don't think they help your case. This is a subject with so much academic work on it that most websites and that kind of thing aren't too worthwhile. gren グレン 07:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Why isn't Witness pioneer "exactly the most reliable source". Just a pov, or any real substance to it? No matter, tell me what issue you want me to source from other sources, and ill give you other sources. What are "those sites"? Could you be more specific?
I hope that nobody start to lock articles when there is a sincere desire to talk.
What do you mean with "I would protect it right now but I won't since I wouldn't protect it on Striver's version and therefore my protection would be unfair."? Is that another way of saying "Strivers version suck" without actually addresing any issues?
"I read both versions and I think on the whole Zora's version is better." Could you give me a specific example on where and why?
"Zora has a good academic tone". Yes she does have better grammar than me, but that is not the issue, the issue is whether entire sections should be omitted. If that is so, it needs to be done after having given a solid argument for it, not just on a "feeling".
"Striver, I think you're being less than reasonable in this". How come? On what single and specific issue am i "less than reasonable"?
Of course should sourcing me more extensice than mere websites, websites only represent the views of the ones making it, and nothing more. What single and specific issue needs to be sourced with better sources? I appricate your efforts of giving a non-ambigues answer. --Striver 08:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is Striver's version of Zeno's paradox; it's actually kind of amusing. Striver: give a justification! Zora: justification. Striver: that justification isn't specific enough. Be more specific. Zora: specific. Striver: No, that isn't specific enough. Be more specific! You haven't convinced me yet! Zora 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Striver, don't be silly. You want to insert statements, cite academic (non Shia) sources. That's the only way forward in disputed topics. More burrowing in libraries, less arguing. dab () 10:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Dbachmann, im not writing just for fun. Im neither writing just to annoy people. I really and truly do not understand what specific issue that is bothering Zora. It does not help me to hear "its pov", "its bad" and so forth. I need to hear "This specific sentence is bad since it is not adequatly sourced". I gave a long list of every single point i that we where not agreeing on. I have not received a single specific answer in return.
For example:
Zora wanted to add: " Most Sunni reject the claim".
I answered "is uncourced and uncourcable. You have not quoted one single Sunni scholar rejecting it. And you know it. And you also know that you are not supposed to say things that are unsouced. I leave it to the reader to judge you for claiming a thing you know you have no ground for doing."
That is what i mean with "specific and motivated". You write where the problem is and why there is a problem. What i do not prerceive as "specific and motivated" is: "Zora has a good academic tone... that is definitely superior in my book."
That does not specify where she has superior tone. I can not possibly respond to that! I need to hear where and why she has a "a good academic tone", while i do not. I mean, sure Zora has a good accademic tone, and so do i, IMHO. "Zora has a good academic tone" does not tell me anything, its pure ambiguity in my book. This is a hot topic, down to every single word in every single sentanc, ambiguous statemants do not contribute to the solution. We need to talk about specific sentances, as i did in my talk page contribution here on 06:34, 16 December 2005.
Further, "Zora has a good academic tone... that is definitely superior in my book." is nothing else than pov. There is not a sigle thing i can confront there. What am i supposed to say? "No she does not"? To say that, and then follow it up with "I would protect it right now but I won't since I wouldn't protect it on Striver's version and therefore my protection would be unfair." is extreamly unfair in my view.

How can a admin say "I like Zora's version, and i would have locked it to hers if it was the one present. I dont like your version"? I ask for no special treatment. Just confront my facts and arguments, i dont need anyone agreeing or disagreeing with my view, just look at the argumtents.
Remeber that i belong to a strong minority, i have no chance to have it my way by sheer number, i have no other method than trying to debatt on every point by point basis. Denying me to do that through refusing me a dialog is in essence that same singe as disregarding me without motivation.
Please give a answer to my specific and motivated refutation of Zora's version before reverting ot it. Click here.

X view of

I don't want to go into this beyond the simple: Wikipedia doesn't do pov forks. There can be no articles about "Shia views" or "non-Muslim views" about anything. These titles are to be redirected to this article. Sorry, that's simple policy. If you want to branch out sub-articles, pick sub-topics, but give a balanced picture of various views on each one. You can take the material from the forks' history and compile them into something like Criticism of Ali or Criticism of Shia if you like, presenting all sides. dab () 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. We have had vfds about the issue, and it suvived. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab --Striver 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The deletion process is highly skewed in favor of keeping articles. When you have a claque of Shi'a voting as a body to keep Shi'a-POV forks, voters who feel intimidated by what seems to them a specialized subject, and no indication that this one article is part of an overall scheme to set up a POV fork for all major figures in early Islamic history, then you're going to get AfDs that fail. An AfD that grouped all the POV forks that Striver and Zereshk are creating might have a better chance of success. Zora 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Zora, the vfd failed since the "X view of Z" format has existed long before i even came to Wikipedia. Anyway, there is to much material to have in one single article. --Striver 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific Reasons

Zora and gren グレン, i need specific reasons about why Striver's article isn't as good. gren グレン, you said that you prefer Zora's article. why? i haven't read any of these two articles (Zora's and Striver's), but i can tell you that i prefer Striver's because you didn't point out any of his errors (if there were any). Striver clearly stated Zora's errors and why he thought they were errors. Zora and gren グレン, if you want Zora's article to stay instead of Striver's, you have to give reasons because 1) Readers will be able to know what the errors were and why they were errors, and 2) Striver can fix his errors and know what kind of errors he made so nexct time he writes an article he will know what to avoid. if you just say that you prefer Zora's article, no one will no why but if you give reasons, then everyone will know that it was because of x reason. if i sound confusing, tell me in my talk page. Yahussain 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is my version: [5], here is Zoras version [6], here is the difference [7] and here is the my arguments for my version being the better one. I do not like that my version is being passed over without one single specific argument being presented.
If anyone objects to removing my vesion without specific justification, go here [8] and push the "Save page" button. --Striver 02:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We gave you specific reasons and you refused to listen. We don't have to keep going until we convince YOU (I'm not sure that anything short of WMD could). We just have to convince a majority of neutral observers. Zora 04:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what i am talking about, you just give some sweeping allegation, and then refuse to elaborate since "you have majority". That is not acceptable. I have not seen any specific argumentation regarding the issues we do not agree on. If you have, but i missed them, please say where i can re-read them.--Striver 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't see specific reasons anywhere on this page. please retype them so Striver and i can see them. Yahussain 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you folks can't see the reasons, which are listed above as comments on Striver's comments, then either you can't read or you WON'T read. Zora 05:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather, its that we cant find them. Could you please give us a direct link to it? [[here]] is a direct link to my sepcific motivations. --Striver 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly where I posted MY comments. It is standard wiki-practice to intersperse indented comments -- it saves a lot of space, time, quoting, etc. Zora 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

lol, now i see it. Zora, please, dont write in the middle of my text, just copy it and do what you want. Ill look at your answer. --Striver 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

this article and all other islamic encyclopedia are written by Shia ( even the Sunni view)

Dear Administrators: It is first unlawful to out the shia view first Sunni islam is 95% ( by antimuslems istimates) while shia are 3% and offshoot shia( non shia in shia view) are 25( Ismaili, etc) Here most the editors are from the offshoot like Striver a nd Botonov, etc. This absurd. If you want to look your self in the mirror and see how beautiful you are then do that, but if you want to know the truth( encyclopedia) then you should not delete my editing which was reasonable ( if you really bothered to read) ( anon or adnanmuf) If you keep reversing my editing I will contact other media resources to devaluate your encyclopedia. As of now, the encyclopedia concerning Islamic topics should be named exotic and occult views of the world, not encyclopedia. for example The name of Ali is derived from God name? this is absurd I put that most names of God could become human names if you just take the Al- from the beginnings for example Halim is a man name Al-Halim is God name Ali is a man name ( by the way it was a name very prevelant in Arabia before Islam used by Infidels!! What about the topic Born in kaaba? Is Ali's all about just these few things you put. Please purge the Encyclopedia fromthese perversions, or I will see to it that your site is devaluated

If you think that some statements are presented as "accepted by all Muslims" when in fact they're only Shi'a beliefs, let us know. They'll be marked as Shi'a beliefs. We're not going to censor the Shi'a -- their views deserve to be there too -- but we don't want to misrepresent Sunni beliefs. Also, there's an on-going edit war between a few Shi'a editors and some non-Shi'a editors, over what should be contained in the article. You may have seen the article when it was in its "Shi'a phase". Speak up, or do some editing yourself. Most of us here want to be fair. Zora 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ali as spiritual teacher

Hi Zora,

First of all, Merry Christmas!

According to : “most famous collection of Ali's speeches and letters is the Peak of Eloquence (Arabic: Nahj al-Balāgha).”

I did a quick search and find out that “surely, the likeness of this world is that of a snake: it is soft to touch, and deadly poisonous. The ignorant child is distracted by it, and the one with understanding and intellect is cautious of it. So turn away from what fascinates you in it, for how little of it stays with you. “ is quoted from the Peak of Eloquence, letter no. 68. It is a pretty famous saying of Ali and deserves to be included.

Would you please let me know what your concerns are regarding the quotes from Ali? Is it just the sources?

Thanks. P.S. I didn't delete Mazar-i-sharif reference. Somebody else did it. There can be more than one anon :)

An anon added a bit re Ali teaching a certain spiritual practice. I don't think that this can be stated as fact. From what I've read about Sufism and other such spiritual practices, a great many traditions trace their practices back to Ali -- however, since the practices became widespread many centuries after Ali's death, academics believe that it is much more likely that they are late inventions. Perhaps we should have a section on Sufism and Ali, in which both opinions (practices taught by Ali and practices merely attributed to Ali) can be laid out. Zora 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes -- Three or four quotes is enough. Short quotes. If it's going to be too long, then it should be in Wikisource, not in the article. Enthusiasts tend to want more more more of their heroes and favorites, whether it's more quotes or more pictures of actresses, whatever. You may think that it will create enthusiasm for your favorite -- instead, it bores readers and makes them think less of your hero. Short and pithy is what's required. Zora 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Zora. But I have another complain. You said many spiritual traditions such as Sufism trace their practices back to Ali. Its reason is that he had a very simple life style. While I think this was a very important characteristic of Ali, the article does not even have a hint to that. I think it is not fair. Even it does not mention that Muslims think that way. It is true because at least many spiritual traditions that stress on simplicity of life-style trace their practices back to Ali. Following, I have provided some evidence to support the point that he has a simple life. If not enough I can provide more

1. The seventeenth-century theologian, Henry Stubbe in [An Account of the Rise and Progress of Mohammedanism, 1705, p. 83] writes: “He had a contempt of the world, its glory and pomp, he feared God much, gave many alms, was just in all his actions, humble and affable; of an exceeding quick wit and of an ingenuity that was not common, he was exceedingly learned, not in those sciences that terminate in speculations but those which extend to practice.”

2. Ali’s response to the people of Medina beseeched him to accept the mantle of Calipha: "I swear by the Creator of this Universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me; had they not manifested profound gratitude for my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; and had Allah, the Almighty not taken a promise from the learned to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of Oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and downtrodden, and had He not made it incumbent upon them to secure back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful oppressors, I would even now have left the rulership of this State as I did earlier and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos. Then you would have seen that in my view the glamour of a vicious life of your world is no better than the sneezing of a goat". (Sermon—7, Peak of Eloquence)

3. "Indeed Allah has made it obligatory that the true and just Imams should lead their lives in a simple way and keep their souls under check so that they go side by side with the poor people, who may not suffer from a feeling of deprivation". (Sermon—204, Peak of Eloquence)

I think you go astray if you trace all this to Ali. All the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume. I just finished editing the article on Abu Dharr; there's another early Muslim who felt that spending money on luxury was an offense to God. Ali to some extent "stood for" the early, austere understanding of Islam, but he wasn't the only one who felt that Uthman and his relatives had taken a wrong turn.

But that's all irrelevant to the point that I was making re various Sufi orders tracing their teachings to Ali. Some went back to Abu Bakr, some to Ali. Is there a list at Sufism, one to which we could link? If not, there should be. Zora 07:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora, I was wrong in thinking that all this traces back to Ali. Thanks for correcting me. Unfortunately I just have an idea of Sufism and don't know much. Sorry for taking your time but Do you think it would be good to insert "All the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume." into the article regarding Muhammad? I couldn't find anything about the Muhammad's family life in that article.

-> I changed my mind, it is not neccessary. Thanks.

Zora, I have argued about Raids at . Your attention is appreciated.

Was Ali interested in Rulership?

Zora, The sentence "Ali had a strong claim to the leadership, both as one of Muhammad's closest assistants and as his cousin and son-in-law. " implies that his claim for leadership was because of his closeness to Muhammad. This is against the Shia belief. He was not a FOND OF POWER AND RULERSHIP. But this sentence implies that he was. Moreover, in the other part of the article we read : " Ali at first refused. He is said to have been horrified by the assassination of Uthman, and did not wish to appear to be profiting from the situation. But his supporters persevered, and Ali finally allowed himself to be proclaimed caliph." This suggests that the only reason he didn't want to accept rullership was his fearing of appearing as being profiting by the assassination of Uthman. I think both these two sentences should be revised. My reasons of why Ali was not a fond of power:

1. Ali’s response to the people of Medina beseeched him to accept the mantle of Calipha: "I swear by the Creator of this Universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me; had they not manifested profound gratitude for my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; and had Allah, the Almighty not taken a promise from the learned to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of Oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and downtrodden, and had He not made it incumbent upon them to secure back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful oppressors, I would even now have left the rulership of this State as I did earlier and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos. Then you would have seen that in my view the glamour of a vicious life of your world is no better than the sneezing of a goat". (Sermon—7, Peak of Eloquence)

2. Ibn Abbas says: "Once when I visited Imam Ali, he was mending his shoes. The Holy Imam asked me, 'What do you think will be the price of this shoe?' I said, 'It has no value at all'. The Holy Imam then said, 'By Allah! To my mind this torn shoe is more valuable than my ruling over the people provided I enforce truthfulness and eradicate the untruth".

3. When Imam Ali after assuming the authority of ruling over the people visited a city, he said, "I have come down to your city in my old dress, with this asset and this horse. If after a few days you find that I depart from your city in different clothes you should conclude that I misappropriated the public property".

ALSO, I have added something to the part "Was Muhammad an imam?". Please have a look at it.

But that's YOUR belief about Ali, that he's a perfect divine being with no human passions. It would be quite possible to use the existing historical evidence to depict Ali in an extremely unflattering light, as a conniver after power. I'm not particularly interested in doing so, but I see ample indications in the literature that he was human, fallible, and not at all divine. This article is an encyclopedia article; it is not Shi'a devotional literature. I don't see the passages you cite as particularly unflattering to Ali. They are unflattering ONLY if you start from the standpoint that he didn't have normal human emotions ... and historians CAN'T start from that supernaturalist standpoint. We're having similar problems with the contention that he never converted to Islam because he was a Muslim already. That's not anything found in the earliest historical accounts, not anything found in academic histories -- it's just Shi'a doctrine, that he could not have converted because that would have been to be imperfect BEFORE the conversion, and Ali must not be shown to be imperfect. We can put the "no amibition" into the article as a separate viewpoint (as we did with the "no conversion" POV) but we can't promote it as the only viewpoint. Zora 12:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I agree that not only Ali but Muhammad also was human and fallible. I only think that they had a connection with God in a PARTICULAR sense (which does not make them divine at all). The reference I added in the part "Was Muhammad an imam?" was only to show that “Imam” is not a mere title applied to 12 people; it has nothing to do with what we are talking here. There, I just wanted to mention that according to shia, being Imam is a position that some people can attain and not a title for a particular group of 12 people. It is all the matter of definition. According to the Shia definition Muhammad was an Imam. It is clearly true due to the way Imam is defined.

Anyway, here I have another argument. Let’s assume Ali was a perfectly human being. Isn’t it possible for a "human being" not to have interests in power and rulership? Isn’t it possible for a "human being" to disregard the worldly things? I think it is POSSIBLE.

Now we have a sentence:

“Ali had a strong claim to the leadership”

We both agree on it.

Your theory for its reason is the following: “both as one of Muhammad's closest assistants and as his cousin and son-in-law.” My theory is this: “He was not interested in the worldly part of leadership. He FELT a responsibility because he FELT Muhammad has set him as his successor. He felt the responsibility to preserve the society from straying from the Islamic values, to enforce truthfulness and to eradicate the untruth“

These are two theories. Either we mention both theories in the article; or we provide evidences for the both sides. The one with more weight is picked to appear in the article. Is that fair? We never know which theory is true but we can provide evidences for each of them. If you agree, could you please provide reliable evidences for the first theory?

I think that you're over-analyzing the "he had a strong claim" sentence. When I read it -- and I think that I may have written it, but I'm not sure -- it reads to me as if it were describing his merits in the eyes of the rest of the Muslims. That is, he was a possible leader because he had been intimately associated with Muhammad for many years, was one of his closest relatives, AND had been one of Muhammad's most trusted lieutenants. These were all the sorts of reasons that would weigh with tribesmen choosing a leader. That doesn't mean that Ali believed that these were his only qualifications, or that he didn't believe that he had a responsibility to carry out Muhammad's wishes -- or God's wishes -- in keeping Islam a religion rather than just an excuse for worldly rule. You're so far INSIDE the view of Ali's position as divinely ordained, and Ali as accepting it as a duty, that you can't see how it would look to someone who didn't hold these views -- as, clearly, most of the Muslims didn't. Zora 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for your comment. The reason that I really do care about it is that I have seen many Christians criticizing Islam because of the political disagreements after death of Muhammad. They say that if Muhammad was really a true prophet, then he was at least able to train his followers to disregard worldly power. As you know, Jesus was not interested in worldly power. They say that Muslims were so much greedy of power that after death of Muhammad, they started fighting for power. They say that the main reason for these disagreements is that the only thing Muslims were looking at was “power”. This is what they say. I just want to put a hint in the article regarding Ali, that at least there were people with the view that: the glamour of a vicious life of the world is no better than the sneezing of a goat. Wasn’t I aware of that criticism of Christians, I wouldn’t stress on changing some of the sentences.

Well, I added a sentence to the article saying that Shi'a believe that Ali was acting out of a sense of duty, not out of desire for power. Also, I wouldn't be too worried about criticism from Christians. It's not as if they weren't killing each other for power as soon as the Christians had any. The record after Constantine's conversion is dismal. Since I'm a Buddhist, I should probably add that Buddhists in power have killed with abandon too. It's a human thing, alas. I think one of my online friends came up with a "law" something like, "There is no belief so pure or so rational that it can't be degraded into utter nonsense by fuggheaded supporters". Zora 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the controversy appears mostly resolved, I think the term "strong claim" has a legalistic connotation and should not be used here because there was no rule of succession to Muhammad's position, and in fact, no rule that dictated that there should be any successor at all, under which Ali could have made any "claim."

My revision, I think, more simply states the situation as it stood: many believed that Ali should succeed Muhammad. However, there was, objectively speaking, no rule, or a body of law, under which one could make a claim of him being a legitimate successor.Saltyseaweed 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pepsidranka, the past tense was used merely because the particular topic of discussion was what was happening during the succession struggle--it was meant to say at that moment, many Muslims believed Ali should succeeed. It is not meant to deny that many Shi'a still believe that; hopefully, the last revision will clarify that.

The sentence became a bit verbose to clarify who "he" is, between Muhammad and Ali. I think the last revision will make it clear. Saltyseaweed 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads: "After the death of Muhammad, many Muslims believed that Ali should succeed Muhammad, as Ali was one of Muhammad's closest assistants, his cousin and son-in-law, and a powerful leader on own merit." I still think it seems awkward for it to be "believed", then "should succeed" and then "was". It goes from past to present to past. Pepsidrinka 19:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "After the death of Muhammad, many Muslims believed that Ali should have succeeded Muhammad, ...". Pepsidrinka 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's awkward, because we are discussing what the Muslims believed after Muhammad died but before Umar assumed the leadership. Remember, "should" is a past tense of "shall" and I think its usage in past-tense sentences is acceptable, much like how the word "would" is used. If we take your version, that would be from the point of view of the past, but after Umar assumed the leadership.

Any proofreader want to make a judgment? Zora? Or why don't we change "should" to "must" or "would"? But the meaning changes. Saltyseaweed 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to "Many of the early Muslims believed that Ali should have succeeded ..." Does that make it any clearer? Maybe there's a better phrase for early Muslims, meaning the Muslims of 632 CE? Zora 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so Zora, "the early Muslim" is, I think, an ill-defined term. How about "immediately after Muhammad's death"? Does that narrow the timeline enough? Also, your revision of the preceding sentence muddles things up, because in your rendition, both Muhammad and Ali are referred to in 3rd person male pronoun (he/his).
I also have problem with "should have" past perfect tense. By using the past perfect tense here, it preempts the following narration. To me, ". . . believed that Ali should succeed" sounds right, as "should" is the past tense of "shall." Nothing's wrong with " . . . believed that Ali would succeed" so what's wrong with should? Saltyseaweed 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Some work for someone with too much time on his hands

Fix double redirects.

Shinobu 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Location

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

Another try

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


This may be completely trivial to most people(!), but at least it hopefully isn't contentious, unless you want to argue which system is best for Arabic transliteration. I don't know if there is a policy on this (though from browsing Islām related pages there doesn't seem to be), but I think, after the Arabic script might be `Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib; as per the Prophet's page, or something to that effect if I am mistaken in my transliteration. Khiradtalk 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add it. I'm just starting to learn Arabic. We have relatively few Arabic-speaking editors on board. If you folks started some kind of Arabic language project to pick a system of transliteration, and make sure that all relevant words are properly given in Arabic script and then transliterated, that would be GREAT! Zora 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

This page is awful. It said that Abu Talib died so Muhammad was forced to live with Abu Talib. It's as if someone purposefully wrote nonsense. KI 15:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did it say that Abu Talib died? Muhammad's father and grandfather died, but they weren't Abu Talib. Zora 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The term Rafidi is an arabic islamic political term that is used for specific people. Its first use was after the time of Zayd bin Ali bin AlHussein bin Ali bin Abi Taleb revolution and death. It is true it means refusers. Tose people had conditions on Zayd to fight with him at the time of the war when he did not accept their conditions they deserted him. The first occurence of their name after they met with Imam Jaafar AsSadeq the nephew of Zayd an dthey introduced themselves as the known rafidis. Jaafar cursed them. After that time many authors who hate Shia called them unjustly Rafidis. Many sunnis however like AshShahrastani in his book "al-Milal wa Nihal" "Sects and cults" states the difference between Shia and Rafidis although his definitions are not very welcomed by the shia.Even anti-shia talked about early shia at the time of Ali and shortly after. But now they use the term claiming that nowadays shia are rfidis rather than Shia, which for sure is unjust. To summarize, Rafidis is a derogatory description of Shia and shia never use it to descibe themselves. In addition it has never been used before the word shia to mean religio-political group of Islam. 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term may be used as an epithet now, but it is also true that the earliest sources mention the term, as being used specifically of those who initially refused to give their baya'h to Abu Bakr.
It is also accepted by academic historians that the Shi'a sect as it is known today emerged only gradually, and that there WERE no Shi'a, holding all the doctrines accepted by Twelver Shi'a, just after Muhammad's death. There were only people who liked Ali and felt he had gotten a bum deal.
This should all be covered in an article on the history of the Shi'a, which would have to be divided into a Shi'a version, a Sunni version, and an academic version. I just haven't had the time and energy to do it.
It may be possible to rewrite that section so as to mention that the term was descriptive then, but has become an epithet now. I will also have to find the references for the early use. Zora 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karrama Allahu Wajhahu

Please Zora. See how many sunni books mention Karram-Allah-u Wajhahu and them remove it. [9] YOu have really to take it in good faith. See for example Miftah [10]

those are actual books you can buy. always look for كرم الله وجهه because not all of the seraches necessarily have the whole honorific as such. The Peace WorshipperTalk to TPW129. 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all Sunnis believe that Muhammad and Ali were hanif. There are too many hadith and passages in the sira relating to Muhammad's participation in pagan worship. Ali, as a member of his household, would have taken part. Zora 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But most sunnis do believe that they were Hanif. And كرم الله وجهه is written in many Major Sunni books and you would see them in many countries using it. The Peace WorshipperTalk to TPW129. 16:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

name change

What is going on here? Why was Ali changed to Ali ibn Abu Talib? There is no disambiguation page for Ali, and it's better to use the most simple name. And not only that, why was it changed to Abi and not Abu? Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please respond. I'm going to change the page title and I don't want someone to say that I didn't try to discuss it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Abi and Abu are interchangeable and depend on their position in the sentence. I'm not sure when the correct useage applies for each so I won't comment on that. There is a disambig. page for Ali (Ali (disambiguation)), so having his full name provides better understanding as to which Ali the article is about (since there are many other Ali's listed in the disambig. page). Stoa 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Cunardo, you need to wait days, not hours. People have lives and stuff. Check out the situation with the disambiguation page. Someone may have decided that Ali deserves a disambiguation page, and then people can come here. That makes sense to me. There are other Alis in the world. As for Abi Talib rather than Abu Talib -- as I understand it, that IS the correct version, that the word changes in a new environment. After some initial confusion, we started using Abi Talib throughout WP and it would be a major task to change everything. Hundreds of articles are involved. Zora 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again Zora, you're my arch nemesis. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a Cory Doctorow novel called Someone comes to town, someone leaves town (or something like that), available as a free ebook, and in it there's an account of a fictional discussion between a gung-ho community wi-fi enthusiast and a guy who works for the telco. The telco guy explains, "This telco is like a battleship. It weighs a lot; it has momentum. We're trying to change it, but it's slow. It's like trying to change the direction the ship is heading by tapping on the prow with your finger." Inertia of the installed base. If something is outrageously horribly WRONG we of course have to change the hundreds of articles necessary, but if it's just a matter of judgment, not universally accepted, then the work necessary to make the change outweighs any benefits from the change.

I wish I had a copy of the Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. I'd be willing to go with their article headings in case of doubt, if we don't have an installed base problem. Zora 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It took me awhile, but I found a usage note on the subject.
When the parent in a nasab is referred to by his kunya, the word abu becomes abi, e.g., Muhammad’s son-in-law was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Ali the son of Abu Talib, or ‘Ali, the son of the father of Talib.[11]
So I was wrong about Abu vs Abi, but I still think that we should be able to use Ali as the page title. It redirects here, and what I meant is that the Ali page is not the disambiguation page. If Ali redirects here, then we can just use it as the page title (as it was for ages). The intro already has a link to a disambiguation page either way. Do you have any objection to moving it back to Ali? The issue of how many pages link here is rather irrelevant to the discussion. There are 20 redirects to this page, and as long as they all point the same place then it doesn't make any difference. Whoever changes the name has to throw in an extra 2 minutes to change the redirects also. Currently there are hundreds of redirects from Ali, and only a few actually pointing to Ali ibn Abi Talib. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that I'm too exhausted to give an informed opinion here. What you say sounds plausible, but I'd have to check to be sure. Um, could you ask a few of the admins who are involved in the Islam-related articles, say Gren or Pepsidrinka, and see what they have to say? I'll go with what they say. I just put in a hard weekend trying to finish an editing job on time and it's going to take me a day or two to recover. Zora 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the Manual of Style dictates that the most common name be used for the page. Now in this instance, there are many people named "Ali" who could potentially be called "Ali" in a given context and the audience would know who the reference was to. However, I'm inclined to say that of all the notable people named "Ali", Ali ibn Abi Talib is the most common. I'd support a move back to Ali. If there was some sort of consensus to move it with "ibn....", I would suggest moving it to Ali ibn Abu Talib as that seems to be how his full name is written in most English texts, as far as I can recall. Zora can correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't recall ever seeing Ali ibn Abi Talib in a text designed for non-Arabic speaking people. It is probably the most correct, though that doesn't mean we must go with the most correct name all the time. Common names win over correct names the vast majority of the time. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pepsidrinka that a general reference to "Ali" with no context is most likely to refer to this Ali. Even if there was a need for Ali to be a disambiguation page, this title Ali ibn Abi Talib, or the other version Ali ibn Abu Talib, is an inappropriate title - most English speakers do not know the name of Ali's father, so this is a confusing and useless disambiguation. Ali (Caliph) or Ali (Shi'a Imam) or Ali (Caliph and Shi'a Imam) woulld seem to be the appropriate way to disambiguate. But I don't see any reason that Ali should be a disambiguation page. It seems like this page gets moved every few months without any discussion, and I don't see why we should have to wait a while to discuss it to move it back. It should stay at Ali until there's a consensus to move it somewhere else, which there clearly isn't in this case. john k 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back, on the grounds that "Ali" was a name agreed to by consensus, and that the move was made without any discussion. If we come to a consensus that the page should be moved back to some disambiguated title, we can do that, but until then, it should stay here. john k 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While its not a huge deal where it is to me, it should not move without discussion. I've protected the page against page moves so in the event there is a consensus to move it, it can be put on Wikipedia:Requested moves or any other admin can move it. Pepsidrinka 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally have not decided on which title is better "Ali" or "Ali ibn...", however I think if we do use his full name Ali should redirect here and Ali (disambiguation) should remain the dab page. This is by far and away the most important usage of Ali so we needn't nest it behind a dab page. I think the move back was a good idea because there was never any consensus for the first move. gren グレン 07:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Zora, can you please explain why you removed the following from the article. Thanks

Shia sources report the following quote attributed to Ali as a response to the people of Medina who asked him to accept the rulership [1] [2]:

I swear by the Creator of this Universe that had they not sworn unconditional allegiance to me; had they not manifested profound gratitude for my accepting their rulership; had not the presence of helpers and supporters made it incumbent upon me to defend the faith; and had Allah, the Almighty not taken a promise from the learned to put a check upon the luxurious and vicious lives of Oppressors and tyrants as well as to try to reduce the pangs of poverty and starvation of the oppressed and downtrodden, and had He not made it incumbent upon them to secure back the usurped rights of the weak from the mighty and powerful oppressors, I would even now have left the rulership of this State as I did earlier and would have allowed it to sink into anarchy and chaos. Then you would have seen that in my view the glamour of a vicious life of your world is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

--Aminz 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

One, it's too long. We do not usually give extended speeches in WP. Two, it is historically dubious. No cite by an early chronicler, just pointed, in a vague way, to Shi'a websites. I have a strong suspicion that this will turn out to have been attributed to Ali centuries later. We have links to Shi'a websites. If people want to read this sort of material, it's there. I'm OK with re-telling Shi'a legends (or what I regard as legends) but not with extensive quotes of dubious material. Zora 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jamal Confrontation and Siffin Confrontation

Zora please do not delete the Jamal Confrontation and the Siffin Confrontation section in Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib’s article because these two events were big things that happened after Imam Ali AS became a caliph. I did read a neutral website on the two events and then I wrote these two things in my own words. If I copied and pasted then these two sections would have been two to three pages long. So please do not delete it because of two reasons. Firstly, these two events were major events that happened when Imam Ali AS became a caliph, and, secondly, I spent a lot of time writing these two sections in my own words. Even thought I am a Shi’a I have tried my best to write these two sections in a neutral format. Thank You Salman

Salman, you have inserted what is basically pious Shi'a propaganda without ANY reference to the rest of the article. You haven't integrated it at all. You shouldn't do that. You have to engage with the article as it is and not just insert your own POV essay wherever you feel like it. Zora 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Zora. The language needs to be more factual and less emotional. I realize that the confrontations Ali had were a big deal, but sources need to be cited for anything that is highly debated. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay fine give me some time to figure out how to source correctly and then i will post the confrontations sections again. But i don't think that the two sections were saying things from the Shi'a point of view. Thank You Salman
Salman, the article already has discussions of the events you want to discuss. You can't just write your personal essay and insert it into the article as if the rest of the article didn't exist. Your contributions have to be PART of the article. Take it one sentence at a time and if you want to add extra material, reference it. Be warned, we may take it out again, or move it to the Shi'a section. You often rely on Shi'a websites that do not give sources and include material that is not based on the earliest historians. Zora 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I know the article does in the Caliphate section but not in detail. The Jamal Confrontation and the Siffin Confrontation were two very important events that took place when Imam Ali AS became the Caliph that is also the time when Shi’aism was founded. I e-mail those two sections to wikipedia and asked them to read it and tell me if they think the paragraphs are written from a Shi’a POV. So I am just waiting for their reply. I they say no, then I am just going to repost the two sections under Caliphate section of Imam Ali AS’s page and if they say that they think those paragraphs are written from the POV of Shi’as then I am going to write them again and try my best to be neutral and then I will post it. Okay! Thank You Salman 12:21 PM, 05/11/06

Events may be important, but they won't necessarily be discussed in great detail in the earliest histories. In Islamic history, the detail is often added later, by people who want to make a good story out of it. WP cannot retail those stories as historical fact. Salman, you aren't in the US to study history, but if you're going to try to write it, you're going to have to play by the rules of the historical profession. How about reading Tabari and Baladhuri, rather than relying on Shi'a websites?

I should also add that discussing a few of the events in Ali's life in excruciating detail and leaving the rest as generalities is bad writing, and it's boring to boot. You are not going to attract anyone to Ali, or to Shi'a Islam, with bad writing. Zora 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Source? --Striver 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Bahram Moshiri has proven it several times in his television programms, but hes far from the only one with the proofs in his hands, it has been proven a long time ago. Its ok tho, it was not only him, almost every arab including the Imams that walked in persia in the time of the conquest has killed some persians and have had some persian wifes. So the shias don't have to worry about getting all the credit. Ironically it was the Caliphes that limited the amount of persian wifes an arab citizen could have, and if they had not done so there would be no persian women left after a few generations, so you have to give them some credit for thinking about the future. --Spahbod 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did i forget to mention, punishment for a persian to have an arab women was death. --Spahbod 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Why is this article so weak

As a Muslim I'm ashamed to see this article is so weak. I scanned the talk page of this article. It's terrible. You always have editorial war and somebody does authoritative edits. But the article is very weak. There isn't reference for most of the article. It is weak and it is defective. Why this article should be so terrible although most of the Muslims accepts Ali's position even Tabari has written a book about Ghadir!!!--

I've worked for 2 weeks on 2 controversial articles: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and Hezbollah. Please go and look at them. Although there was diversity of opinions but it was useful and editors could comply on the text. But I don't see such a thing here.--Sa.vakilian 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, that's why I added the tags. I'm not familiar with sources and I was hoping someone would be inticed to fix it up. It appears that this page has been mostly abandoned. There is almost a constant stream of Shi'a style vandalism. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


There are few reference in English about Islam. So how can I use original reference (Arabic and Persian) in this article.--Sa.vakilian 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't. And the references you just added do not pass muster. A Shi'a website is not a scholarly or authoritative source. Where is the documentation of early hadiths? Where are they published. What sources do US universities use to research Ali? I'm going to add back the unreferenced tag, because nothing significant has been added. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you and I don't want to use Shiite weblogs. Unfortunately there is few reference in English about Islam especialy Shiism. But i can use a wide source of original text in Arabic or Persian. --Sa.vakilian 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Cuñado tell me for what paragraph or sentence do you need reference for. I am going to try my best to find the reference because I am not going to let a small thing like this mess up the page of my first Imam. So you tell me the reference you need and I am going to provide you with the sources. Okay, Thank YouSalman 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well one significant piece of work is to convert all the references into <ref> tags. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. This will create in-text links which are small and can reference a book and page number. Any time a Hadith is mentioned, or any fact about Ali's life, there should be a footnote to a reputable source. Undocumented Hadiths have virtually destroyed Islam, and people have created rumors which are spread as if they are of divine origin. If you can't find a good source of hadiths, not in website form, then they should not be mentioned and they should be t reated as false.
As for the life of Ali, find some books that were not written by Muslims. Check university websites for what sources they use, and find those books. Read them, and edit the page while inserting footnotes to the book with a page number.
That's a good place to start. I also have enormous veneration and respect for Ali, and I want to see the article well written, but I don't have much knowledge of the subject, and especially not enough knowledge of sources. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Cuñado I really appreciate your efforts to make this article perfect. Since you are the one saying that some of the things that are being said in this article needs references, can you please tell me the paragraph(s) and sentence(s) that need references and sources. It will be easy for me to get references and sources like that and then no one is going t have any problem what the article is saying about Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (AS). Thank You Salman 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I just re-worked about half the article. I removed the really poor references which were unsourced web pages, and I added "citation needed" tags where I felt references were much lacking. I also added comments to some of the tags which are not displayed. I'll work on it more a little later. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit... The websites you add are not good sources. If you find a source which uses (PBUH) and other honorifics, or refers to Ali as "his holiness Ali", then it has a bias and is not an academic source. You also deleted some of the 'uncited' tags without inserting anything. Al-Balagh does not appear to be a good source. Their website says nothing about who they are or where they get information. If the source doesn't have a wikipedia page, that's a good sign that it's a bad source. Try researching the Library of Congress. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tafsir Almizan

I added a quotation from Tafsir al-Mizan which is a valid source[12] and [13]--Sa.vakilian 12:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This site [14] is reliable among Shiites. According to it "This Center whose goal is to spread the Shi`ite culture through the WEB and create a kind of strong relation between the theological class and the public, is being managed under the supervision of the office of His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (may Allah protect him)." So we can refered to it.--Sa.vakilian 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

change of title

I suggest moving this to ‘Ali. I have been trying to format Arabic titles to be the correct transliteration and include the ayin character. It's the way Britanica does it[15], as well as any other academic sources. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, PLEASE, do not do that, per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/names!--Striver 01:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a bias

Anons and new editors keep adding Shi'a polemic garbage. Things like this keep sneaking into the article:

"Hazrat Ali is the lion of Allah and all muslims love him and trust in his teachings. He is the leader of all Sufies and the true leader of muslims after Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H)."[16]

I seem to be the only one who cares, and I'm not even a Muslim. If anyone out there can start watching this page, I would appreciate it. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 21:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can help you with removing such sentences.--Sa.vakilian 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We can use Nahj al Balagha

We can use Ali's quotations to complete this article. For example we can use " Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah" to complete Ali's life after Rasoolallah.[17]. Fortunately this site debates about the trustworthy and validity of sermons. If you agree, I can say each sermon or letter is suitable for which issue.--Sa.vakilian 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Another book

Few years ago a collection of Ali's quotations was find in the VAtican library. But I find a reference for it in Persian.[18] So what we do?--Sa.vakilian 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can't use it unless it's verifiable in English. But you might want to check on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 06:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunni and Shiite viewpoint

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

AGREE...why isnt that already done??? They should have a bio with facts and then a Shia/Sunni view point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

a mistake

This sentence is wrong. "The Kaaba is said to have cracked open so that Fatima bint Asad, Ali's mother, could enter, then closed behind her." Ali's mother like others entered from the door not the wall.--Sa.vakilian 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, that concept comes from Shi'a ahadith traditions and you can see some an an example -xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 04:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph is showing the extreme mythical stories that have been created. See Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib for references. Obviously the Kaaba didn't crack open, and he didn't come out of the womb speaking, but we put those in to comment on the phenomenon of myth-making that Shi`ah have participated in about Ali. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali's birth date

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

Ghadir Khumm

I added something about Ghadir Khumm from the reliable site: 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

only problem being... it's not a reliable website. ITAQALLAH 11:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say that? It's on the basis of Muslim Hadiths. If it was not reliable, then what could be reliable.--Sa.vakilian 13:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC) is a shi'ite polemic website. it does not qualify as a reliable source. the recollection of the event as you have written in the article is not agreed upon, and is not tawatur lafdhee. ITAQALLAH 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is the whole text of "Ghadir Khutba" on the basis of 42 books of Shiites and Sunni. [19]--Sa.vakilian 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

do you see where it says it has been taken from "various portions"? not only does this show a lack of tawatur, but also a lack of tasheeh made by the author. you cannot simply join all of the reports together, assuming it will make the case stronger. this is highly unreliable. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? I don't understand. As I said you before for example a Sunni historian and theologian (Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari) quoted this Hadith from 70 ways. Is there any hadith which has narrated more than Ghadir.The chains (asnad) of narrations of Ghadir Khum--Sa.vakilian 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To acheive agreement I write Hadiths on the basis of Sunni books:

  • Al-Sunan al-Sughra:"It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. I am leaving for you two precious things. One of them is greater than the other. They are the Book of Allah and my Progeny, that is my Ahlul Bayt. So watch how do you succeed me in them. The two shall never separate from each other until they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)"كأنّي دعيت فأجبت ، وإني قد تركت فيكم الثقلين ، أحدهما أكبر من الآخر : كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي ، فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما ؟ فإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا عليّ الحوض (v.5 p:45&130)
  • Sunan al-Tirmidhi :"For whoever I am his Leader or master (mawla or Wali), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla or wali)"فمن كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه" (v.5, p 633)
  • Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Umar ibn al-Khattab said:"Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the Leader (mawla) of all believing men and women " "«بَخٍّ بَخٍّ يابنَ أبي طالبٍ اَصْبحتَ مولايَ و مولا كُلِّ مؤمنٍ و مؤمنةٍ»(Vol. 4 P.281)

There are too many other references but I think it's enough. However, If you doubt in this text, Please go and read this scholar text English version and Arabic version and also you can read this scholar text about Hadith Saghalain .Arabic version--Sa.vakilian 03:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the first narration is not directly related to this article, i am sure it's already present in other more relevant articles. the narration itself is fine although there are differences in wording as well as differences in context. the second narration is differed over according to minhaaj as-sunnah, some call it mash'oor and others not. the context is again also differed over, i.e. when he said it and what it was in relation to. the third narration i did not manage to find in al-musnad, and there is reasonable basis on which to consider it unsound until tasheeh is made. regardless, the sources you are giving for the actual narrative and contextualisation in the article are not reliable. you cannot present ahadeeth (which may or may not be sound) and then contextualise it yourself or through weak narrations. if you want to discuss this further, please use the user talk pages. ITAQALLAH 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not the dabate between me and you. I accept that there is little differences among references but there are some differences in reading qur'an too. For example "مالک یوم الدین" is read in two way with two meaning. Do you say the qur'an is unreliable source becouse there is 14 different ways to read it.
there is no difference in the text of the qur'aan. there is differences in qira'at (i.e. diacritical markings) which have little effect in changing the general meaning or context. this has nothing to do with actual differences in matn. ITAQALLAH 06:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I beleive there isn't any historic isuue which all of the references says 1 and just 1 thing about it. Also Wikipedia want to publish all of the reliable narration about any issue.

There is reliable scholar text in this case [20] which shows at least some of the Sunni scholars and all of the Shiite scholars believed that this Hadith is reliable.

There are some of the Sunni scholars who think this hadith is Sahih"Amongst these scholars were
a)Abu Isa Tirmidhi in his Sahih Tirmidhi (v.5, chapter 20-Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib- Hadith #3713), b)Abu Abdullah Hakim Naishaboori in al-Mustadrak A?la al-Sahihain, c)Tabari (based on the narration of Dhahabi in Tadhkirat al-Hufadh, vol.2, p.713, Hadith #728)d)Shams al-Din Dhahabi has written a book specifically about the narration of Ghadir. (Ibn Kathir has noted in his book al-Bidayah wa al-nihayah, vol. 5, pp. 228-229 that ?our sheikh Abu Abdallah Dhahabi has considered this narration of Ghadir as Sahih)e)Abu al-Hassan Maghazili in his book ??Manaqib?? has narrated from his professor, Ibn Hajar Haythami in his Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (p.43) f)Ibn Abd al-Birr in Al-Isti?ab All of these scholars have considered the narration of Ghadir as Sahih."comment no.13
There are some of the Sunni scholars who think this Hadith is Mutavatir. "From amongst the ancient and Salaf scholars of the Sunni school of thought, scholars like Dhahabi (another narration of Ghadir, according to Ibn Kathir?s Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 5, p.233), Jalal al-Din Suyuti, Shams al-Din Jarazi Shafiei author of Asna al-Matalib and . From amongst the contemporary scholars, scholars like Diya al-Din Muqbili in his book- Al-Abhath al-Mutaaddida fi al-Funun al-Mutaaddida, Shahab al-Din Abu al-Faydh Hadarmi in his book Tashnif al-Adhan, and many others have considered the narration of Ghadir as Mutawatir. "comment no.15
And all of the Shiite scholars believe that it is Mutawatir.[comment no.16

I remind you we, as wikipedians, aren't in the position to judge about the reliablity of the scholar texts unless we show some sholar texts which prove our claim. And I remind you If we don't use such texts because of minor variaty, then which text can we use? I propose to add all versions which relates to this article, If there are varriaties in the sources.--Sa.vakilian 06:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

with all due respect i think you are not understanding the issue. the narration/event of ghadir is mutawaatir but there are significant (and no, they are not minor) differences in the matn of the hadeeth, and so certain parts of the event are known to not reach that level of tawatur. if you do not understand mustalah al-hadeeth, you will not understand how a narration can be sound while certain extentions or variations will be unsound, or how certain parts of a narration will be mutawaatir while other extensions considered mawdoo'. there is no proof whatsoever that each and every person quoted was talking about the exact same matn, and there is reasonable evidence to show that certain areas are disputed. furthermore, shi'ite polemic sites are not independantly reliable sources unless they are stating what shi'ites believe. their words cannot be taken as fact. please review WP:RS. it is the requirement of editors to ensure that the authority speaking on a matter is relevant, suitable, and reliable. we cannot unquestioningly accept the narrative of a website known for misinformation. quoting sunni texts does not matter at all because it has not been shown that they all report the exact same matn as shi'i sources report. please understand this. thanks. ITAQALLAH 07:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
also, nobody is saying to not mention ghadir here. it is inaccurate to use the exact narrative as described from the website given as it is not a reliable source. there is another article where you can put in all the variations you want. ITAQALLAH 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
appreciating you for your valuable information, I disagree with you in some cases. 1- Shiite sites are reliable not only as Shiite POV, if they quote Sunni Hadiths in that case too. 2- I think we can find some quotations in the Ghadir sermon which almost all sources have narrated it with minor differences or at least we can put some part of it without quotation mark on the basis of Sunni and Shiite narrations. 3- We can put some parts with lower reliability and say what sources narrate it. Also we mention this part is less credible among Muslims or just credible between Shiites. 4- At the end if you want to help to edit this article write your favorite edition here.--Sa.vakilian 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. many of them are not honest in what they relate and i can testify to that. more often than not they do not quote the relevant takhreej. no point quoting a hadeeth from a sunni work if the hadeeth is mawdoo'
  2. only shi'ites tend to regard ghadeer to be extremely significant to the life of 'Ali because according to their versions it has certain implications. however, we already have the other article where all the versions can be mentioned. it is not approprate to replicate that all here as per WP:NPOV (undue weight). i would endorse a brief narrative of ghadeer containing a version which is acceptable to all. ITAQALLAH 07:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we can rely on some books like [ رسالة طرق حديث

من كنت مولاه فهذا علي مولاه] and edit this part.--Sa.vakilian 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some books in National Library of Iran which are wriiten by Sunnis scholars to prove that the hadith of Ghadir is correct and Mutawatir. All of them emphasize that Muhammad has said "Who ever that I'm his mowla(leader/master) So Ali is his mowla(Leader-master)." These books are published in qom. [21][22]

  • "The ways of Hadith Ghadir narrated by Abibakr ibn Abi Shaybah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal and ..."

" طرق حديث الغدير برواية أبى بكر ابن أبى شيبة و" Pub:Dilile ma[23] --- WID-LC:BP145 / 2الف4غ --- ISBN: 964-397-169-4 ---Language:Arabic --- [24]

  • "The ways of Hadith Alghadir" "طرق حديث الغدrير" ---writer:Ali ibn Hasan Ashafei ibn Asaker --- Pub:Dilile ma --- WID-LC:BP145/ 2الف4غ--- ISBN:964-397-170-8 ---Language:Arabic --- [25]
  • "The ways of hadith man konto mowlah faalion mowlah" "طرق حديث من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه"

--- writer: Shamsaddin zahabi --- Pub: Dilile ma --- WID-LC:BP233/5 ر9ذ / 52 --- ISBN:964-7990-06-5 --- lan:arabic [26]--Sa.vakilian 14:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

presenting an iraani press for a topic like this does not help the issue at all. we have already discussed the issue of tawatur (ad nauseum) and how the event and much of the speech is agreed upon but certain parts are considered either fabricated, unsound or not to the level of tawatur according to muhaddithoon. we have already discussed regarding the book of adh-dhahabi. it is not even mentioned on mainstream websites: whereas all of dhahabi's books are well known, printed in many editions by various presses and are traceable to him.
this is what i propose: i think what we should focus on is working on a narrative which we both find acceptable. i have no problem with the mawla narration being included in the narrative. give me a bit of time and i will propose a version and then we can work on the issues from there. how does that sound? ITAQALLAH 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? What is your problem if you have no problem with the mawla narration being included in the narrative?--Sa.vakilian 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
if you think all of this has just been about the mawla phrase then you have misunderstood the issue entirely. the mawla issue is disputed over but i think it merits mention as there are credible sources saying it is sound. however, the context of it and the general narrative you proposed in the article is not currently acceptable due to its one-sided POV. certain parts are either irrelevant or generally highly dubious such as the passage afterward about ba'yah and 'umar's reported congratulation (as said before, i did not find it in al-musnad and it requires the relevant tasheeh) which is only found on non-reliable shi'ite websites and not considered to be authentic by sunnis. that passage of itself does not merit mention IMO, but give me some time to propose a slightly altered version. is that ok with you or not? ITAQALLAH 17:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If you had written more specific sentences like now, we could have achieved result sooner. --Sa.vakilian 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your eddition except "this part:"Although its authenticity is disputed"--Sa.vakilian 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Also added Shi'a references.--Sa.vakilian 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
what about phrasing it like this: "Some authorities report (although its authenticity is disputed[15]) that Muhammad then proclaimed.."? ITAQALLAH 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose this :"All of Shi'a and most of Sunni scholars admit or believe". Also I want to add the some of Suffis's idea:"This was the declaration of ‘Alī’s spiritual sovereignty and its unconditional acceptance is binding on the believers till the Day of Judgment. "[27]--Sa.vakilian 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Role of Ali in the battles(Gazw)

User:Cunado19: Please tell me why did you delete the role of Ali in the "Battle of Uhud" and "Battle of trench" and reverted Ali#Ali in Medina.--Sa.vakilian 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please restore whatever I changed. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please describe here why you or any other wikipedian remove something from the article.--Sa.vakilian 01:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a myth. Sunnies do not agree with such a claim. --Islamic 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is based on the al Kamil of Ibn Atheer and he is Sunni.--Sa.vakilian 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Battles

I have begun a new section, regarding the battles. Muslims, both Shi'a and Sunnis, do not disagree as to the unmatched prowess of Ali, in the battles that he partook in. Most of the sources used are neutral - neither Shia nor Sunni, but Western.

Because there was some information about his battles, I moved them to a new article:Ali the Warrior. You can merge some part of it in this article Ali#Ali in Medina and Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud.--Sa.vakilian 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we should make a new section? Isn't easier to just leave it in the main article?
1- Because there is another part which contains something about these two battles and we don't want to duplicate anything. So you should merge them.
2- Ali the Warrior has too many details which don't relate to this article, for example the role of women in the battle. I don't want to remove them completely.
3- We make new article wherever we have enough information. Please look at Hezbollah it has 5 subarticles.--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please sign what you write in the talk page:--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see a link to the new article in the main one.:--HusaynIbnAli 9:54, 12 November 2006

You're right. I added.--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the religion of peace and tranquility and does not like killing, plundering, and bloodshed. But if someone kills another without any reason then Islam has strong punishment to deal with him. Of course, if an enemy attacks the Muslims then by the standards of wits, common sense, and religious law, self defense which as a form of Jihad becomes essential and indispensable.

This is not only baldly false, but shockingly fatuous as well. I recommend removing it, so as not to harm the credibility of the rest of the article. The Sanity Inspector 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Death of Ali

It was nineteenth of Ramadan, while Ali was leading the morning prayers and was in the second Sujud of the second Raka'ah that Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim's sword fell and the life of the greatest warrior saint was taken away to his merciful Lord.

There is too much poetry and not enough information in this passage. Remember, non-Muslims come here, too. Let the contributors think like journalists: Who, What, When, Where, and Why The Sanity Inspector 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just the last sentence is biased:and the life of the greatest warrior saint was taken away to his merciful Lord--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

shia veiwpoint

I this articile should be changed, it shows only the shia veiwpoint of Ali. Bazel 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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


As this is an article about a person, are there any pictures or paintings of Ali which we can add to this article?--Sefringle 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The problem is that there isn't any real portrait. There are numerous imaginary ones and I disagree on using fabricated materials in historic articles.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, ya Ahmad, this is ridiculous. If a group of religious Shias complain, we might want to take it down, but as this haven't happened, there's no need for these "pre-emptive" strikes. I vote for putting the painting (on the right here) back in. Ali isn't Muhammad, there isn't a consensus on whether he can be showed or not. Still, if some group of Christians chose to be against the depiction of Jesus, would we remove all images of him from Wikipedia? Vakilian's argument about "fabricated images" can be used about Jesus as well, by the way. Funkynusayri 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Awright, I put the picture in and made clear that it is only an interpretation, and not an actual photograpghy of Ali. If someone wants to remove it, give a reason. There are old paintings of Muhammad too o the Muhammad page, by the way.Funkynusayri 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant, people don't know how Jesus looked like, yet there are pictures of him all over the place. Furthermore, It was made pretty clear that it is in fact not an actual picture of how Ali looked like in reality, so I don't see the problem. It's odd how there seem to be more people complaining about this one picture of Ali than about the many pictures of Muhammad on his page.Funkynusayri 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As-Salam 3laykom wa rahmatol'llah...

Brothers, I would like to address the "desendants" of our blessed Prophet section. The Term Sayyid is applyed in Lebanon to many families like Moussawi, Nasrallah, these families are relatives of the Blessed Prophet, not just el-Husseinis, Ahmad Husseini 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Off Topic) In accordance to the Shi'ite council of Lebanon, it is haram to show Imam Ali(a.s)'s face, does anyone here follow this principle? Have you guys all ready discussed this before inserting the picture of the Imam near the bottom? Ahmad Husseini 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Break in Narrative

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

# 4.2 Innovations # 4.3 Ali’s sayings

I have added these two sections but dont know how to make them under sunni view rather than a whole seperate section.--Rami.b 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i have also expanded on the "Sunni view of Ali" section.--Rami.b 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New disputed content

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


As I said before, User:MezzoMezzo, do not attempt to revert my edits to this article. A Sunni fanatic shouldn't be allowed to lay his hands on this article, let alone monopolize it and revert edits made from a historical non-Wahhabi point of view. Refrain from futher editing this article or any other Shi'a-related article. Cheers. KlakSonnTalk 04:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Klak Sonn, please be reasonable about this. While it is alright for you to disagree with my revert, you can't tell me not to revert it, as Wikipedia is for everyone to edit; rather than trying to tell me not to edit, you should explain why your edit was appropriate.
Also, I wasn't monopolizing this article, I was just reverting your edit because it was large and you did not discuss it here first.
On top of that, you have called me a Nasibi, a fanatic, and a Wahhabi here, a Nasibi on my talk page, and a fanatic in your edit summary. Again, I ask you to review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies.
As for other Shia related articles, I will continue helping to improve upon them. For you to tell me I cannot is silly; you are not an administrator. Also, Wikipedia is for everybody, you don't even have to be Muslim at all to edit such articles. That's what makes this site so great: it's for everybody.
I have notified the site administration about this incident, as I checked your block log and you have a history of being blocked for incivility. Please be reasonable Klak Sonn, your fellow editors are all here to help each other.
Also, you have still failed to justify your edits. All you did was attack me. MezzoMezzo 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Klaksonn, such incendiary comments are unproductive. please refrain from making them in the future. thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Klaksonn, you have rewritten the same sections again and still haven't explained why. The disputed tag over the section is there for a reason and it is appropriate to gain a consensus with other editors here on the talk page before taking such action.
In addition, you have repeatedly accused me of vandalism for reverting your unexplained edits when this is clearly incorrect. As the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy states, any good faith effort to improve upon the site is not vandalism. I recommend that you review the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline before taking any similar actions again. All I have asked is that you come here to discuss your edits first; you have already been warned by Wikipedia administrators over your behavior in regard to this issue once, please be reasonable about this. MezzoMezzo 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


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

Totally disputed section

Recently, a number of changes have been made to the Inheritance section without any discussion. While this normally wouldn't be an issue, the neutrality and factual accuracy of the section are both under dispute, hence the totally disputed tag. The best way to handle this situation is to discuss the issues so we can all reach a consensus and ultimately resolve both disputes. Edits such as this one are not only unhelpful but also blatant violations of the the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline and the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies.
The whole matter really shouldn't be that complicated, it just looks to me like no one has made the effort to discuss the problems with this section now. I would ask that if anyone seeks to make major changes to a totally disputed section again, they discuss it here first so all interested parties can work on it together and reach a consensus. MezzoMezzo 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also have a vested interest in working towards a neutrally accepted version of these events so would like to help out in understanding what the points of contention are and work towards a consensus. I have copied the section below and would like to hear the various point of views and hopefully we can come to an agreement. MezzoMezzo, could you put your views on what is under dispute please first. → AA (talk) — 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help AA. I'm only on for a little bit so i'll have to save going through the whole section until later. However, my main point of contention was just that the disputed tag has repeatedly been removed without discussion, which I felt was inappropriate. In a day or so i'll go through and state what I think of the section, and hopefully soon we can get input from other interested parties as well. MezzoMezzo 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Shi'a Muslims believe that Ali and Fatima, as well as the wives of Muhammad had an additional cause for disaffection with Abu Bakr.[3] The new caliph argued that Muhammad's considerable landed property had been held by Muhammad in trust for the community, and was rightfully the property of the state, despite Ali's rejoinder that Muhammad's revelations included accounts of prophetic inheritance (Qur'an 27:16, 21:89). According to Shi'ah Muslims, Abu Bakr gave state pensions to Muhammad's widows, but Muhammad's blood relatives, Ali, Fatima and `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, did not receive even that much. After Fatima's death Ali again claimed her inheritance, but was denied with the same argument. However, Umar, the caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr, did restore the estates in Medina to al-Abbas and Ali, as representatives of Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim. The properties in Khaybar and Fadak were retained as state property (Madelung 1997 p. 62). Shi'a sources regard this as another instance of the persecution of Muhammad's lineage, the Ahl al-Bayt, at the hands of the caliphs they regard as usurpers.[4]

Ya Ali Madad

I think some history of saying Ya Ali Madad should be added here. Shias generally use it as a call of help, but in Northern India, even some Hindus use this to seek help just like Jai Bajrangbali. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

If you have any sources to support this, please post here for discussion. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 09:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Would be difficult to get sources for this because it is more of a common practice among Shias and other people use it without actually knowing its significance. They might not even know who was Ali. I could point to some forums which appear by doing a Google. But, somebody else might be able to help in this regard. i.e. get the sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:05, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
I guess it could be classed as a Neologism and unless the word/phrase has been discussed in some reliable sources, writing about it in any articles would be classed as original research. → AA (talk) — 09:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not something which is used recently or a new term. This I think traces back to the Prophet himself (again cannot confirm) who used "Ya Ali Adrikni" during a war (i think Khyber). "Ya Ali Adrikni" is purely arabic for "Ya Ali Madad" or "Ya Ali Medet" (urdu, hindi, etc...) 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a recent famous hindi song which contains these words in the start 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You can put this issue in "Ali and Muslim's folklore" if it relates to customs and in "Muslim view" if it relates to their beliefs and prays.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ali as deity

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

  • Alawites, for example, but they do view themselves as Shias. It's pretty hard to find reliable sources about them though. Funkynusayri 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They've been recognized as Ghulat. There are reliable source at least in Persian and Arabic.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)