Jump to content

Talk:Ali/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Historigraphy Section

I cannot understand how life of Ali ibn Abi Talib has its source in the Quran? Maybe some refrences to this will be helpful. I am thus going ahead and editing this line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem1 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources which are used to provide an NPOV text

I tried to add reliable sources by using the Allameh Tabatabaei's books. Of course someone else who is familiar with Sunni and western viewpoints should try to make this article more NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To make this article POV I used these sources:
  • Nahj al-Balagha(Peak of Eloquence), Ali ibn Abi Talib, compiled by ash-Sharif ar-Radi
Somebody may think this book expresses Shia viewpoint while it is neither completely Shia nor Sunni. Also some of Sunni consider it as reliable source in historic issues.(Please pay attention to the differences between Rijal criteria and historic ones.)
  • Encyclopedia of Holy Prophet and Companions, Ashraf, Shahid (2005).
This is the only detailed English biography of Ali which I could find. This book is written by a Sunni.
  • Shi'ite Islam, Tabatabae, Sayyid Mohammad Hosayn; Seyyed Hossein Nasr (translator) (1979)
Although there are several Shia source about Imam Ali but this book is the most reliable one in west.
  • The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Madelung, Wilferd (1997).

This is an academic and reliable book which describes Rashidun's era in detail.

  • Holt, P. M.; Bernard Lewis (1977). Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. 1.

An academic brief history Of Islam.

  • A History of Islamic Societies, 2nd, Lapidus, Ira (2002).

It contains a brief academic history of Ali's reign

I also use the other sources like Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim whenever I was relevant. I tried to use more than one source in each case. I hope I have written an NPOV text. Feel free to put POV tag on the article or challenge my editions. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Suitable template?

Is it suitable to use monarch template in this article. I made a template for Salaf and we can use that one.[1]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadith Yawm Al-Dar or Yawm Al-Enzar

When the Prophet gathered Banu Hashim and invited them to Islam (Qur'an 26:214) and Ali accepted his invitation, there is a quotation which is narrated by the prophet "إن هذا أخی و وصیی و خلیفتی فیکم فاسمعوا له و أطیعوه" means "Indeed this[Ali] is my brother and inheritor and successor among you Thus hear(listen to) him and obey him."

I want to if this Hadith is available in Sunni sources or not?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can check tomorrow night at the masjid if you would like, aside from actual books I can try to run a web search for the Arabic text. (Assuming I remember and/or am not being lazy ;) ...) MezzoMezzo 04:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
i don't know about this particular text. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Authenticity of Nahj al-Balagha

Ittaqillah asked about authenticity of this work and mentioned that some scholars haven't considered it as an authentic source. Please pay attention that compilation of this work is not similar to the Hadith books. The method of collecting the Nahj al-Balagha differs from that of the hadith collections, especially those of Sunni Islam. Sharif ar-Radi edited the available material, omitting portions with lesser literary value. He has not included isnads for the different text pieces.[2] However An Indian Sunni scholar Imtiyaz ‘Ali’ Arshi, who died a little while ago, did the most painstaking research in this context. He succeeded in tracing back the early sources of 106 sermons, 37 letters and 79 stray sayings of Amir-al-Momeneen (as) in his book Istinad-e Nahj al-balaghah, originally written in Urdu, subsequently translated into Arabic in 1957, then into English and Persian. However, this work still stands as the most valuable research in this field.[3]

On the other hand It is important to note that even Ibn Khallikan, al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar did not question the authenticity of the attribution of Nahj-ul-Balagha in its entirety to Amir-al-Momeneen. They were mainly skeptical of those parts which were critical of the Caliphs Abu Bakr and 'Umar. But if we find such utterances and writings of Amir-al-Momeneen (as) in both Shia and non-Shia sources earlier than Nahj-ul-Balagha, baseless-ness of al-Dhahabi's and Ibn Hajar's objections can be conclusively proved.[4]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In brief this issue is extremely crusial and there are different viewpoints. Even Shi'a scholars rarely use it as the resource of Fiqh but on the other hand use it in theological and historical fields. I believe its Eloquency distinct it from other hadiths and make it uniqe.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Enzuru's Review

This article is quite excellent, and displays both Sunni and Shi'ah views and properly notes each. Some sections were however poorly written, and I would suggest a rewrite of them:

  • Family life - Doesn't follow normal encyclopedic style
  • Ghadir Khumm - Written sloppily, and needs expansion
  • Reign as Caliph - Check POV

Other issues include the following:

  • Several romanisation styles of the word Shi'ah
  • Ali and 'Ali are used interchangeably (I went ahead and fixed this myself using Ali)
  • Spelling and grammar errors, I fixed the ones I saw as I went through, but there were probably several I missed.


Great job on this article. I am truly impressed with how far it has come. --Enzuru 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Khawar Nama - kamal khan rostami

I think this is one of the earlier works in Urdu language and it is related somewhere to Ali. If someone can find more information on the same can be great. Google did find me much. Wikion 09:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jafr - occult sciences

Ali is also said to be inventor of Jafr. Can anybody find more information on the same Wikion 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Imam Ali

There is another article, Imam Ali, which is similar to this one and should be merged to it. What's your idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Didn't you read at the start of the article:

(This article is an encyclopedia entry on Ali ibn Abi Talib that is to be compiled with the objective of providing an alternate, but equally qualified, historical biography from the overlooked historical records and personal accounts of Orthodox Shi'a sources.) Sikandros 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be merged to Shi'a view of Ali.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we should move/rename the article Ali to Sunni view of Ali since the sources there are mostly sunni (the Shi'a sources like Nahj al-Balagha are excepted to a degree by a portion of sunni scholars; there are no truely Shi'a sources.) Sikandros 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm Shia and I really tried to write both POVs in this article.Another Shia user, Enzuru, confirmed that this article represents both Shia and Sunni POV properly. Please tell us which part of this article is biased. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to display two sides of a coin when you can either look at the front or the back. When you take a certain historical viewpoint and layer it with another viewpoint, it distorts both views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandros (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to write whatever Shia, Sunni and western sources agree with and in some cases I showed different ideas and viewpoints. But I usually leaved their differences. There are especial articles for Shia, Sunni and western reports. You see, I can't write Sulaym's narrations in this article without a harsh editorial war which lead to failure in the article. I think whoever want to know specific view of each sect can refer to the especial article which has made for this reason. By the way, your article is good but it's not appropriate to have two articles with similar name. The readers will be confused. We can merge it with this article and write the especial Shia viewpoint in each case or merge it with Shi'a view of Ali.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Imam Ali (whatever it includes) should be merged into Ali or Shi'a view of Ali. Please see what can be merged before we redirect. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will move the former information[5] of "Imam Ali" to Shi'a view of Ali In Sha Allah. But now the question is to which article should it be redirected, Ali or Shi'a view of Ali. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Imam Ali should redirect to Ali, however there should be a link on giving the Shi'a view of him. Or actually, I am going to make a template for the Fourteen Infallibles. Check back with me. --Enzuru 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a link in template:Ali. But it's good idea to make another template for the fourteen Infallibles.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The city of knowledge

There is some reliable sources about Hadith "I'm the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate..." in Shia and Sunni books.

«قال رسول الله: انا مدینة العلم و علی بابها فمن اراد المدینة فلیأت الباب» See:

  • «حدیث متواتر عن النبی نقله العامة و الخاصة»

شیخ آغابزرگ تهرانی، تاریخ حصر الاجتهاد، تحقیق محمد علی انصاری، قم، موسسة الامام المهدی، 1401 ه‍ ، ص 53.* 10. حاكم نیشابوری، المستدرك علی الصحیحین، تحقیق دكتر یوسف مرعشلی، بیروت، دار المعرفه، 1406ه‍ ، ج 3، ص 126.

  • «رواه احمد‌‌ من ثمانیة طرق و ابراهیم الثقفی من سبعة الطرق و ابن‌بطه من ستة طرق و القاضی الجعانی من خمسة طرق و ابن‌شاهین من اربعة طرق و الخطیب التاریخی من ثلاثة طرق و یحیی بن معین من طریقین و قد رواه السمعانی و القاضی الماوردی و ابو‌منصور السکری و ابو‌الصلت الهروی و عبدالرزاق و شریک عن ابن‌عباس و مجاهد و جابر»

ابن‌ شهر‌ آشوب، مناقب آل ابی‌ طالب، تحقیق گروهی از اساتید نجف، مطبعه الحیدریه، 1376 ه‍ ، ج 11، ص 314 --Seyyed(t-c) 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These are some other websites which discuss about the authenticity of this Hadith:

I think all of these show some Sunnis especially who have Sufi attitude consider it as a authentic hadith.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

with regards to the Sunni perspective, there were some Sunnis who considered it hasan i think but the majority position on this seems to have been that it is inauthentic (refer to the works of al-Mizzi, adh-Dhahabi, an-Nawawi etc.) ITAQALLAH 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
But almost all of the Sunni Sufis believe in it.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

What's your idea about nominating this article after adding some more references.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea at all, as it contains countless errors in language (therefore "cleanup"). Also the references in the footnotes are not good either. Str1977 (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, several things are covered twice. Str1977 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Footnotes: things like "see" and "see also", missing page numbers. Formatting is not uniform and sometimes in itself wrong (comma followed by brackets, eg. "Ashraf, (2005) pp. 119-120". Large quotes in Arabic that the average reader will not be able to read.
  • covered twice: the overview (above the ToC) is much too detailed creating repetition with the information below.
  • language: false tense, false numerus, often a very casual style, sometimes bordering on a violation of NPOV (probably unintentional).
Str1977 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • See is common in the featured articles like Islam.
  • Most of the references have page numbers. In some cases it is not clear because we use online versions which don't have page number. In this cases we put the link of that web pages. In some other cases the wikipedians who added the references didn't write the page number and the sources are not available.
  • Arabic texts:I believe there should be Arabic text of the Hadith due to some possible problems in translations. Of course average reader can read the text as a story without refer to the footnote. The footnote is for whoever want to learn more.
  • covered twice:If you mean the lead, I disagree with you. I think it's appropriate and in proportion with the length of the article.

--Seyyed(t-c) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Answers for Sa.Vakillian:Succession to Muhammad and Inheritance

Recently I was asked by Sa.Vakillian about some edits of mine which seemed odd. I'll bring the issues here regarding what he took issue with:

  • In this edit, I wasn't referring to Madelung as Shia; rather, what she reported was a belief predominantly held by the Shia and not universally accepted by Sunnis. I was trying to make note of that for the readers.
  • In regard to these edits, where I made more changes, the explanation is a bit longer.
  1. The first paragraph N deleted as it is from the Nahj al Balagha, which is not a neutral source as it is accepted by most Shia historians, but not most Sunni historians. If you want to keep it then I think it should be noted that "the Shia hold ali believed the caliphate was his right" with the reference. I'd drop the quote too as an entire paragraph of direct quoting doesn't add anything but dead weight to the article.
    You're correct. Madelung's ideas are similar to Shia beliefs in some cases, but Madelung has written it as the result of his own research. Therefor we should mention the research of some academicians (western or Muslim) support A the other ones support B, etc. Then we should mention the beliefs of Shia and Sunni separately. This is my idea but you can ask the other wikipedians like Aminz and Ittaqallah too. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. As for the second paragraph I removed, that was my mistake. In retrospect I don't know why I would have removed it. I believe your merging of them into one paragraph is appropriate and a much better version as well.
  3. As for the last paragraph, it is overly long and states nothing not already stated in multiple places in the rest of the article. Its only citation is a primary source as well, and as such I felt it serves little purpose.
    If you mean "The succession to Muhammad ...", I think it contains good information. However we can summarize it or even move it to Muslim view. Also we should add some secondary source like Madelung.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. For the last one, I first removed the Quranic reference as it is once again a primary source; we don't have a citation stating that Ali actually used that part of the Quran for that purpose. I'm sure it wont be hard for you to find one, but just posting the sura and ayah number really isn't much. As for the quote, I left the reference to Nahj al Balagha because the sentence marked that Shia sources state such about Ali's inheritance, but again the paragraph long quote adds little to the article as it was already summarized in the paragraph before it.
    I didn't add Quranic verse as a source, but I wanted to clarify the issue. I don't insist on that quotation and as you said the paragraph long quote adds little to the article. Thus I removed it.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That, for the most part, is what I can tell you about my edits. I hope this at least made my intent behind them a little more clear. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I also looked at your recent edits, and they were a good move. I see what you're saying about keeping multiple sources. We should look into this along with other editors we know (when we get the free time), but for the most part I like your suggestions here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nahj3.jpg

Image:Nahj3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Imam Ali coin.jpg

Image:Imam Ali coin.jpg is a fake. Not a silver derham. It is a golden dinar . It was used in Iraq, and the image is already used on the 1000 Dinar Note. The Central Bank of Iraq clearly states in the 1000 Dinar Note section that the coin is called a Dinar not a Dirham and it is made of gold not silver.

A gold dinar coin, used in this region until superseded by more modern coins and notes.

I have removed the image from the article. --Tarawneh (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Masterfully written article

I have observed that articles on Islam are far better written, and of superior quality, than those about Judaism. Great work.


206.63.78.78 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I've nominated Ali as a good article. Few sentences need sources but we can add them soon. Please check the article especially the last part of it.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the Ali article, however, is inadequate. Too many areas use primary sources (whose authenticity may be disputed) such as Nahj al-Balagha or partisan sources which are of unproven reliability, such as al-shia.com, balagh.net, eurohajjmission.org, nahjulbalagha.org, shiacode.org, shaheedfoundation.org... the list goes on and on. I am concerned that the article leans unduly towards Shi'a sources and perspectives. I'm not saying we should use Sunni works or websites (we shouldn't), but I suggest we remove all of the partisan websites and sources and restrict our coverage solely to what is related in academic scholarly sources. This will improve the quality and respectability of the article, and allay concerns that the article is pro-Sunni or pro-Shi'a or pro-anything. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be frankly said that secular- academic or whatever one names it- studies are by no means objective.--Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 19 March 200 (UTC)
I realize that. But the standard of reliability used across Wikipedia should be consistent. We've managed to make high quality good and featured articles without ever needing partisan material/websites/authors which themselves don't meet Wikipedia standards on reliability. ITAQALLAH 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you but when I asked others to help me they refused, so I wanted to attract others attention. I should remind you that all of the primary sources comprising Quran, Nahj al-Balaqa and Sihah just for clarification and in every case I've added some reliable and secondary sources. I can remove all of those primary sources easily. I copy this discussion in Talk:Ali.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should only refer to primary sources if they're explicitly referenced by the secondary sources themselves (c.f. cites 91 and 92, which are lengthy passages sourced only to nahjulbalagha.org). ITAQALLAH 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed "shaheedfoundation.org" as source.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NotePrimary sources are just for clarification and in every case they need secondary sources and we've tried to add both of them.

Lead at five paragraphs is too long, although that's primarily a stylistic issue. Please see WP:LEAD. Some sections could be shortened without any loss of content. There are a few grammatical/stylistic issues, which can be occasionally confusing. The word "also" is used far too often. "Muhammad was the first person whom Ali saw as he took the newborn in his hands", "Even often there was no food in her house", and other sentences are far from clear. Fixing those problems, and tightening the text in general, are probably the biggest weaknesses. I should note that I am primarily an A-Class Biography reviewer rather than a GA reviewer, though, so my reservations may not necessarily be relevant to GA status. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the lead is too long. But I couldn't find less important part to omit. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What's your idea about removing Nahj al-Balaghah from the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I had removed that a while ago, but I don't understand why it had been restored. I removed it on the basis that it didn't really discuss the dispute in academia over authenticity (and instead implicitly assumed authenticity), failed to recognise it as a Shi'i compilation, is compromised by excessive peacock words/adulation, and because I think that any decent discussion about the work needs some space and cannot necessarily be tacked onto the end of the lead. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Note number 14 (more precisely, the second link in that ref.) seems to be non-existent. Can anyone help sort this? MP (talk•contribs) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you mean this:THE COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL: ALI IBN ABI TALIB PRESENTED BY AL-BALAGH FOUNDATION. Am I right? We can omit it due to the existence of other sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed it.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GAR: On Hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A. Jargon issues.
     Additional information neededWhat's your problem with Manual of Style?--Seyyed(t-c) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A.Fact tags in "Veneration" B.See below
     DoneThe part which included fact tags was not important. I moved it to a sub-article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Great job, quite comprehensive.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    no InvalidI've written all of the viewpoints about his role in Uthman's murder. This issue is his most important accusation which his enemies use against him and even curse him. The other issues are not necessarily negative. For example he was one of the guy who kills many Arab pagans. I tried to clarify this issue. Or I've written Madelung says Ali deeply convinced of his right and his religious mission, unwilling to compromise his principles for the sake of political expediencey, ready to fight against overwhelming odds. I think this article is more neutral than what you can find in Britaica.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    I read Ali's entry of "Islam and the Muslim world", an article which is written by a non-Muslim, and found it has glorified him too more than this one. However you can read the encyclopedic articles and compare them with this one.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    A.Image:Imam Ali Series.jpg can be used only to "to illustrate the videotape in question". B. What is the ahlulbait??, img caption in Family life. C. Image:The Message - Muslim Warriors.jpg can be used only to "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents"
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will check for "well written." after the League of copyeditors goes through it. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

07:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just added them for clarification. It's written in WP:MOSISLAM that Editors can not use primary sources to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. But it's good idea to add Qur'an and Hadith to clarify the issue. So God willing I'll check the cases which you've mentioned on the basis of this manual of style.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note:Please pay attention to WP:REF. There is written.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

--Seyyed(t-c) 08:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done I just found two cases and added Persian texts in footnote and replaced the other sources with English ones.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing unacceptable sources
I remove unacceptable sources on the basis of this edition.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[8] was removed.

  • ref number 15
  • ref number 42, I added reliable source.
  • ref number 63, I added reliable source.
  • ref number 43 and 134, I replaced it with a verifiable one.
  • ref number 48 and 50 , please pay attention to the link to the google book. It doesn't have any problem.
  • ref number 68: This sermon exists in al-Tabari and Madelung refer to it in footnote of his book.
  • I removed all of the links to Nahj al-Balagha except the reliable one.

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures:I clarified the caption of Image:Panjetan.jpg and moved Image:Imam Ali Series.jpg to a new sub-article. But can't we keep Image:The Message - Muslim Warriors.jpg?--Seyyed(t-c) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I really liked the fact the authors had written the article so non-expert or non-Muslim can understand Islamic terms like "Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph)", "Islamic prophet Muhammad", though there are still some Islamic terms, whose breif description can be given for jargon like Ahl al-Bayt etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Additional information neededCan you tell me the other unfamiliar expressions. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sunni Muslims revere him as the fourth and final Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph), reigning from 656 to 661. Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This disagreement resulted in the Muslim community being split into the Sunni and Shi'a branches" which disagreement ???--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Shias belive in him as Imam while Sunnis do not. You mean we should clarify more?--Seyyed(t-c) 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Write "Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad, while Sunnis disagree."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We still need to mention the Sunni position. I'd write "Shi'a Muslims glorify Ali as the first infallible Imam and consider him and his descendants as the rightful successors to Muhammad. Sunnis take a different position, revering him as the fourth and final Rashidun (Rightly Guided Caliph)."Bless sins (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a better suggestion.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 02:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "For three years Muhammad invited people to Islam in secret. Then he started inviting people publicly. When, according to the Qur'an, he was commanded to invite his closer relatives to come to Islam[19] he gathered the Banu Hashim clan in a ceremony and told them clearly that whoever would be the first to accept his invitation would become his successor and inheritor. Ali, who was 13 or 14 years old at that time, stepped forth and embraced Islam. This invitation was repeated three times but only Ali answered Muhammad. Muhammad accepted Ali's submission to the faith and thus fulfilled his promise." Shouldn't this be in 'Conversion to Islam'?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No , he was Muslim at that time. He declared that he helped and supported the Prophet(PBUH) in his mission. I try to clarify the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This para "Muhammad then made a public declaration and the struggle between Muslims and pagans started. As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to local tribes and the rulers of Mecca. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Kaaba. So they persecuted Muslims. According to the tradition, the leaders of two important Quraysh clans - Banu Makhzum and Banu Abd-Shams - declared a public boycott against their commmercial rival Banu Hashim in order to put pressure on the clan. At this time, Muhammad arranged for some of his followers to emigrate to Ethiopia. The boycott lasted for three years. Ali stood firmly in support of Muhammad during the years of persecution of Muslims and boycott of Banu Hashim in Mecca" does not say anything about Ali. A WP:UNDUE, not focussed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done I moved some part of this paragraph to Meccan boycott of the Hashemites. God willing I'll add some information about Ali's role.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Another reference to their simple existence comes to us from the "Tasbih of Fatima", a divine formula that was first given to Fatima when she asked her father for a kaneez (servant girl) in order to help her with household chores. Her father (Muhammad) asked her if she would like a gift instead that was better than a servant and worth more than everything in the world. Upon her ready agreement, he told her to recite to end every prayer with the Great Exaltation "Allahu Akbar" 34 times, the Statement of Absolute Gratitude "Alhamdu-LilLah" 33 times and the Invocation of Divine Glory "Subhaan Allah" 33 times, totalling 100. This collective prayer is called the Tasbih of Fatima. " another case of not focussed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we can move the issue to the sub-article.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done I moved it to Fatimah Zahra.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to improve it. Does it satisfy you. However I think the background is necessary to clarify the issue. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the rate the nominator has replied to my queries, i think i would never have to put this article on hold. Kudos.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • "The third caliph Uthman Ibn Affan expressed generosity toward his kin, Banu Abd-Shams, who seemed to dominate him and his supposed arrogant mistreatment toward several of the earliest Companions such as Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Abd-Allah ibn Mas'ud and Ammar ibn Yasir provoked outraged among some group of people. Dissatisfaction and resistance had openly arisen since 650-651 CE throughout most of the empire.[62] The dissatisfaction with his regime and the governments appointed by him was not restricted to the provinces outside Arabia.[63] When Uthman's kin, especially Marwan, gained control over him, the noble companions including most of the the members of elector council, turned against him or at least withdrew their support putting pressure on the caliph to mend his ways and reduce the influence of his assertive kin.[64] Finally, dissatisfaction led to rebellion in Egypt, Kufa and Basra. At the start of the rebellion, people demanded that the exiled be returned to their homes, the deprived be provided sustenance, the men of strength and integrity be appointed as governors, and so on.[65]" This can be shortened.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In my view this issue is too important and I've summarized about 20 pages in 12 lines. This part has connotation to Ali(the members of elector council) and relates to what has been described later.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the infobox have the img of Ali (available in Muslim view), rather than his tomb?
You can see the former discussion about using Ali image here. I think this will lead to controversy and editorial war. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Also the tomb is an object of veneration of Ali (which makes him so notable), not the image.Bless sins (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute about the tomb, so the tomb as the infobox pic is like giving that POV a thumps-up, which would not be neutral.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Which dispute do you mean?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most Shias" believe that infobox mosque is Ali's tomb. Not all. Candidate 2 is the Afghan mosque. Thus dispute.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
no InvalidIt's there for about one year but nobody has challenged it, but whenever we put the portrait there, we had a lot of problem. I think it's not the issue which relates to GA review. Please let me not change the place of picture. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Though length is not a criterion for GAN, i suggest, assuming a near WP:FAC, PLEASE try to reduce length to something like 60-70 KB as 95KB is TOO LONG. Don't want to hurt the authors but sincerely, at times i was exhausted going through this long article and just felt like not reading ahead.
I have really neglected too many issues and move a lot of information to the sub-article to reduce the size of the article. Please pay attention to the sub-articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to reduce the size of the article and it's not too long. However Mpatel is working on it.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Continue your good work.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave note on my talk, when the changes are done. Ideally, the article will remain on hold not over 7 days.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GA-FAIL: Jargon like hadith, Muhajirun et. need to be explained. al-shia.com, non-RS, still used as ref. Some parts needs to cleaned up and/or reduced significantly per MP. And considering concerns expressed about equal representation of Shia-Sunni views, thus Neutrality issues

and other issues in "An outside view", Failing the article. The nominator is welcome to get a reassessment.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An outside view

As I noted above, I have substantial concerns over the neutrality of this article which I think is too Shia-centric in its perspective and historical narrative.

Almost every passage dedicates a substantial amount of attention to the Shi'a perspective, forgetting that this viewpoint is a comparatively minor one as compared to Sunni perspective or academic perspective. While there should be a presentation of the Shi'i view of Ali, it certainly shouldn't saturate and overwhelm the article. As I skim through this article, much of what I see is devoted to interjections about what Shias think, events according to Shia sources, incidents covered extensively because they relate to Shia claims, and implicitly, why the Shia view is right. Please see WP:UNDUE in that regard. For that very reason, a lot of content is dedicated to those incidents which support or promote Shia claims (Mubahala, Ghadir Khumm, etc.), and there is an infatuation will all of these unencyclopedic "Hadith of..." articles which were mainly created for the same purpose. There is an attempt to contrast it with Sunni views in places, but it really doesn't make for pleasant reading, and doesn't detract from the fact that the article fails to provide a professional and balanced coverage.

The tone of the prose does not appear to be dispassionate: it frequently comes across as reverential. For example, "... he gathered the Banu Hashim clan in a ceremony and told them clearly that whoever would be the first to accept his invitation would become his successor and inheritor." - This passage is sourced to Shia authors Tabatabae and Ashraf, and clearly designed to promote Ali's claim of successorship and the Shia perspective of events. I doubt you'll find very many academic reliable sources declaring the matter in such unequivocal terms. The least that can be said about it is that it's disputed. "Ali was the first male to enter Islam.[5][1][7][17]" - There is in fact long standing dispute in scholarship on this aspect; some say Zayd bin Harithah was the first male convert, some say Abu Bakr, and others say Ali. Another example: "According to historical reports, Ali continued to assert that the caliphate was his right and said:", followed by a blockquote sourced to a Shia collection known as Najh al-Balagha ("nahjulbalagha.org")- which, as I said earlier, is not a reliable source in this article. Yet it's given a blockquote and called a historical account despite disputes in academia over its authenticity (and no mention of such at all in the respective section). The article is rampant with this kind of skew unfortunately and I have provided only a fraction of the possible examples.

In order to meet GA criteria (especially on neutrality), I believe the article really needs to clear out the partisan sources in totality, use academic sources in an appropriate, responsible manner (and not just as and when they make convenient claims/points), and provide a fair and balanced account of the associated views about Ali, without letting them overwhelm the entire article. ITAQALLAH 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything which is based on the partisan sources. I really try to use academic sources. I used Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions which is clearly a Sunni source in many cases. However if Sunnis didn't participate and added their ideas, I couldn't do anything. I tried not to inserted Shia tendencies. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoit about Ali's supernatural characteristics. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoint about his sorrow in the community. I haven't inserted Shia viewpoint about his position in rising Islam. I've done my best to use academic and non-partisan sources and I think it's your duty to participate in the article and make it more NPOV. However it's not my fault that Sunnis don't participate and it's not my fault that western scholars such as Madelung and Dakake who work in the field of early caliphate says something which contradicts with Sunny beliefs. It's not my fault that wester encyclopedia such as Iranica and Britannica are more compatible with Shia view. This is academic viewpoint that Ali believe his superiority and right to successorship. based on western scholars researches. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC) .--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In the case of Shaqshaqie which I narrated from Nahj al-Balagha, I referenced to a list of Sunni and Shia works which have narrated this sermon. Nahjul Balagha, Mohammad Askari Jafery (1984), pp. 108-112. However I removed all of the other links to Nahj al-Balagha. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the way in which the sources have been handled is not balanced, and that's the impression I get when you talk about the prime sources in this article being "more compatible with Shia view" (is that why they were used?). It's one thing writing about something mentioned in an academic source, it's another thing altogether when you give it undue weight. That's what I feel is happening with certain areas of the article where a very Shia-centric focus is given. I'm not faulting you for anything, I'm simply saying that this article is quite slanted in my opinion. Source usage in certain areas is inadequate, irrespective of whether they are Sunni or Shia. You seem to believe it's an issue of Sunni vs. Shia, and this I think highlights the fundamental problem with this article. ITAQALLAH 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the article is the result of my viewpoint, not necessarily Shia one, duo to the fact that other wikipedians haven't participated in it. In my view Siege of Uthman is more important than Battle of Nahravan so I explain it more. In my view Ali's knowledge is more important than his power. So I explain it more.
Frankly, I didn't ask you and the other guys to help me with the article!!! I can't edit the article on behalf of you. However when I compare the article with Britannica, Iranica and other encyclopedias, it satisfies me. You can sure that not only you but many Shias believe that the article is quite slanted. I hope you and the other guys who believe so come and participate in the editing instead of writing An outside view.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Note:Ashraf is Sunni and he didn't designed to promote Ali's claim of successorship. Tabatabae is an authentic scholar who narrates from Sunni and Shia sources. His view is authentic as well as Mudelung. However whenever I've narrate something especially from him, tried to write The Shi'a believe or Tabatabaei says. In other cases such as Ali's belief about his right and superiority he's just one of the scholars who says the same thing. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections that can be shortened a fair bit

I believe the following (sub-)sections (and possibly more) can be cleaned up (C) and/or reduced significantly (R) either by rewording or moving parts of text to other articles:

I will try to clean these up as much as I can. I invite others to help. Please take a look at: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, especially 'Eliminating redundancy' and 'Achieving flow'. I took a very brief look at these and it works wonders! MP (talk•contribs) 09:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've recently moved all of them except the first one to the sub-articles. So feel free to shorten them. Please maintain the major points while you reduce them. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was necessary to completely revert the changes I made to Succession to Muhammad. For example, in places the text still seems overly detailed and the grammar is still substandard. I think that if reverts are made, they should be done judiciously. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see this[9]. I copied your edition in here. God willing I want to clarify the Shia and Sunni positions about successorship more.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I also have another issue; you reverted edits in other sections too! I invite you to check this. That's why I just reverted back to my last version. MP (talk•contribs) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If I made a mistake, then you made too.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The edits I made to Succession to Muhammad removed a fair bit of repetition. Historical details such as where the vote was taken to nominate Abu Bakr are clearly irrelevant and can be written more generally in much fewer words. I did the same with other sentences. The link you provided above didn't explain anything about my edits. By the way, I think that I still kept the sources (refs.).MP (talk•contribs) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point; the intention is to shorten the article by tightening up on the grammar and removing (possibly moving to other articles) details that are irrelevant to the article. The intention is not to chop things down willy-nilly just for the sake of reducing kilobytes. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First male who accept Islam

Please see Iranica Ali, though only ten years old, became one of his first followers (in al-Sirat al-nabawiya I, ed. M. Saqqa@, Cairo, 1936, pp. 262-64, Ebn Hesham states that 'Ali was the first male to accept Islam; see also Tabari, Cairo2, II, pp. 309ff.; Ebn S'ad, III/I, pp. 12ff.) Apparently Tabari has similar idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the view of the author of Iranica based on his study of the sources. Others might agree or disagree. In this article, in my humble opinion, it is best to mention what the primary sources actually say and leave the scholarly analysis of them to the "identity of the first Muslim" article. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's an important issue to have editorial war. However he's referred to the text and he didn't do that unless there would be something. I don't have the primary source and we aren't allowed to refer to them directly. As I know Tabari gathers all of the reports and it doesn't mean he accept them. So somebody should do research on the basis of Tabari. It's too difficult to narrate from Tabari directly. I have referred to him in two cases and in both of them some other sources have endorsed it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not narrate from Tabari. Watt mentions that Ibn Ishaq says Ali was the first and that Tabari quotes other authorities saying that Zayd or Abu Bakr were the first. True, Tabari himself simply narrates the traiditons but this does not mean that Tabari thought they were necessarily wrong. One of the authorities of Tabari, Watt comments, is very early. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Mention of Shi'a/sunni

The mention of statements such as, '...Sunnis say...', '...Shias say...' etc. clearly has to be reduced, as per Itaqallah's comments ('Outside view' above). Where sunnis and shi'as differ over major points (such as who should have succeeded Muhammad as caliph), it is clearly necessary to include such viewpoints. Otherwise, they should be eliminated. Below, I propose a list of places in the article where apparently unnecessary mention of statements such as, 'Sunnis say, Shias say' and the like thereof should be eliminated (or reduced, at the very least):

There may be more places. One solution to reducing/eliminating explicit mention of Sunni/Shi'a (and in some cases, Sufi), is to give an inline citation or explicitly mention the name of the person/people holding such beliefs. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghadir Khumm: I think we can't neglect the completely different interpretation about this event among Shia, Sunni and Sufis. This event is a major event in Shia as well as Sufism. And you can see Britannica and the other encyclopedia which refer to this event in Ali entry, mention different point of views about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't suggest neglecting interpretations about the event; I'm suggesting that too much details should be moved elsewhere. MP (talk•contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Inheritance:I agree with you.
Burial:This is not the point that Shia and Sunni disagree about it. I've emphasized on Shia due to the fact that the basis of this part are Shia Hadith. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but one of the major drawbacks of this article is that there is too much explicit mention of Shi'a/sunni etc. Please read my comments carefully. I am suggesting that the article can be better written if the viewpoints can be mentioned in a less intrusive manner. MP (talk•contribs) 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the viewpoints should be kept out of the biography section as much as possible, except where absolutely necessary (obviously there will be a reasonable overview of the views in the Sunni/Shia view sections at the end of the article). Content coverage should be determined and balanced according to the balance given by the range of sources which offer biographies of Ali. When someone reads a biography of this nature, they want to know the basic facts at least. I doubt that very many people will enjoy reading an article which is full of contesting claims, or an article that reads like a partisan screed. I intend to have a closer look at the article and try to offer some constructive contributions, but I've been focusing on a few other articles of late. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree to write the history at those sections and move the teleological interpretations to the other part. However it may reduce the coherence of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable - Siege of Uthman

I just noticed that the section Siege of Uthman is exactly the same as 4 paragraphs of Siege of Uthman. Copy and paste job ? It's no wonder this article is a mess - copy and pasting without adapting to the article in question is bound to lead to substandard quality. Perhaps the copy and paste was the other way around (same substandard quality, though). MP (talk•contribs) 18:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Please pay attention to the histories. I wrote the section in this article and then copied in the other one. The same problem you may find in the other parts. Whenever I finshed a section in this article, I copied it in the related articles which were poor. In fact, I did it to improve the other articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is just fine, thanks. If you read the last sentence in my previous comment closely, you'll see that I've covered the point you mentioned. The point I'm making is that copying and pasting huge chunks of text (even if just to improve other articles) between articles is not the best way to improve articles. I've seen this done before, and it really lowers the quality of articles. The text must be adapted to the article in question, emphasising the appropriate points where and when required. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. However I think it's a good way to improve the articles at the first stage.On the other hand the text has been prepared for this article. So we can't say It's no wonder this article is a mess. While I agree that section is too long and should be shortened. God willing, I'll work on the other articles as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just some copyediting

I hope no one minds me copyediting sections of the article. I noticed the Copyeditors banner, but i couldn't stand looking at the terrible writing in some sections. I only worked in one. I will not tamper with the contents, just improve grammar and style. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Shouldn't Arabic words like Ahl al-Bayt and Ulema be italicized? Need to know. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the Manual of Style, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." So in accordance with that, I believe that capitalizing those words would be appropriate. However, I do believe that the term ulema is used outside of specialized English, but I only base that on the fact that I was familiar with the term back before I familiarized myself with the nuances and terminology of Islam. I think that certain words fall into that category, such as Ayatollah, Imam, Mosque, and so on, but some other terms like fiqh or istihalah al-tanfidh for example, are going to be completely alien to most english-speaking non-muslims. I am not sure where such things would be differentiated, however. Peter Deer (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then Ahl al-Bayt would certainly be italicized. As for ulema, I usually see it italicized in books like Islam by Paul Lunde, but I'm not sure if it would be on wikipedia. I have a feeling it does though, since hajj, umma and sahaba are all italicized. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No prob, I saw your message on the project talk page. Thought I would help a little. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Succession to Muhammad

As I discussed before, I think we should separate historical and theological issues. So I propose to revert edit due to the fact that the later version have merged two issues. So that we can't distinguish historical events and Muslim beliefs. I think we should describe the events separately and then explain Muslims' views which have theological aspects.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. My point is that to shorten the article, the historical details are not too important (not irrelevant; I have included the bare minimum at the start), and the details can be found elsewhere. There is no point in discussing the issues separately when the issues can be discussed together (this also helps to improve the style of the article). Agreed ? MP (talk•contribs) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's too crucial issue. I even can add more information in that part. There are some other parts which can be shortened like Siege of Uthman and Descendants. However 90kb is not too long for this issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If you let me, I want to revert that edition. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you've seen this comment and don't disagree with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I thought my time would be better spent editing the article instead of arguing over issues that you haven't really addressed. I've given clear reasons for my suggestions above and you have not really justified your point. All you say is, 'I want to revert', or 'No, that's too crucial issue' without saying why. I have tried to compromise by including a few historical details at the start (and, you will note, I haven't removed any citations), but you insist, it must be said, rather stubbornly, on keeping your version. The aim is to improve the article by only including what is absolutely necessary in an otherwise already lengthy article. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I added more historical details. I hope you would agree with it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you reverted this edition. It was based on historical reports of western academicians, which directly related to Ali and his situation. Can you please tell me what is justified?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what you can find in Ali's article in several encyclopedias:
  • Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World:At the Prophet’s death, the community split into two major groups contending for political succession. During a gathering of the ansar (helpers), Abu Bakr was elected first caliph. A group led by �Ali and his supporters (Zubayr, Talha, Miqdad, Salman al-Farsi, and Abu Dharr Ghifari, among others) held that �Ali was the legitimate heir of the Prophet. To preserve the unity of the Muslim umma, �Ali is said to have kept a low profile and concentrated his efforts on religious matters.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online:Upon the death of the Prophet in 632, 'Ali and Muhammad's family took charge of the arrangements for his funeral. At the same time, discussions began concerning who should succeed Muhammad. Both the ansar, the people of Medina who had embraced Islam, and the muhajirun, those from Mecca who had migrated to Medina, wanted the successor to come from their group. In order to avoid division, the leaders of the community assembled at saqifat Bani Sa'idah (“the room with the thatched roof of the tribe of Bani Sa'idah”) to choose a successor. After much debate, Abu Bakr was named caliph (khalifah, “successor”), the ruler of the Islamic community. By the time 'Ali finished with matters pertaining to the funeral of the Prophet, he was presented with a fait accompli. He did not protest but retired from public life and dedicated himself to studying and teaching the Qur'an.
  • Encyclopedia Iranica:At the Prophet's death the community split into groups contending for political succession. The Ansáar were about to proclaim Sa'd b. 'Obada caliph, but this was not acceptable to the Mohajerun, who considered themselves closer to the Prophet in kinship. Among them was a group led by 'Ali and his supporters, i.e., Zobayr, Talháa, 'Abbas b. 'Abd-al-Motátáaleb, Meqdad, Salman Faresi, Abu Dharr Ghefari, and 'Ammar b. Yaser, who viewed 'Ali as the Prophet's legitimate heir. Muslim historians agree that a crisis was averted by three prominent Mohajerun: Abu Bakr, 'Omar, and Abu Obayda, who rushed to the gathering of the Ansáar and imposed Abu Bakr as caliph. Their success was facilitated by the jealousy between the Aws and the Kazraj, the two main tribal factions of the Ansáar, and the inactivity of the Prophet's kinsmen in promoting their own cause (M. Shaban, Islamic History A.D. 600-750: A New Interpretation, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 16ff.; E. Shoufani, Al-Ridda and the Muslim Conquests of Arabia, Toronto, 1973, pp. 48ff.). When Abu Bakr's selection to the caliphate was presented as a fait accompli, 'Ali and the Hashimites withheld their oaths of allegiance until after the death of Fatáema. 'Ali did not actively assert his own right because he did not want to throw the nascent Muslim community into strife (Menqar^, Waq¿a Sáeff^n, ed. A. Harun, Cairo, 1382/1962, p. 91).

Now please explain why did you revert my edition.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Madelung and The Succession to Muhammad (book)

I have an issue with the undue emphasis on Madelung's work, I think we should be using a much more broader source pool from which to decide what should be included and how. Academic reviews of Madelung's work (The Succession to Muhammad) say that he is often uncritical of the sources, be they polemical, contradictory, or so on; and that his book sets out to reflect the Shi'i perspective/case (cf. K. Lewinstein in the Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 121, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2001), pp. 326-327; ). For this he receives critique for presenting "what seems to be an almost partisan argument about the position of `Ali- Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law - and the rest of Muhammad's clan - the Hashemites - as his rightful successor." Madedlung is also criticised for "seletive use of the sources" in which he uncritically accepts reports of a particular skew (cf. I. Mattison in the Journal of Religion, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 321-322, in which there is a substantial critique of this aspect of Madelung's book). Another author describes this aspect as "self-serving, tendentious arguments and assumptions about political succession." (cf. M. Morony in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 153-156)

The point of this isn't to say that Madelung's book shouldn't be used, because it clearly is a usable source. I don't think we should rely on it as much as is being done because the work is skewed in places, and that's the impression I get too when reading it. It'd be better if we could develop a narrative which is more consistent with the corpus of academic literature on this topic as a whole, and be a bit more careful when handling sources like these. That's my take on the issue anyway. ITAQALLAH 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Iran. So I can only use what can be found on the web, e.g. google book. However I've used more than 30 books and Madelung is one of them. Madelung have studied the successorship and Ali's caliphate in details . Thus it's a rich source which can be used a lot, while most of the other sources don't allocate more than a chapter to rashidun caliphate. By the way in most of the cases I've tried to refer to more than one source and I appreciate if you introduce me the other sources.
I think I should explain Madelung methodology more. As you may see in Ali#Historiography of Ali's life, Madelung disagrees with those historians and academicians who reject the sources due to polemical tendency. Furthermore he didn't intend to reflect the Shi'i perspective/case. In many cases his viewpoints contradicts with Shia one such as al-Irshad. I guess Lewinstein wasn't familiar with Shia viewpoint well. You see, Madelung didn't describe Ali's successorship and caliphate in the religious context as Shia do. However, I don't want to defend his book. Thus I tried to use different sources.
Finally, you'd better add what you've written here in The Succession to Muhammad (book).--Seyyed(t-c) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying that Madelung intended to forward the Shi'a case, that's just the impression that multiple reviewers (not just one) obtained from the book. I'm aware of Madelung's methodology here, but as noted in the reviews it isn't a conventional one. You say that Madelung doesn't justify Ali's position from a religious perspective (which isn't relevant, as that's not the job of a historian). Perhaps I could clarify a little more about the specific critiques raised. Mattison (reference above) says:

One of the most serious problems with Madelung's analysis is his selective use of the sources. He chooses to accept as authentic reports that support his position and rejects others simply on the basis of his own opinion of individual's motivation (e.g., p. 30). He easily dismisses reports that reflect negatively on 'Ali or his family (e.g. pp. 63, 319), while never acknowledging the problematic nature of reports critical of the Umayyads, the first dynasty of Islam. Instead, stories describing the greed and corruption of the Umayyads and their supporters are not only accepted uncritically, they are related with an unsettling passion. Thus, "the cancer in the body of the caliphate which [Uthman] had nurtured and proved unable to excise because of his doting love for a corrupt and rapacious kin destroyed him" (p. 140). 'Amr ibn al-'As, Umayyad supporter and governor, "was fully aware of the rot in his own guts" (p. 197).

Madelung too-readily projects conspiracies and assumes an unrealistic degree of foresight in individuals he believes were determined to exclude Ali and the Hashemites from the caliphate. Thus, he says, Abu Bakr and Umar, the first and second caliphs successively, conspired to seize the caliphate because Abu Bakr was "a consummate, coolly calculating Mekkan businessman and politician" (p. 39). Yet Madelung himself gives evidence to show that Abu Bakr deeply desired to fulfull the Prophet's wishes (pp. 46-47) and he says that Umar "always stood for a rigorous, unconditional backing of the cause and principles of Islam" (p. 58). But if this is true, how could Madelung insist, on the basis of weak and contradictory evidence, that Umar conspired with Abu Bakr to intentionally subvert the Prophet's wishes for his succession? Madelung also uncritically accepts reports that two wives of Muhammad conspired to make it impossible for the dying prophet to speak to anyone about his wishes for Ali to succeed him.

This is why I have trouble accepting edits like these wherein the content is asserted as fact despite it being clearly opinionated and not subject to widespread agreement (not even the EoI article states it as fact). It is also for the same reason why I'd prefer not having Madelung as a sole or main citation for a passage which is contentious. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As you may see here there's just one point which you can't find in other sources such as encyclopedias i.e. Ali is reported to have repeatedly said that had there been forty me with him he would have resisted.. However we should add other verifiable reports too and you can help us with it. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Something that appears uncritically to one person might seem reasonable to another person; a person may decide about the historicity of a report based on a whole lot of things. The correct way to deal with this is to add the opinion of others instead of removing Madelung. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aminz, It appears that you misunderstood. Itaqillah doesn't want to remove Madelung, but he says some controversial issues shouldn't be written as a clear fact. That's completely correct. However I disagree with him in one point. Which points are controversial? As I narrated from different sources and encyclopedias, the issue isn't controversial among western academicians. There's only one point which you can find merely in Madelung's book i.e. Ali is reported to have repeatedly said that had there been forty men with him he would have resisted. But as I understand, there are consensus in the other cases. I should mention that most of the facts have been derived from Sunni histories. As I've read the Shia account is different. Shia account says Umar fired the door of Fatima's house and then rushed in while Fatimah was behind the door to prevent him. Then a group of men captured Ali and some others and pulled them to the mosque. Fatima was beaten by Qunfuz while she tried to prevent them. In mosque they urged Ali, al-Zubayr, Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad to pledge. Also it's written in Shia accounts that Ali and Fatimah went to the house of the companions at night and asked them to support Ali. But only four people came. And it's written that Fatimah spoke in the Masjid al-Nabawia and warned people not to usurp the caliphate. Even it's written that she would have cursed people unless Ali had prevented her. As you see none of these issues have mentioned in the article as well as Madelung's book. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the reviewer in saying that "He easily dismisses reports that reflect negatively on 'Ali or his family" has forgotten the fact that in a certain period, the Umayyads were encouraging people to curse Ali and invent and spread negative reports. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he is saying that reports weren't invented. He is criticising Madelung for what he sees as inconsistency: that is, if Madelung dismisses reports reflecting negatively on Ali etc., why does he fail to be as critical upon the anti-Umayyad reports, many of which are also likely to be equally as dubious as the anti-Ali reports. That's where the perceived bias seeps in, according to Matisson. ITAQALLAH 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting that Madelung himself reject former western historians due to similar inconsistency. I think every historian has a framework and check each report, then decide whether it's acceptable or not. By the way, I think the wikipedians don't have to judge about the sources in this way. I tried to narrate different viewpoints in Ali#Siege of Uthman. I suggest to add other viewpoints to solve the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nusairi

In the "As a diety" section the name 'Nusairi' appears. I searched 'Nusayri' and was redirected to the Alawite article. Is this correct? Because I want to link it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nusayri/Nusairi and Alawi can be used interchangeably: they do refer to the same group. Sometimes the phrase Nusayri is used to refer to Alawis and Kizilbash to Alevis by Orientalists who thought that the names Alawi and Alevi were a single title, and that they were two branches of a similiar movement. --Enzuru 05:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, I'll pipelink it to the Alawite page. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Talhah, al-Zubayr and some other companions refused the rebels' offer of caliphate. Therefore they threatened that, unless the people of Medina choose a caliph within one day, they would be forced to take some drastic action. Did Talhah and Zubayr refuse the rebels' offering the caliphate to Ali or did the rebels offer them the caliphate and they refused this offer? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of quotation

Following quotaion is being removed continously by few users(especially one):


All editors are envited to have discussion on this issue.

Thanx

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this I'm not convinced that the quote adds significant information. In other articles, direct quotes are normally taken from authoritative scholars for the purpose of illustrating a point and adding weight to it. The section that this quote was included in seems fairly complete and non-controversial; the quote itself doesn't seem to add anything of substance and could be construed as "unencyclopedic" because of it's religous, rather than historical, content. That being said, I'm just offering my opinion; this doesn't seem to be a "policy issue", just a question of content. Doc Tropics 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Hadith of the Cloak is considered crucial to political and religious claims made by the Shi'ah and it is attested the Sunni collection, Sahih Bukhari. For this reason it seems highly notable in an article about Ali. However, it appears to be located in a strange location without proper commentary: it should appear in the section on pro-Alid movements with a comment. I definitely think it should stay because it is encyclopaedic in reference to the beliefs of the Shi'ah... not as accepted scholarly evidence of a historical situation (which is how it is being used now) but as part of a discussion about the Shi'ah view of Ali. Ogress smash! 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ogress, thanks for clarifying what exactly was being quoted; not being a scholar I didn't recognize the Hadith. In the Shi'a section of this article, important Hadiths are mentioned, but linked to their own articles rather than quoted in full here. This seems like a reasonable compromise, to place a link to Hadith of the Cloak in an appropriate section, but without quoting its full text in the body of this article. Would that be acceptable to other editors? Doc Tropics 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
On seeing above conversation, I think that as I'm aware of the full situation and importance of this hadith I was ignoring the explanation (it happens when one assumes that other people have same level of understanding and depth of knowledge as oneself, one over explains or under explains the topic), sorry for my narrow view. Regarding placing of the quotation I was bit perplexed but finally placed this hadith at present place as this hadith clears point of view of Prophet(s.a.w.a.) about family of Ali(a.s.) and explains importance of his family. As pointed by Ogress this hadith has a very great importance in political religious claims of Shia.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
See, the reason I think it's inappropriate has nothing to do with its status as religious as opposed to historical; this is an article about a religious figure, so a religious text seems to be a fine source to me. I thought it was unencyclopaedic because after reading it the only thoughts in my head were along the lines of "what in the bloody hell was THAT all about?" An encyclopaedia is meant to clarify matters; if an edit leaves me wondering why some dude is going around chucking his clothes on top of everyone then I'm rather inclined to consider it unencyclopaedic.
Explain—not just here, but in the article—why this whole cloak business is important and what it's supposed to signify and I think we'll be OK. And please, for cryin' out loud, get a good translation of it; the one you have posted above is making my eyes water. RavShimon (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the explanations and extra info. Given its importance I don't have any objection to including it in the "Shi'a Views", but as Ogress pointed out, it's currently placed in a historical section, and per my earlier comment I'm not certain that's appropriate. Since Faizhader's goal seems to be including the information because it's important, and RavShimon's goal is to make sure it's coherent and understandeable in English, it seems that presenting it in the Shi'a section with some minor rewrite would probably satisfy everyone. I'd like to try it that way (and I'll move it after I write this explanation), but if someone reverts me I'll wait for further talkpage discussion. Doc Tropics 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with this as DocTropics has rendered it if everyone else is cool with it. Thanks to the Doc for cleaning it up, thanks to Faizhaider for bringing in this important source, and thanks to Ogress for explaining why it's an important source. RavShimon (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This event is narrated in both sahih (widely accepted) Sunni and Shi'a sources, however Shi'a interpretation imbues it with its religious hue. After some thinking, I believe we should put it in the history article with sufficient background since it is a widely accepted event. The reason I supported its deletion at first was because it was placed out of context, and I thought its context could only properly be viewed in the Shi'a section, but I think it could be possible elsewise. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanx to all of you for all the above efforts. Doc I think hadith is now rightly placed with appropriate explanation. One more thing which I just found that reference # 26 "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. Retrieved 2008-12-19., this link seems to hold no relevant information(at least to the place/section where it is quoted).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy if other editors are reasonably satisfied with the current version (or willing to listen if Pashtun had another suggestion), and Faiz (pardon my informality) is right...link #26 is not only unrelated to the text it currently supports, but most of that website's internal links seem to be broken. This makes it impossible to access what might otherwise useful information, so I tried to remove the ref. Unfortunately, it is used in at least 3 places and I botched the job. The "Fatima" link should definitely be taken out, but maybe someone else would like to try? Doc Tropics 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunni view edits

What do you mean by POV and personal opinion? It is an established fact that Ali(a.s.) was cursed and there are traditions to prove this; many of such traditions could be found in Siayah Sittah(the seven correct(authentic) books of prophetic traditions according to Sunnis), so even sunnis can't deny it. For sake of reference here is one such tradition Sahih Muslim: Book 31:Number 5924.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit (and several similar edits by others) for a number of reasons. First, even if the information were true and accurate, the way it was phrased was so POV as to be totally unencyclopedic. Second, no Reliable Sources were provided for such negative information. After reviewing the reference that you provided, it still seems inadmissable. Not only did the reference not appear to be a RS, it didn't even come close to affirming the info you tried to insert. In fact, it made no mention of the topic whatsoever. Quite honestly, this seems to be a POV attack on a group that you personally dislike, and it simply doesn't belong here. Doc Tropics 19:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ali was cursed in mosques during the Umayyad Dynasty, this is a fact even orientalists note. Use a secondary source to cite this (it's very easy to find one in regards to this) and don't relate it to Sunni Islam, because almost all Sunni Muslims do not agree with this practice. Remember, Sunni Islam in its current state isn't much older than al-Ghazzali, the supporters of the Umayyad Dynasty cannot be termed as Sunni Muslims in its current sense, just like Shi'a Islam as a religion and not a political movement is no older than Jafar as-Sadiq or maybe Muhammad al-Baqir. All in all, don't make the mistake of relating early political movements to contemporary religious movements. And recall that the Umayyad Dynasty themselves are frowned upon by a large amount of Sunni historians. And Doc, assume WP:good faith on Sayed Rizvi's part, he has never done anything to my knowledge that did not warrant good faith, including this. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I willingly apologize if my last comment seemed like a personal attack. I did mean it as a personal comment (based on what I seemed to be seeing), but did not mean it to be offensive. Even a brief review of Sayed's edits showed me he was a useful contributor and not a vandal. My main concern (besides the lack of RS) is that the material was phrased in such a negative manner that it seemed to be an attack on Sunni's. I have no objections if the material can be properly referenced and presented in a neutral way, and will happily work towards that end here on the talkpage. Pashtun, the points that you made to Sayed are exactly right, and you phrased it better than I did. Thanks you. Doc Tropics 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have access to the reference work being cited for this, but I'm trying to find a way to include the information in a neutral fashion. What about something like this?:
  • "Contemporary Sunni Muslims generally regard Ali with respect as one of the Ahl al-Bayt and the last of the Rashidun caliphs and one of the most influential and respected figures in Islam. Historically however, he was ritually cursed in mosques because...."
I suspect that the word "ritually" is useful in this sentence because in modern English usage, to curse someone is rather different from what is meant classicly. Also, I'm hoping that someone can fill in the blanks at the end of that sentence as I'm still not clear on the details. Does this seem like a reasonably accurate and balanced presentation, or have I missed something? Doc Tropics 01:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Instead of saying "historically", why don't we just make it explicitly clear that it was only (correct me if I'm wrong) the Ummayyads who had cursed Ali. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it was into the Abbasid Dynasty until abolished by Harun al-Rashid altogether. Someone (maybe Sayed Rizvi), can clarify the matter? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
First of let me make one thing clear that I never added the text, I saw an edit war going on it and just did a reversal to nearest correct version, I on my own added not even a stroke. Although to me also it seemed that the language is little appropriate and biases but it seemed to me unappropriate that remove whole fact just due to tone of language. Regretfully during last few days I have been little bit busy to actively participate in such edit-wars (its festive season in India, with Eid Milad, Holi and all) and was just foccussing on patroling my watchlist; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizhaider (talk • contribs)
Doc you don't need to offer such an strong apology, because it seems to me that you are not aware of these historical facts(correct me if I'm wrong) and were just foccusing on language.
  • Muawiyah ibn Hind Instituted the curse of Imam Ali (a.s.); for details plz refer this link it has got numerous sources quoted, you may find difficult to verify sources as they are not links but reference to books(few of them are available on net & fewer in english :(, but it may help): [10], [11]
  • This practice of cursing Ali (a.s.) at the end of Friday prayers continued for sixty years(atleast) and was put to end by Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (officially); According to Fakhri, "Umar discontinued the practice established in the name of Muaawiyah of cursing Ali from the pulpit in Friday prayers."
  • Contemporary Sunnis (atleast Hanafi) don't curse Ali (a.s.) although hatred of Nasibis/Wahabis towards Ali (a.s.) is well known(you just need to visit Saudi Arabia with some book, supplication, etc afiliated to Ali (a.s.) and you'll experience extent of hatred, they can just put Du'a-e-Kum'ail under shoes because it was told by Ali (a.s.) to Kum'ail); [12], [13]
The term Wahhabi itself is a loaded term, what does it mean? I feel lots of Shi'a Muslims abuse the term. Salafi Muslims don't hate Ali, Deobandi Muslims don't hate Ali, and even Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan doesn't hate Ali! Since the state of Saudi Arabia and it's Salafi ideology is geared against Shi'a Islam, they do not like literature related to the faith, which sometimes may give the false impression of being anti-Ali. However, anti-Karbala is not uncommon, because some Salafi view Imam Husayn's rise against the ruler of the time to be against Islamic principles; Ibn Wahhab narrates hadith against this in his Kitab al-Tawhid. To the contrary about Ali, many hadith promoting the virtues of Ali can be found in the conservative Musnad ibn Hanbal, which in its entirety can be found in Sahih Bukhari which I'm 100% sure is available in Saudi Arabia today. So, if not the Shi'i Dua-e Kumayl, other literature does argue against Saudi Arabia being anti-Ali. To put this in terms for those less familiar with the topic, claiming Salafi Muslims hate Ali is like claiming that Protestants, secretly or not, hate Saint Peter. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's such a pleasure to work with intelligent and well-educated editors! Thank you both for your responses, and especially to Pashtun for adding all the useful material. And you are quite correct Pashtun, I know nothing about these historical matters (although I'm learning very fast); my main concern is that WP policies should be followed properly, and that the quality of writing be high. I have no doubt that by working together with goodwill and patience we can produce an article that we will all be proud of. I'm going to review this new information and consider more accurate phrasings. Thanks again! Doc Tropics 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the content of this section with a new version based on my current understanding in the hopes that this stupid edit war will die down. I'm not 100% certain that I have all the facts right, and I wish we had a stronger reference, but hopefully this will suffice for now. Doc Tropics 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - I'm totally open to suggestions and revisions, I just wanted to post something in the article that might satisfy everyone temporarily. Doc Tropics 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reverting the POV edits for a while because I was coming close to violating the 3RR and, even though it is my understanding that the 3RR does not apply in the case of blatant vandalism or POV-pushing, I was afraid an admin called in by the anon might not be aware of the history and might issue a ban uninformedly (if that's a word, which I don't think it is). Thank you to Nableezy for stepping in for me.

My congratulations to Doc Tropics for finding a way to put that important historically significant fact into the article in a non-obscenely-disgutingly-POV way. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a far cry better than anything I could have come up with.

Huge kudos to Pashtun Ismailiyya as well for the factual support and historical context.

I think it important to mention as well that I am probably by far the least informed person on this matter, but that I hate to see injustice pass. I don't know much about the subject matter (in fact, that's why I started hitting up the Islamic articles: it's good to learn), but I cannot tolerate seeing anyone push his views onto others in such blatant violation of policy. An encyclopaedia should be an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox, and not a podium. Not a church, nor a mosque, nor a synagogue, nor a temple, but an encyclopaedia, containing facts and not beliefs and not opinions and not slurs. Thank you for helping me to realise that I'm not the only one who still believes that.

I hope we can all be satisfied now... please? RavShimon (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, Doc, Shimon and Pashtun for your efforts.
Did anyone checked the reference cited there i.e. [14], this reference(at least this page of the site) has nothing related to subject matter. As per my knowledge it was Umar ibn Abdul Aziz who discontinued the practice of cursing in Friday sermons, so this act officially was discontinued but there are instance when this practice was found to be perfomed in non-official/private gatherings or by induviduals till date. I think this fact should be corrected in the article section i.e. removal of Harun's name & inclusion of Umar's name with mention of official aboltion we can drop the case of un-officail/private until we have a strong proof.
to Pashtun: Wahabi and Nasibi blame each other for posessing hatred towards ahl-e-bayt and both are blamed by Hanfia for same as Shia blame Sunnis for same. Actually most of the Sunnis are not aware of their own religious doctrines e.g. if you ask a Sunni about possibility of manifestation of Allah in tangible form(i.e. Allah as physical being) they will deny it but its their(Ahl-e-Sunnah's) aqeedah that on day of judgement Allah will present himself in form of physical manifestation (ba nafs-o-nafees) and everybody will see him(they have got hadeeth in support of this claim from Siah-Sit'taah). My point was that there are sections/group/individuals who dislike/hate/refute/curse ahl-e-bayt for claiming their rights; for not supporting three caliphs; for opposing umyyads/abbasids; for claiming their right to Prophet's(s.a.w.a.) inheritance; and top most for claim/support of Wilayat of Ali(a.s.).
to Shimon: I hope that your hope is fullfilled but I see least chance of this until something regarding anon edits is done.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Faizhaider, for that, and thanks for the extra information. However, I think it is safe to stick to just the official doctrines here as a quick summation; any additional information can be added to the main article linked from this one.
Your thoughts, everyone?
On a related note, I've marked the ANI listing as resolved, as the anons seem to be leaving the compromise phrasing alone. Do you think that was premature? RavShimon (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I will go with Sayed Rizvi's decision on the matter of cursing. Second, the issue of a physical manifestation on al-Qiyamah is not something I have the knowledge to delve into other than knowing it exists within their hadith, but similiarly the Qur'an applies other physical attributes to Allah that the conservative Athari do not understand metaphorically, but nonetheless condemn anthropomorphism, which means they don't take it quite literally either. I understand you're making this point that supposed groups exist that hate the Ahl al-Bayt, but I am not aware of them and if we do want to build on this idea in the article, we will need secondary sources anyway. It is a common accusation that such anti-Ahl al-Bayt groups exist, but for me it seems to be a boogeyman. I am an adherent of Ismailism, but nonetheless I don't believe such anti-Ahl al-Bayt groups exist in Sunni Islam, but will welcome secondary sources saying so. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sunni school of thought is established in the 2nd century and Tarbi' or Glorification of Rashidun is established until the end of that century especially by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Although Umayyeds call themselves "Ahl al-Sunnah va al-Jama'" but it does not mean they were true Sunni. Politically and theologicaly they are known as Uthmani. You can find good information about the issue in a Persian book[15].--Seyyed(t-c) 11:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Ismailiyya is the same as the Ismaili who has been tarnishing the Umar wikipedia page. There is no problem in having his views in an Islmaili section, but that he is using the Sunni section as his thought pad violates wikipedia code of ethics. In the Umar section the administrators had to step in, before the individual desisted. I hope that sanity and respect for everyone's views - Sunni, Shiite, Ismaili, etc will prevail over this blatant violation of Sunnite beliefs by an Ismailite. User:plamkii 11 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

It's ironic you come to flame me in the very section I defend Sunni Islam from charges of anthropomorphism. You had not read most of what I have written and have almost blindly agreed with the other editor. I did not answer to you on the other talk page because I wanted fighting to stop, but now you are going around bashing an editor who has worked on Wikipedia for years. Guess what? I didn't write the article on Umar nor have I written the article on Ali: my point was that we should check the sources that the individual wanted to delete (they were mass deleting sources), and instead of this individual kindly talking to me the individual flamed me and said I was pushing my view which makes no sense. I showed them other sources which they disagreed with. There is no Ismaili view on Umar's article because it is similiar to the Sunni view, we do not pass bad judgement on Umar! The Shi'a view is the Twelver view, since Twelver Shi'a curse Umar. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

References

After Faiz pointed out problems with one of the refs in this article, he and I both looked deeper and this seems to be a significant issue throughout the article. In fact, one of the major reasons Ali failed its last GA review is that too many refs were broken, didn't actually support the text, or were improperly formatted. Clearly this has to be addressed in any attempt to bring the article up to GA quality, but it's going to be a long, tedious job. Looking on the bright side though, it's bound to be a learning experience. I suggest that whenever someone notices a broken ref, they should remove it immediately (no discussion required) and possibly replace it with a "fact" tag, as Faiz did with the old #26 (no tag necessary if there are multiple refs or non-controversial info involved). Doc Tropics 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding the same ref that Faiz removed has been used in several other places. I'll continue to remove them but have copied it here for reference in case of questions: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/firstfourcaliphs.html Doc Tropics 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I added this as a source two years ago, but later I found that I may be unreliable. I hope we can find an online source which represent Sunni view clearly.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the sources

I don't understand why some of the editors change the text while the source don't supports their edits. These are what I have noticed:

  • Ali did not change his mind and he never pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr,Umar and Uthman: The sources clearly oppose this view. Please add a source which support your claim.
  • According to some other evidences, Ali killed most of those who started worshipping him. He believed in oneness of Allah and gave them a chance to repent. They continued with their unislamic belief and were in the end put to death by him.: The source has mentioned it but not in detail. What is some other evidence?
  • Then Umar set the house on fire and pushed the burnt door on Fatima. Some sources say upon seeing them, Ali came out with his sword drawn but was put in chains by Umar and their companions. Morever, Ali had been adjured by Muhammed not to fight even if he were to see Fatima ill-treated.: Unfortunately I don't have access to Brill encyclopedia. Can anyone check it please?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup and revamp

Dear editors,

Few of us have concluded that this article needs severe cleanup and revamp. Intial steps of this have been started and as of now are underway one task.

  • We'll take one task at time, have a review after its complition and move to another,
  • One or two members will do the actual task while others can do periodic review and correction,
  • Group of editors can take a task and devide it section wise between themselves
  • During this process any major revamp or re-writing of article will be avoided.

Team

Please add your signature here to be part of this effort:

Tasks

# Task Editorial team Status Started on Completed on Reviewed on Review team
1 Clearing of dead/unrelevant references. Doc_Tropics
Sa.vakilian 		In progress 22 March 2009
2 Matching of text and reference not started

This list is to be expanded.

  1. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearing of dead/unrelevant references

Thanx to all of you for all the above efforts. Doc I think hadith is now rightly placed with appropriate explanation. One more thing which I just found that reference # 26 "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. Retrieved 2008-12-19., this link seems to hold no relevant information(at least to the place/section where it is quoted).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy if other editors are reasonably satisfied with the current version (or willing to listen if Pashtun had another suggestion), and Faiz (pardon my informality) is right...link #26 is not only unrelated to the text it currently supports, but most of that website's internal links seem to be broken. This makes it impossible to access what might otherwise useful information, so I tried to remove the ref. Unfortunately, it is used in at least 3 places and I botched the job. The "Fatima" link should definitely be taken out, but maybe someone else would like to try? Doc Tropics 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
After Faiz pointed out problems with one of the refs in this article, he and I both looked deeper and this seems to be a significant issue throughout the article. In fact, one of the major reasons Ali failed its last GA review is that too many refs were broken, didn't actually support the text, or were improperly formatted. Clearly this has to be addressed in any attempt to bring the article up to GA quality, but it's going to be a long, tedious job. Looking on the bright side though, it's bound to be a learning experience. I suggest that whenever someone notices a broken ref, they should remove it immediately (no discussion required) and possibly replace it with a "fact" tag, as Faiz did with the old #26 (no tag necessary if there are multiple refs or non-controversial info involved). Doc Tropics 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed unverified information which I mentioned here.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hi, i have replaced the picture info box, the one of Imam Ali mosque in najaf by the image of extant of Ali's empire.

The picture of Imam Ali mosque is now in the section Aftermaths

more over, in the info box, the heading off springs and wives seems odd to me, in the wife section there are only the names of Ali's two wives, although it is belived that Ali married 24 women till his death in 661. I am not sure it should be add there or not. moreover the royal house heading is for kings, not for Caliph. It should be removed. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The map is incorrect. Egypt was controlled by Imam Ali until 658.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically this template is for rulers and Caliph is just another title for ruler so there is no need to replace this template. Regarding names of wives and children you can come with whole list with reliable and verifiable references but in the template there is practice to include only prominent/importanty wife and children.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The map clearly states that it was domain of Ali in 661.
  • Is there any reason of removing the map ???? and as for campaign box of Ali, the usual practice is to place it below info box, so i had placed it below the info box. I hope i am clear ! I am restoring it back if there are any issues, it can be discuss here, just reverting is not the way !

More over there is no need to mention commander of belivers with amir ul mominen title, it have its own article which give a satisfactory explaination. More over in the article of Abu Bakr, Uthman, Alexander the Great only main titles are mentioned not their meaning, it looks odd. so please dont restore it, if you want to maintain article's reputation. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Deal separately with Shia and Sunni accounts?

The section Succession to Muhammad seems to be pretty pro-Shia as phrased. Should we maybe split it into two sections one from the Shia perspective and one from the Sunni perspective? Alternatively, simply go through and describe where they disagree. (The claim about Abu Bakr setting the house on fire for example is I think more or less exclusively Shia). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, this article is too pro=shi'ate sect. there are things mentioned in this articles, which are to extent blasphemy for other muslim sects. it is better and safe approach to have seprate prospects from both leading sects on different pages to aviod any controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.134.144 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Please remove the photographic images they are highly offensive:} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almortian (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of the minority of people who may be offended by pictures of people. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

he is right please the pictures it is offensive to all the muslims of the world.

That's not quite true as Depictions of Muhammad points out. As a warning there are also pictures there, starting about half way down the page. A slightly more correct statement would be that in general Sunni Muslims believe that the images are forbidden but not all Shia do. However, as Lkjhgfdsa 0 points out Wikipedia is not censored and you might want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). The pictures will stay. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, looks like it's gone again. I've no problem with having no picture, since there probably is no reliable one extant. But as a non-Muslim I object to having Muslims tell me what I can and cannot view, sitting here in a free country. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Map fault

The map given along with the article has a fault. It shows green areas that were under Ali till 661 at his death time. It is known that Hijaz Yemen and northern Iraq were at that time under Muavia control but in the map they are shown under Ali's control. Please rectify the mistake. --Citrus1000 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is historic report. We have described religious views somewhere else. You can read former discussions about this issue such as 1 and 2.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Ali. — Favonian (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on Asadullah concerns a specific title of Ali and the circumstances of its granting. It should be merged into the main article with a redirect. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Asadullah is only two sentences and it describes a "personal title" that is only ever used in reference to Ali (no one else is called by this title) so it should reasonably be merged into Ali. Possibly the section "In Battles" would be a good spot for it? Doc Tropics 14:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali(r.a) is its gate so whoever desires knowledge let him enter the gate. محمّد

Add quote please.' Ditc (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)ditc

Non-neutral point of view in this article

This is one of the most unneutral articles i have ever read in my life. Will be subject to deletion if not balanced immediately. --85.154.167.40 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're new here.
No, it will not be subject to deletion if it is not "balanced" (by which you qualify no specific reason why it is supposedly unbalanced) it is a notable subject with significant third-party coverage, and you do not have the right to delete the article. I highly suggest you become acquainted with our policies and guidelines before making threats. Any blanking of the page will simply be reverted and you'll be on a short road to a block.
If you want to contribute constructively, that is entirely welcome. Tell us what you think is written from a non-neutral point of view and why, and if it is then it shall be changed. It's as simple as that. Peter Deer (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ali & Persians

In the entire article, the Persian alliance towards Ali is only mentioned briefly and indirectly through a quote by Khalil Gibran. Ali's supporters were mainly Sassasanian prisoners of war stationed in Kufa, the capital of Ali. The Persians despised the strict Arab identity and oppressive Uthman caliphate so they had sided with Ali who was more sympathetic to Persians than the Arab caliphate. The Persians from the beginning, since being invaded by Arabs and conquered by Arab Muslims, resented the invaders who were under the leadership of Omar. That is why Persians have historically sided with Ali and have a tradition of insulting the first three caliphs before Ali (see institutionalized Shia traditions by Ahmad Kasravi).

In short, the article should shed a bit more light on the role of the Persians in keeping the Shia tradition alive, which is embedded with sentiments relating to Ali character. This isn't a Persian nationalist rant, I think it is important to highlight this point a little bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

oldest known picture

ok i have heard from what I thought are reliable sources that this (http://www.activistchat.com/images/ImamAli.jpg) is oldest known picture of Hazrat e Ali. Can someone please clear that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. Just look at the detail in that picture and its style. Looks nothing like any Arab or Islamic art of the time period. 169.234.3.201 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seen it. It is not a picture of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). It was a drawing made by some Salafis to make fun of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). I have verificiations of this. Those Arab historians are far from that. We have actual descriptions of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). He looked more like Prophet Jesus the Messiah (peace be upon him) and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) then anyone else. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

H. Ali's Birthday

The data that is available about the birth-date of H. Ali are as follows:

  • He was born on Friday, 13th Rajab ?? BH.
  • He was born either in the year 598, 599 or 600 AD.
  • He was 63 years old when he died. (according to the Islamic calendar)
  • He passed away on Thursday, 21st Ramazan 40 AH (28th January 661 AD).

Let’s start with his age. He was 63 when he passed away.

40 – 63 = – 23.

i.e. he was born on 13th Rajab 23 BH. If we check whether this date was Friday or not, using the softwares given below, we find that this date was Friday. Therefore we have reached the correct date and correct year. On corresponding it with the Julian date we get Friday, 9th October 599 AD. We double check it as this date is in the potential year in the range of 598 and 600.


BH – Before Hijrat AH – After Hijrat AD – Anno Domini

Calculations are done using the following softwares:

Unfortunally you can't calculate his birthday and then add it to the article. It's original research. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 07:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reign as Caliph

Regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph under the section "caliphate" and sub-section "Reign as Caliph". Please provide references for the names of the authors and publications in which they have claimed so. The reference provided leads to an error. I will delete it and anyone may re-enter it only with reasonable reference to avoid misleading information until then.Mr.oncogene (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I updated and restored the Encyclopædia Iranica link, which was used 19 times in the article, to the current page on Ali. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for repairing the link and referring me to the guide on how to do so. I have visited the cited reference page and I am unable to find anything in there regarding the statement "... some authors have pointed out that he lacked political skill and flexibility". Presumably it would be against wikipedia's rules to cite a reference that does not support a "claim" or "statement". I do not know about the rest of 19 citations but I am therefore going to remove the above mentioned statement from the article and encourage fellow editors to use references appropriately. Mr.oncogene (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't go through the source but just updated the link. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I think we must remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.205.151 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reign as Caliph

Regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph under the section "caliphate" and sub-section "Reign as Caliph". Please provide references for the names of the authors and publications in which they have claimed so. The reference provided leads to an error. I will delete it and anyone may re-enter it only with reasonable reference to avoid misleading information until then.

Zulfiqar

Can someone please upload a picture of Ali's sword? It is widely used as a symbol to represent Ali — the "Lion of Men" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Last words

I have read or heard Dr. Shariati (Iranian liberation theologist) state that Ali's last words were "Fotzo wa rabbel Kabah" (I swear to the Lord of Kabah that I just earned my liberation). Has anyone also heard or read of this saying somewhere or has a source to back it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently there have been several attempts to edit sourced Gregorian dates related to Birth / Death of Imam Ali a.s.
Editors who are changing the dates (or converting it from Hijri calendar to Gregorian calendar) should note following points:

  • The dates in place at present are sourced dates from reliable and verifialble sources (mostly from Encyclopedia Bitannica)
  • Apparently change of date is being done on basis of some date conversion tool(s),
    • Most of the date conversion tools are not accurate (try to convert recent date which you know and you will get a difference of day or two, this difference tends to scale up when we talk about dates as old as 1500 years)
    • Hijri dates tend to be different at different parts of world at same point of time (e.g. if Id-ul-fitr falls on Monday in Hejaz, in Persia it will be on Tuesday and in Hind it will be Wednesday and so on) most convertor tools don't take such considerations in view (& believe me b'coz I myself am a developer and its too difficult to make a convertor tool having such minute consideration and preciseness and it will require great effort and resource to make such tool and very few people will give it for free)
  • The converted dates avilabale in source like Encyclopedia Bitannica are work of professional date experts & are quite precise but they also don't claim it to be cent-per-cent accurate because in Hijri calendar actual cellestial date and perceived / accepted date may be different.

Considering above points please change dates only when you have sufficient proof and not on basis of any date conversion tool.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, y'all (IPs changing, named users changing back) need to stop changing the dates. I have literally no opinion on which date is correct, but if the article keeps being changed, I'm going to request full page protection until everyone can sort out on the talk page which version is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has made major errors in the conversion of the Islamic Hijri calendar dates of Ali's birth and death. For example, the date of March 17, 599 is way off and does not at all correspond to 13th Rajab 24 BH (Before Hijra). Traditionally, there is the Shia source of Ali Ibn Abi Talib's birthdate which is 13th Rajab 16 BH (Before Hijra), whose Gregorian calendar conversion falls on Friday, July 17, 607 C.E. or A.D.; this is the traditional Shi'ite date. There have been revisionist Shia scholars that have adopted some of the traditional Sunni sources for Ali's birthdate. Traditional Sunni sources place Ali's birthday in either 24 BH, 23 BH, or 22 BH. The Gregorian conversion for these dates are Friday, October 11, 599; Tuesday, September 30, 600; Saturday, September 19, 601.
Where Wikipedia gets 25 BH (Before Hijra) as Ali's birth year is beyond anyone. There are NO sources that have upheld that Ali was born in year 25 BH (Before Hijra); this erroneous birthdate of 13 Rajab 25 BH falls on 22 October 598 C.E. All Muslim sources, whether Shia, Sunni, or other unanimously uphold that Ali was born on Jumah or Friday. This narrows Ali's birthdate down to one of the traditional Sunni sources of 13th Rajab 24 BH and the traditional Shia source of 13th Rajab 16 BH. The I.M.A.M. (Imam Mahdi Association of Marjaeya) which follows the traditional Safavid scholarship, have upheld that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was age 3 when Prophet Muhammad received his initial revelation of the Holy Qur'an in year 13 BH (610 C.E.). They have further upheld that Ali was age 15 at the time of the Hijra in 1 AH (622 C.E.). Also, Shia and Sunni sources disagree on the order of Ali's older brothers. All Shia sources uphold that Aqil Ibn Abi Talib was the 2nd son of Abu Talib Bin Abdul Muttalib, while Jafar Ibn Abi Talib was the 3rd son and Ali was the 4th and last son. Shi'ite sources place Aqil's birth in 34 BH (590 C.E.), Jafar's birth in 25 BH (598 C.E.), and Ali's birth in 16 BH (607 C.E.). However, many Sunni sources (but not all) have Jafar as the 2nd son and Aqil as the 3rd son of Abu Talib, Emir of Mecca.
As for Ali's death, this article has listed 21st Ramadhan 40 AH (Anno Hijri) which is CORRECT, however, it converts to January 31, 661 C.E. It does NOT convert to February 28, 661 or January 27 or 28, 661. All Wikipedia editors have to do is consult the Hijri-Gregorian calendar converters online such as Fourmilab Calendar Converter, Tarek's Calendar Converter, or any Islamic-Gregorian calendar converters. Wikipedia has listed March 17, 599 as one of Ali's birthdates. Well this converts to 11th Dhulhijjah 24 BH (Before Hijra) AND NOT 13th Rajab 24 BH. Such errors need to be corrected. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, their editors are not conversion date experts. Why don't the Wikipedia editors use their common sense and convert the date themselves using Fourmilab Calendar Converter. 99.179.148.221 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good case to review, but we can't rely on date convertors for exact date. Facts like birthday was on Friday may help to fix the actual A.D. date. We need to do research.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems "13th Rajab 24 BH & 21st Ramadān, 40 AH" seem to be unanimous Hijri dates on the article but there are numerous Gregorian dates, this is weired. I think if there is one Hijri date then there should be one Gregorian date, may be we can have note that there may be little varinace in the Gregorian date due to conversion errors.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an excellent case to review, indeed. The numerous Gregorian dates are because the Abbasid Caliphate scholars such as Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood, etc. have listed 22 BH. Abu Mikhnaf, the EARLIEST of all the Abbasid scholars, who was commissioned by 2nd Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur (ruled 754-775 CE), listed 16 BH. While the later scholar Tabari cited both the traditional Shia and Sunni sources of 16 BH and 22 BH. The 24 and 23 BH (Before Hijra) dates were the product of 19th Century scholars. Abu Mikhnaf, Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and all the classic Abbasid scholars have all unanimously listed that Ali Ibn Abi Talib was born on Yawm al-Jumah or Friday. However, 13th Rajab 22 BH did not fall on a Friday but 13th Rajab 16 BH did. This was the main reason why 19th Century Islamic scholars moved up the traditional Sunni year of 22 BH to 24 BH, as 13th Rajab fell on a Friday in 24 BH. From the Battle of Uhud, the famous saying that "There is no brave YOUTH like Ali and there is no sword that renders service like Dhu Al-Fiqar" has historically been cited for Ali Ibn Abi Talib being an ADOLESCENT during that battle rather than a POST-ADOLESCENT of 23 years of age. Another curious item that is also related has been the confusion of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Hazrat Khadija, which was traditionally held to be on year 28th Amm-ul-Fil (Year of the Elephant) or 598 C.E. It was somehow transferred to the year of Ali Ibn Abi Talib's birth. Furthermore, 28th Amm-ul-Fil somehow got misidentified as 28th Before Hijra for Prophet Muhammad's wedding date to Hazrat Khadija which fell in 595 C.E. I hope this has helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.148.221 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rechecked the article there is no other Hijri date mentioned other than "13th Rajab 24 BH & 21st Ramadān, 40 AH". Here is the result of conversion which I tried on few convertors:

Convertor DoB (13th Rajab 24 BH) DoD (21st Ramadān, 40 AH)
islamicfinder BH conversion not avialble Thursday 28 January 661 C.E.
islamicity Tuesday 21 October 598 C.E. Thursday 28 January 661 C.E.
muslimphilosophy Tuesday 21 October 598 C.E. Thursday 28 January 661 C.E.
al-islam BH conversion not avialble Wednesday 27 January 661 C.E.
Tarek's BH conversion not avialble Thursday 31 January 661 AD Gregorian
oriold Tuesday 21 October 598 Christian Thursday 28 January 661 AD Christian

What do the editor's guild suggest? I'll prefer doing more research. 99.179.148.221 (Sorry there is no name, you never mentioned it) you gave good research if you can give links (reference) to your Hijri dates may be we will re-do the dates and include other dates also. But these conversion tools are not reliable so we should include a note that there may be little varinace in the Gregorian date due to conversion errors. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Salam, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider. Fourmilab Calendar Converter & Tarek Mani's Calendar Converter DO INDEED give the BH or BEFORE HIJRI date conversions to Gregorian. I just did them on it myself as I am typing this. What you have to do is type in the Gregorian dates I listed than you will automatically get the BEFORE HIJRI results. 13th Rajab 24 B.H. converts as Friday, 11th October, 599 C.E., if this is the one Wikipedia wants to settle upon. The Kuwaiti Algorithms Hijri-Gregorian converter also corroborates Fourmilab Calendar Converter & Tarek's Converter. 21st/22nd October 598 C.E. converts to year 25 Before Hijra NOT 24 Before Hijra. However, that March 17, 599 conversion in the Wikipedia article IS COMPLETELY WRONG. The references you ask are Ibn Nadim's AL-FIHRIST & Tabari's collections on Abu Mikhnaf's KITAB AL-SAQIFAH(150 AH/767 CE); KITAB AL-JAMAL(150 AH/767 CE); KITAB AL-SIFFIN(150 AH/767 CE).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.148.221 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed answer, you give names of book can you give page no. also and if possible a web link. Also, if you can list it as below style:
  • Date 1: reference 1, reference 2, etc
  • Date 2: reference 1, reference 2, etc
  • etc
I'll still suggest that we should not take any action in hurry (i.e. editing dates on the article) we should gather all possible facts and then decide what to encorporate in article based on reliablity & verifiability.
I'll be mute for next 32-33 hours till then you may do the research and collect all the facts then we can analyse it.
We are still missing your name. Why don't you create an account on wikipedia (top right corner has the link).
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Abu Mikhnaf's KITAB MAQTAL ALI published in year 153 AH(Anno Hijri) or 770 AD(Anno Domini) mentions Ali Ibn Abi Talib's birth & death dates as 13th Rajab 16 BH - 21st Ramadhan 40 AH. Abu Mikhnaf's chronicle of Ali's birth & death dates is by far the OLDEST historical record of Ali Ibn Abi Talib's chronology.

A suggestion would be to list one traditional Sunni scholarship date and its Gregorian conversion and also list the traditional Shia scholarship date and its Gregorian conversion for Ali Ibn Abi Talib's birthdate. There are no significant conflicting dates for his death of 21st Ramadhan 40 AH; whose Gregorian conversion falls on 31st January 661 C.E.

For conversion tool reference, Fourmilab Calendar Converter or Tarek Maani's Calendar Converter 8.5 could suffice-- http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/islam/islam_tabcal.htm http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ http://members.fortunecity.com/tarek2000/converter80/update85/conv80.html http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/elfman/454/calindex.html

  • Date 1 (Sunni) :

13th Rajab 24 BH (11th October 599 CE) - "Ali The Superman" by Dr. Ata Mohiyuddin; Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers; 1980 1st Edition. "Ali Al-Murtaza" by Abdur Rahman Shad; Kazi Publications; 1978 1st Edition.

13th Rajab 23 BH (30th September 600 CE) - "Ali The Magnificent" by Yousuf N. Lalljee; Ansariyan Publications; Jan 1981 1st Edition.

13th Rajab 22 BH (19th September 601 CE) - "Ali The Caliph" by Mohammad Ali Al-Haj Salmin; Qassim Ali Jairazbhoy Publishers; 1931 1st Edition.

  • Date 2 (Shia)  :

13th Rajab 16 BH (17th July 607 CE) - "Kitab Maqtal Ali" by Abu Mikhnaf (Lut b. Yahya b. Sa‘id b. Mikhnaf b. Salim al-Azdi al-Ghamidi al-Kufi; died 157 AH/774 CE) - originally published 153 AH/770 AD; from which Ali Ibn Abi Talib's birthdate was replicated by I.M.A.M.(Imam Mahdi Association of Marjaeya) Islamic Cultural Publication; Volume 2, Issue 5. Abu Mikhnaf's KITAB MAQTAL HUSAYN was published in 156 AH/773 AD.

Abu Mikhnaf's great-grandfather was a companion of Imam ‘Ali (a). Abu Mikhnaf was a trusted and a reliable historian whose tradition reports were relied upon by many historians—Shi‘ah and Sunni—including Muhammad b. ‘Amr Waqidi (d. 207 A.H.), Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), Ibn Qutaybah (d. 322 A.H.), Mas‘udi (d. 345 A.H.), Mufid (d. 413 A.H.), Shahrastani (d. 548 A.H.), Khatib Khwarazmi (d. 568 A.H.), Ibn Athir (d. 630 A.H.), Sibt b. Jawzi (d. 654 A.H.).

I.M.A.M. is the North American liaison office of the supreme Shia authority, the High Marja Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husseini Sistani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.148.221 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A word of caution should be added regarding the conversion of Islamic dates referring to the birth of Ali into Western calendar dates. All modern conversion tables (and programs on the internet) assume that the ancient Arabian calendar (as observed in Mecca) was identical with the present-day Islamic calendar and do not account for the intercalary months which (up to 10 AH) were inserted every two or three years in order to keep the calendar in step with the seasons. As we know very little about the regulation of the lunar calendar in Mecca before 10 AH it is pointless to argue which Western calendar date best corresponds with Ali's birth (the same b.t.w. also applies to the claimed dates of Muhammad's birth). See also the discussion of this problem in my Islamic-Western Calendar Converter. AstroLynx (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Ali (R)

The drawing of Ali (R) should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranmajeed (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, for a closely related discussion on the use of the Prophet Muhammad's image on his wikipage, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. In summary, Wikipedia does not follow the rules set down by any given religion regarding the use of images. There are, however, things that you can do to prevent from seeing the image yourself, which are described on the Muhammad FAQ. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Baardheere: The photo said to be artistically representing Ali Bin Abi Talib (May Allah be Pleased with him)should be removed. Representation in the opinion of whom? Islamic leaders of Good Faith are known for long beards and trimmed mustaches. The photo here on the page of Caliph Ali is hence false representation of Ali Bin Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.97.165 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming of a person

Ali is a name likewise Abu Talib is a name ,but in Arabic when A Muzaaf -Muzaaf ilahi is written i.e.Ali s/o Abu Talib ,it is written and spoken as Ali ibn -e -Abi Talib.117.195.236.255 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Saadullah<saadullahhusami@yahoo.com>

Edit request from 202.125.149.250, 1 February 2011

please remove the pic of Hazarat ali on the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.149.250 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which, although referring to Muhammad, applies here as well--the pictures will stay because Wikipedia believes they are important for an encylcopedic coverage of the subject, and we do not follow the rules of religions regarding which images we show. On that page, you will find information about how to turn of images for yourself if you register an account. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the picture from?

Based on the points from the IP above, I decided to look at the image file to try to figure out where the picture came from (i.e., who painted it, when, etc.). It appears to be a modern work by a non-notable (in the sense that he has no Wikipedia article) artist. Why are we using this random picture? For instance, there's no picture in the article Yarlagab, an ancient Persian king (I picked it at random looking at a "List of Kings" article). If I (also a non-notable artist) painted a picture of said king, we wouldn't just accept it being added to the article. We especially wouldn't accept it if I depicted him in anachronistic clothes or grooming style. So, why are we using this specific picture? Do we have any reason to believe that the painting has any historical importance, any validity within any group of scholars (Muslim or secular), or anything else? In other words, I'm questioning this picture not for religious reasons, but because I'm concerned that it is just a random picture by a random modern painter that may not even at all resemble our historical understanding of the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if no one can justify this picture, why it is included, what its source is...in other words, provide some evidence that this picture at all resembles Ali, is historically noteworthy, is accurate, is relevant, I will remove the picture in a few days. Note that I am not suggesting removal because the picture is offensive--I am suggesting removal because as far as I can tell, this is a random picture painted by a random user, relatively recently (it's licensed as "own work") which we have no reason to believe actually represents Ali. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Such action would not be acceptable. Your complaint would apply to all images, paintings, and sculptures of all historical figures created after the the subject's own lifetime, resulting in the removal of a huge number of images across a broad range of articles. These articles include images of their subjects for a variety of reasons and there is no actual requirement that they be accurate. For example, we have numerous images of Jesus depicting him as a blue eyed blonde European....no one considers them accurate, but they are valid representations nonetheless. Most readers (and editors) want and expect images in articles, especially biographies. If you really consider this image to be inadequate, the best thing to do is find a higher quality image of the subject to replace this one with. That is an action that everyone would support, whereas simple removal will probably not be accepted. Doc Tropics 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, but those are pictures with historical relevance, that have long been considered depictions of Jesus by a wide group of people. They are not pictures created by a random Wikipedia user. Are you saying that I can make a painting myself of any historical figure, upload it to Wikipedia, and add it to an article? That notion is, simply put, ridiculous. Heck, since this particular picture is in the public domain, I could technically take it, re-upload it under a different name, and add it to dozens of articles of historical males and claim that it's a representation of them as well. What if I uploaded a painting of a native African, wearing only loin cloth and standing in a jungle--could I add that to this article, simply by stating in the file description that it's a picture of Ali? We must have some reason to believe that this picture either has historical relevance or has some resemblance to Ali or how Ali is commonly described or something to include in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright...I don't actually see any objections to removing this picture. I mean, yeah, I do, but no one has yet explained why we have any reason to connect this picture to the subject of this article. As far as I can see, by the logic used to support this picture, I could take any freely licensed painting of somebody vaguely Middle Eastern looking, call it Ali, upload it to commons, and use it here. Unless we can demonstrate that this picture has any historical value, any religious value, literally any connection at all to Ali, it isn't actually doing what its supposed to do (provide additional "information" to readers). I'm going to remove the picture; I'm sure it's likely to be reverted, but maybe if the removal comes from an established editor it will actually get people to talk about the picture here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Iman Ali.jpg

Here is another image available from Commons. Personally this doesn't seem as aesthetically pleasing as the current image, but I offer it in the spirit of compromise. Would this be more acceptable, or are there "non-religious" objections to this image too? Please feel free to peruse Wikimedia Commons for other possibilities; it will be more productive to find a suitable replacement than to simply delete the image. Doc Tropics 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now, there are 13 images in the article, including ones with facial image. I am not clear whey there is a need for "compromise" or to "peruse Wikimedia".Kazemita1 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
and by the way, in case you have not noticed, the image you put here is titled "Iman Ali" not "Imam Ali" which I doubt have any relations together.216.31.211.11 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It is standard for a biography article to include a picture or image of the subject in the upper right corner. Doc Tropics 22:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Doc Tropics, I don't know if I'm just explaining it wrong, but somehow you're fundamentally not getting my underlying message. What evidence do you have that either of those pictures have any connection at all with the subject of this article other than the names given to them by their commons uploaders? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please read WP:AGF....you need apply it to editors who add images too, not just those who add text. What evidence do you have that all the uploaders are lying? Why are you so adamantly refusing to assume good faith? What I see is that you have no interest in improving the article, just an obsession with removing images. All other biographies have images of their subjects and this one will too. For the last time: if you dislike this image, find a better one to replace it with. Deletion without replacement isn't an option. Doc Tropics 13:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity....what would you consider "evidence"? How is it possible to upload an image that you would consider acceptable? I have to ask because there doesn't seem to be a specific line for it in the image summarty, so how is it possible to prove to your satisfaction that any image is what the uploader cliams? Doc Tropics 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would consider evidence that the picture came from some sort of book, some historical painting, some museum, a religious text; ideally one by someone whom historians might recognize as made a drawing that at least some people consider vaguely accurate. However, if I do AGF, I know that both of those pictures were painted by the uploaders, because both are claimed to be in the public domain because they are the author's own work. That means that I know, based on the licensing, that those two pictures were drawn by Wikimedia editors. Why would a picture made by a random Wikimedia editor ever be allowed, especially as the main, infobox picture? To me, it sounds like you're saying that I can (assuming I can make passable works of art), make paintings in any style or manner I please of any historical figure which doesn't already have an image, upload them as PD, and attach them to any article. Heck, I could actually upload the same picture dozens of times, or make minor modifactions, and say "Yeah, sure, that's an 8th century scientist, and also an 11th century prince." There are 2 other images on Commons labelled as Ali; the problem with those is that they are both clearly from western sources, and thus really not much better than the random imaginings of a Wikimedia editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are essentially claiming that Wikipedia can't use any image that was uploaded by the artist who created it. You are further asserting that Wikipedia can't use any image of an Islamic subject created by a "Westerner". Neither of these positions is supported by any policy; your reasoning is invalid and simply doesn't apply. I'm done with this discussion and won't waste time replying any further on this topic. Doc Tropics 16:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a more than one guideline applies here, at least with regards to the current image. From WP:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, we have "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." What visual information is provided by this self-created image? While we needn't prove it authentic, we do need to show that it looks at least somewhat like Ali; with no background information, how can we do so? Similarly, "Images that are described only in vague terms (e.g., images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript", etc.) are often less useful for Wikipedia and less informative to our readers." This image gives almost no information, and so, to me, is not informative to readers. In addition, from WP:OI, we have "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." I am actually concerned that this picture does constitute original research, as there is no evidence that it is based on written or oral descriptions of Ali, and thus may be entirely the author's imagination.
If you have given up on this conversation, then I guess my next step is to 3O or an RfC; I'll consider those options in the near future. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Section Views

Picture of Hadhrat Ali Is misrepresentation. Please remove this picture as no one has a way to give description of hadhrat Ali to draw his picture.Pavindah (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Under Shi'a

This section is obviously trying to mislead the reader. There is no justification for adding a Sunni source (e.g. Sahih Muslim) in a "Shi'a View" section. Shi'a's don't even believe in the correctness of Sahih Muslim. The following statement should be removed from this section: "In particular, the Hadith of the Cloak is often quoted to illustrate Muhammad's feeling towards Ali and his family: One morning Muhammad went out wearing a striped cloak of black camel's hair when along came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: God only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O People of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. —Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5955 "

It would be better to provide a Shie source not Sahih Muslim which is a Sunni source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd1815 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ali was not the only one who is said to be born in ka'ba. There are some other narrations telling that also another one is born there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.75.105 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing where he was born? Perhaps you are either replying in the wrong section or confused! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.184.131 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On the top right hand side of the article in the box with the depiction of Ali it is missing a child of Ali from his First wife Fatima. The child that is missing is Umm Kulthum bint Ali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Al-Radawi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Shias do not consider Sahih Muslim as authentic source. However, in wikipedia based on WP:MOSISLAM, Hadith collections are primary sources and we refer to them just as additional source for those who wants to study more. Therefor, if there is a reliable secondary source which is acceptable by Shia, we can can any Hadith collection reference including Sunni ones as additional evidence.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable information for succession section

There is a lot of unreferenced material which needs verifiable sources in "Succession to Muhammad". I moved them to talk age:

  • Then Umar set the house on fire and pushed the burnt door on Fatimah. Some sources say upon seeing them, Ali came out but was put in chains by Umar and his companions.[citation needed]
  • When Abu Bakr's selection to the caliphate was presented as a fait accompli, Ali withheld his oaths of allegiance until after the death of Fatimah[citation needed]
  • Fatimah had asked Ali not to allow the caliphate or any of his followers to join in her burial. Two to three months after her father’s death Fatimah herself died. As Ali was readying her body for burial he felt her broken ribs (done when she was wounded by Umar and those who tried to take her house) and started crying. At night Ali took her body for burial. The next day the Caliph and his followers wanted to disinter her body to pray over it, but Ali did not allow this.[citation needed]
  • The two groups also disagree on Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr, and the two caliphs who succeeded him: Umar and Uthman Ibn Affan. Sunnis tend to stress Ali's acceptance and support of their rule, while the Shi'a claim that he distanced himself from them, and that he was being kept from fulfilling the religious duty that Muhammad had assigned to him. Sunnis maintain that if Ali was the rightful successor as ordained by God Himself, then it would have been his duty as leader of the Muslim nation to make war with these people (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) until Ali established the decree. Shias contend that Ali did not fight Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman, because he did not have the military strength and, if he had decided to, it would have caused a civil war amongst the Muslims.[1]

--Seyyed(t-c) 06:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Authenticity of Nahj al Balaghah

The article read:

"Despite ongoing questions about the authenticity of the text, recent scholarship suggests that most of the material in it can in fact be attributed to Ali"

and it then cited the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia. However that was a secondary reference so I amended it with the correct attribution. This is important as the Encyclopedia editor Reza Shah-Kazemi quotes only one article to support his belief that the Nahj is authentic. The issue isn't clear cut and the authenticity of this book is disputed on grounds advanced by many scholars, so the amended reference is hopefully a little more balanced. --Zubedar (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:ALI JJH MOLA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ALI JJH MOLA.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo location

Islamic Photo of Ali with lion is more complete representation of Ali and it has more importance than mare simple sketch shown else in article. Islamic photo deserve space at lead. Hope it is better option.--Md iet (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored the original layout because in a biography it's best for the lead image to be a simple head shot of the subject. Also, the image with the lion has been independently proposed for deletion so may not remain available. Doc Tropics 14:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Alidrawing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alidrawing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Ali (R)

Please Remove the photo of Ali (A.S) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.82.134 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Please remove the photo of Ali (R). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.29.217 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The drawing of Ali (R) should be removed. The same argument was written under Prophet Mohammad's page, whoever objects can refer to that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images. It is very lengthly so I suggest that you go thru the archives.

Please dont threat belief of Islam , I request to delete photos of Prophet and Sahaba . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashxxx7 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not acceptable in Islam to draw Prophets or Sahaba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd1815 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ There is no basis for removing these images. 220.239.169.62 (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You should read the FAQ article! Is this a joke? There is no image of prophet Muhammad! Check the wikipedia page and see where the depiction are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd1815 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

the drawing of Ali (AS) should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.125.62 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Salman1404 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The depiction of major Islamic figure heads should be avoided. The artistic rendition is pointless as it does not provide any educational advantage.

The Photo of Hazrat Ali should be deleted otherwise We will campaign against Wiki. First requesting politely to you to remove the photo of Hazrat Ali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.29.149 (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered several hundred times. Wikipedia does not follow Muslim rules, and so the photo will stay. In the future, Wikipedia is going to be created software that will allow you to choose not to view individual images that you consider offensive; for now, you can go to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and it explains how, if you register an account, you can block all images on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Please remove the unauthenticated photo of Hazrat Ali for maintaining the authenticity and genuine followers of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.22.108 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

why did u putup picture of islmic people

its a request please remove the piture of hazrat ali kindly remove all picutures asap thats not fear our relogion is not allowed this frustation from you and yuours.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.47.25 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC) I agree, I really appreciate whe adminsitrator for putting up a page about the Commander of the Faithful. My only contention is that it is best to take down the picture as this will give some an inaccurate perception of such a great personality of Islamic history. Who really knows how he looked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtaMubarak (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the Photo of Imama Ali (R.A.)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

Drawing image of sacred personalities is strictly not allowed in Islam. Drawing picture itself is not allowed. I strongly condemn placement of a picture associated with Hazrat Ali. Please remove this picture on immediate basis.

Regards,

Syed Shahbaz Nemat shabby_pk@hotmail.com

Nemats (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

According to Islam and my knowledge no one has seen companions of Holy Prophet Muhammad(s.a.w). Please remove the current image since its spreading false picture and is complete baseless. You can edit it with the following image: http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=hazrat+ali+empire&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1C1DVCB_enCA354CA354&biw=1066&bih=534&tbm=isch&tbnid=J0dhmgQSiJvLVM:&imgrefurl=http://iah211dspring2010.wikispaces.com/Group%2B3-5%2BRightly%2BGuided%2BCaliphs&docid=VQIJOijg5kmTkM&imgurl=http://iah211dspring2010.wikispaces.com/file/view/800px-Mohammad_adil_rais-Caliph_Ali%2527s_empire_661.PNG.png/122962609/800px-Mohammad_adil_rais-Caliph_Ali%2527s_empire_661.PNG.png&w=800&h=388&ei=OXedTtzqB8fKiAKtur3WCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=174&vpy=187&dur=302&hovh=138&hovw=286&tx=155&ty=41&sig=114592264019558576044&page=1&tbnh=105&tbnw=217&start=0&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

24.81.5.12 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


A non-Muslim asks please reconsider the use of a facial image in this otherwise fine article

Congratulations on Wikipedia's article on Ali ibn Abu Talib. An ambitious thing to attempt, so it won't please everybody.

Ali is a controversial figure, largely if not entirely the fault of corrupt rulers in later generations who saw advantage for themselves in sowing dissent. For that very reason Ali is a highly relevant figure for today's world, just at a time when the young people of Islam are throwing off their corrupt rulers and trying to glimpse back to the pure vision of the founding fathers, before it got muddied by their squabbling descendants. An objective article like this might actually sow an essential seed of world peace. It's a stupendous opportunity and a huge responsibility.

All totally spoilt for the purpose by carrying a picture of the man in question (Mola_Ali.jpg).

Ali himself would have been appalled. Just imagine coming back in 1400 years and discovering a darshan of yourself dripping with jewels, with a blue skin and an elephant's nose and joss sticks burning before it. No amount of protest from people that they are only seeking to honour you in their own way will make it any more palatable. You'd be right to beg for recognition in a way less inappropriate. Reference to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ should be viewed in this light.

I am not a Muslim and have no axe to grind as regards Islam and its troubled history. But everybody, whether Christian, Jew, Pagan or Muslim - Sunni or Shia - recognises an admirable individual who, by his exemplary life, his constancy of purpose, his courage and humility, serves as a kind of unexpected window on "divinity" for the rest of us. Or at least on high ideals, faithfully pursued unto death.

There are no photos of Ali - of that we can be sure. We can therefore be sure the face depicted is nothing like the real Ali: it is a commissioned artist's subjective impression of what Ali "might have looked like". To do such a thing lacks authenticity, integrity or even believability. It is more of a hindrance than a help to the world at large for a true appreciation of the man.

We have this fad in the West of always wanting to see a picture of something or someone, to-hell with authenticity. It might be out of a desire to venerate: equally it might just be a cheap way to assuage idle curiosity. We always have done this. European printers from Gutenberg onwards kept junk boxes full of woodcuts of towns and faces to be used over and over again, forerunners of today's image libraries.

I must own up to being a pagan, and therefore heavily invested in mental visualisations of divinity - that is, of an ideal world - plus the idealised beings in it. I have no ambition to convene a latter-day Nation of God: it's been done - and far better than I could do it. So I keep to my personal path. But I have to accept that Ali and his contemporaries were faced with just such a task, needing to combat corrupt forms of paganism (which happen to offend me too), not to mention corrupt forms of Christianity, in which numerous ikons contended for the futile privilege of being publicly accepted as the One True Face of Jesus, Mary or the Saints.

Ali saw with rare clarity that visual portrayals of God or His (Her) servants were divisive and not the way to go: far more fruitful to learn collectively to pronounce the Name of God in ever more perfect harmony, both auditory and fraternal.

Various people have been asking us nicely to take down this divisive picture, which any Muslim, not to say Ali himself, would find at best controversial and at worst insulting. In denying their reasonable request, we've been missing the whole point. Can I respectfully add my voice to theirs, not because seeing a picture of someone deserving of reverence offends me in principle (as it does both Jews and Muslims), but because it is quite out of keeping with the historical Ali.

Wouldn't the beautifully calligraphed Name of God (one of the 99) make a far more genuine representation of Ali and all that his life stood for than something straight out of a 1950s comic looking like Dan Dare disguised as a native?

Quacksalber (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is the most widely-used one in the Muslim world among the Shi'a, so that's the one we use. Ogress smash! 02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for impugning the aesthetic quality of a picture which some people venerate. But isn't this just what we shouldn't do: use a sectarian "ikon" for a great man? Quacksalber (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ogress, that cannot possibly be true. The image was created by a Wikipedia user (check the license). If it was created by someone else, then we need to find out so that we can correct the license. Could you provide more info, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the general "white bro in a silly look" rather than the specific image. Just google Ali ibn Abi Talib - https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=ali&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Hrd&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=w-6_TpTxEOP40gH3iNjNBA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBIQ_AUoAQ&biw=1170&bih=614&sei=xe6_Trm8K4Hg0QH90cjzBA#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=0BJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ali+ibn+abi+talib&pbx=1&oq=ali+ibn&aq=0&aqi=g4g-S6&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2428l2918l0l3868l4l3l0l0l0l0l194l513l0.3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=aded2ec8d4b65f1b&biw=1170&bih=614 - and look at the images you find. These are the images I see over and over again in books, in dargahs, in ta'ziyah processions, etc. etc. - it's like White Jesus. It may be "unauthentic" in the sense that Ali is described as having been a short, muscular, wide, balding man of Arab descent, but it's totally "authentic" in the sense that it is what you see Ali looking like in representations all over the Shi'a world, from Turkey to Iran to India. Ogress smash! 16:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that clears up the concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


REMOVE THE PICTURE

The Picture is only used by some middle eastern countries....no one knows what he looks like . WIkipedia is about FACTS not gossip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.186.232 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of Hazrath Ali R.A

I request you to please remove the artistic image of Hazrath Ali(R.A).....Please take necessary action and dont display such pictures or else I will edit the photograph and circulate it on facebook to boycott wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.55.59.82 (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just threaten us to get your way? Somehow, I don't think that will work. In any event, if you go to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ that will help you set up WP so that you don't have to see the images (though you will have to register an account to do so, I believe). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This article (Ali)has multiple issues

This article has contained a abundance of issues which need to be discussed and need citation and authentic references.What is this Shi'a View Sunni...Was he a just a Imam of of Shi'a's has had not association what soever with the Sunnis? Thats quite sarcastic that what I think..The solution to solve this issue is that we completely separate Sunni and Shi'a articles from each another..For instance "Ali (Shi'a) "Ali (Sunni views).....Farther more I found/observed problems/blunders/false information etc...during my reading of the article are as followes; 1 - Age/Born of the Ali while we have solid proves what was his real age and date of birth... 2 - is Ali is among the Rashudeen Khalifas? if answers is yes who has had considered him among the Rashudeen Kaleefa, we know for certain that Allama Ibne Khuldoon (Sunni), Mausadi, Yaqoobi (Shi'a) etc has not put him into the list of Rashideen... 3 - Was Ali from the blood line of Mohammad peace be upon him that we placed him into prophat Ahl al-Bayt and what about the family of Ali? Sons, daughters etc...are they Ahl al-Bayt of Ali or Prophet? What Quran says regarding this issues? 4 - Marriage of Ali " Muhammad told Ali that God had ordered Muhammad to give his daughter, Fatimah, to Ali in marriage." What is this nonsense, you guys are making other people laugh on us...Kindly narrate the actual events of Fatima marriage instead of making a simple event into something else... 5 - What Ali elected as Khalif by Sahaba ? article says "Ali was appointed Caliph by the Companions of Muhammad (the Sahaba) in Medina after the assassination of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan" while we know that all classical muslim historiography says that Ibn Ishtar Al-Nakhe al-kufi directly responsible for killing of Usman, raised the hand of Ali as Khalifa and order if any person objected remove his head from his body...totally ignored the events of selection of Ali...discussion of Ali's uncles, etc... 6 - Ali age during migration time? The incident of Mubahala? Ghadir Khumm? Succession to Muhammad? Inheritance?

Note:- Article is full of false information from top to bottom... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying that things like the date of his birth in the article is wrong? What is your reliable source to demonstrate that something else is correct? Are the rest of these points things that are missing, or are that are wrong in the article? Overall, the best thing you can do is to provide some sources here for what you want to change, and state exactly what should be changed. Note that, as a general rule, the Qu'ran cannot be used as a source, because it is a primary source, and thus can only be used to state exactly what it says (with no interpretation); we generally prefer secondary sources.
Actually, let me ask one more pointed question: are you saying that there is one and only one right answer to how to interpret Ali? Because, my limited understanding is that different Muslim sects have very different views; this article should neutrally present all such major views, not just one. If the article is currently only presenting one, then, yes, we have a problem. If you're trying to make the article confirm to only one perspective, then you have a problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not an expert in editing wikipedia....Thanks giving information I will give you information/reference for each of the problem kindly if we a consensus is built kindly add to the article.

Though there are too many different traditions are available regarding the date of birth of Ali, however the most reliable and accepted among the Sunnis and Shia is , the narration of Ali's own saying regarding his own age, which was noted in " Kamil Albard-wa-Aqdal fareed wo Shara Nahjul Balagha" Words are "Laqad nehfast feha wama balghat al-astareen" means I was not even twenty (20) years old when i stood in the battle of Badr. The confirm date of battle of Badr is the last quarter of 2nd Hijri so from that point of view during that time , he was exactly 18 years old during the migration period while from this calculation we can confirm that during the time of declaration of Nabuwat by Prophet Mohammad the age of Ali was without any doubt 5 years..

While regarding Khulfai Rasheedin this term was never used by Sunni scholars for Ali instead scholars like Allama Ibn KHuldoon wrote it for Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Mauwia, Abdul Aziz, Imam ibn Tameea...Mostly consider the period of Ali as period of fitnas. they give justification for this point is, During the Khalifa of Ali, nothing had done for the spread of Islam, no Jihad was done against the invading Christians etc... instead of consolidation of his own Khalifa by splitting the Ummah into Shi'a and Sunni and blood shed of hundred of thousands of innocents.Ashurnasirpal 05:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ali callig.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ali callig.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Please remove the picture of Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb. Because Islamic Rites there is a Prohibition on drawing pictures of the caliphs.

Alaro (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

pics are not as great as they can be

more pictures of his mosque from Najaf please...some of the pictures you all have uploaded are hideously old and dull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aparytai's additions

Could I get the opinions of other editors on Aparytai's additions (see the most recent edit). I reverted once, because to me this seems to be far too much quoting for a WP article, and I'm concerned about the source. I'm not even sure that the whole topic meets WP:DUE. However, this content is quite a bit out of my knowledge base, so maybe I'm not looking at this the right way. At a minimum, I think we need to take that information and convert it from 7 block quotes into 1 summary paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my information into consideration, however there lies another problem as well within this topic that is; incomplete information of Ali's family/marital life, for instance. How many women Ali married, number of his children (Sons, daughters ), their names etc.Ashurnasirpal 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

Could you please tell me more about the source? The way its written, it looks like a primary religious document (like a hadith)? Is it? Is it some other form of commentary? When was it published? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This event is for the first time reported by father of Shi'a Hadith scholars of the Third Hijri Century -329 A.H, famouly known as Ibn Babveh or Al-Qummi in his well known work, “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; later on this event is also mentioned by famous Shi'a scholars like Mullah Baqir Majlisi in his famous“Biharul Anwar,43/201-202 and also by at least all later sunni scholars like Imam Muslim in his Sahee Narration #5999 reported this event.Ashurnasirpal 03:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Brother in my first post I have had told you that I am not an expert of editing of wikipedia...kindly ignore my mistakes instead have a deep insight on my given information/citation/references...I asked you last time about adding information regarding Ali's other nines wives/ Slaves girls from whom Ali's other chirdren born which are 37 in numbers (total 19 sons/ 18 daughters) including four children from Fatima.Ashurnasirpal 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

Well, one problem is that I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'm finding it difficult to advise. However, I do know that it would not be appropriate to include information about all of his children--probably only those which are notable themselves, and then only as necessary to explain Ali's life itself. The reason I asked about the sources is that a source from 329 A.H. probably doesn't count as a reliable source on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it looks like a lot of this article is sourced to things that aren't reliable sources. In any event, one of the points I made above is that we shouldn't just be providing long quotations of our source. Instead, we should summarize what the source says and provide an appropriate citation. Do you think you can do that? I can try, though, without subject matter knowledge, it may be difficult. I've been hoping that other editors of this article would jump in to help, but it seems a bit lonely here. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually what we have been lacking here are good/sincere/knowledgeable/neutral editors and I also find it extremely difficult to bring this article to an scholarly level, because of those people who turn the topic towards their own thinking/motives/sectarian views/logic etc. I really don't understand a source of the 9th A.D isn't reliable? On what basis both the Sunni/Shi'ite religious Scholars have confirm the happening of this event and not only modern day scholars but of classical age had confirmed that all the narrators/chain of narrators are trust worthy and worthwhile to accept their words. Beside with that though Ali is not only a Shi'ite figure that usually he is depicted but also to the Sunni's that he is among the companions of the Prophet. Yes you can summarize the narration, however before adding to the article kindly briefed me on the summarize paragraph, if the subject need any citation...Yes you are right in words that its quite lonely here.Ashurnasirpal 03:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

Well, Sunni's have recorded this in their books, So, it should be presented as a Sunni view of Ali.

But as for Shi'a concern we have to be careful unlike Sunni's, who consider some of their books as "Sahih", Shi'a's dont consider any book as authetic. Every narration has to be judged according to the science of hadiths (usul-e-Hadiths). Hence, existance of such a tradition in their books does not imply that they have this opinion. I have come across following website about this matter

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f15/ali-ra-proposal-daughter-abu-jahl-la-21899/

I know we can not use this website as a wiki source but the content of the article can be verified (for example Majlisi himself declaring it as un-reliable)

Still I think the material should be included as a Sunni View. As long as Shi'a view is concerned following should be verified and included in the article;

Old Sunni Scholar, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali quotes a report from his leader and teacher, Abu Ja'far Iskafi Baghdadi, in his Sharh-e-Nahju'l- Balagha, vol. I, p.358, that Mu'awiya Bin Abu Sufyan had formed a group of companions and the 'tabi'in' (the 'second' generation which immediately followed the Prophet) for the purpose of forging hadith in condemnation of Ali. Their purpose was to make him a target of reproach so that the people would keep aloof from him.

--Mutawassam (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On a second thought following is already present in Wiki with sources;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_bint_Muhammad#Marriage_Relationship

--Mutawassam (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what are you saying?didn't really get the point of your response...Its primary source isn't of Sunnis but from Shi'a own scholars and also reported by Al-qummi father of Shi'ites hadith and later on by mulla baqir majlisi and all of the narrators are Shi'ites not a single one is from Sunni sect...now coming to your point we are discussing a historic aspect not a religious aspect of an ordinary personality. You should ride in one boat/ark (Hadith or history) instead of two. Both of them contradict each other whether its belongs to Sunnis or Shi'ites.

One more point I am going to discuss in this forum is the Name of Ali's father. I really don't understand why have you people sticked to the nick name of Ali's father while totally ignoring the fact that his actual/Real name was Abd Munaf. If an explaination is not provided I am afriad this issue will be raised with wikipedia complainent authorities and further I will start re-edition of this article according to the reliable source of both of Shi'ite/sunnis.Ashurnasirpal 07:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and edit the article. When you do so, don't remove any reliable sources already there, and be sure to source anything you add. Do not use the Qu'ran, hadith, or other primary documents as sources--instead, look for scholarly sources, academic journals, history texts, etc. Ideal sources would be ones that aren't either Sunni or Shia, but are, in fact, independent. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My point is very simple; the narration that you are referring to is not authentic from shi'i point of view. As i said earlier Qummi, though, have recorded this incidence but has written that its not reliable. So how can you use a thing from a book about which the author himself says that its not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutawassam (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, his name should be written as Ali ibn Abi talib because;

1-Name of Abu talib is controversial some say his name is Imran other say his name is Abd Munaf 2-Abu talib is not a nickname, it's epithet which, in arabic, culture is widely used as name to an extent that real name become obscure as is the case with Abu Talib (Imran/Abd Munaf), Abu bakr (Abdullah/Attiq), both personality's real name is a point of contention. 3-Ali is more popularaly known as Ali ibn Abi talib then Ali ibn Abd Munaf/Imran and the whole point of using the Father's name is to distinguish the personalities, which if we use Abd Munaf/Imran is not fulfilled. In that case why not use just Ali as we do in case of "Albert Einstein". --Mutawassam (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you didn't read the sources and its reliable narrators anyways we are here discussing an historic topic not a religious point of view of a particular sect, because if you want to discuss it on religious basis then the at least complete article would be altered from top to bottom and same logic will be applied to Abd Manaf father of Ali. Now coming to your points...Its an established fact that Ali's father name was Abd Munaf famous by Shi'ites on Abu Talib (Talib was Abd Munaf's elder son) this forgery was created by later Shi'ite historian of 3rd/4th century Hijri later on also copied as same by some of sunni writers, that his name was Imran which is not true. I have raised same questions regarding Abu Baker, whose real name is Abdullah ,which itself is given by Prophet Mohammad...However the case of Abd Munaf is different because he died as non believer(Kafir), even on many occasions prophet asked him to convert to Islam but he always refused to accept Islam--Ashurnasirpal 09:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

I amd not making any religious comments, please try to refrain from such comments. I am simply stating the fact that writing the name as Ali ibn Abi Talib is an Arabic tradition, no where els names are written in this style so;

  1. either we should write the name in Arabic style, where his name is written as "Ali Ibn Abi Talib"
  2. or we should write the name in universal style which is just "Ali"

while writing Ali ibn Abdu Munaf, you are not adhering to any standards.


Second, you are making tall claims by saying that Shi'i's concocted the name of Abu Talib, please refrain from such comments since other party will also make comments that such things are included into books by Payed Sunni historians who took instructions from Ummayd kinigs (as recorded by Sunni historian, Ibn-ul-Hadid in Nejhul Balagha)

Also, It still is a debatable issue what was the real name of Abu Talib you should present the factual data rather then allegation, or I will have to report you.

About the matter of Ali willing to marry the daughter of Abu Jahal, First, as I pointed out earlier the people you are quoting themselves have caste doubt on the issue. So please don't spread misquoted things.

second, I think you are already told to refrain from Hadiths books since Wiki does not recognize the authenticity of primary source but you have quoiting Bihar and Elal share which are hadiths books. you are suppose to provide scholarly observations for that I have already told you to create two views, Sunni Views which accept this incidence and Shi'i View who reject it. As this is already present in Wiki. --Mutawassam (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To me (and remember, I know nothing about the subject matter, and am not any form of Muslim), it looks like both of you need to present sources. Aparytai, it is correct that you should not be using hadith as sources for this article. We need scholarly sources, preferably modern scholarly sources, not religious ones. Hadith are always primary sources, and as such must be used with extreme caution (especially if contradicted by secondary sources). So, it would help if both of you would stop asserting what the "facts" are, what websites say, and what religious books say, and instead try to tell us what the reliable sources say. If, in fact, reliable sources disagree, then our article should reflect that, and we should provide all spellings for the names. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian; Shia acknowledge the saying of Muhammad, "Fatimah is a part of me and whoever offends her offends me", however the context of the reporting in reference to Ali is disputed. "Among the many fabricated stories told against Imam Ali was that he had asked for Abu Jahl's (the chief of infidels) daughter's hand in marriage. When this news reached Fatimah (A), she rushed to her father who found out the falsity of the story."[32]

Shia say this statement was used by Fatimah herself when she spoke to Abu Bakr and Umar, stating that they had both displeased her.[33]

  1. ^ - Fatimah ['a] The Gracious by Abu Muhammad Ordoni Published by: Ansariyan Publications Qum, The Islamic Republic of Iran
  2. ^ ibn Qutayba, Abu Muhammad. Al-Imama wa-al-siyasa. 1. Dar ul-marifa. pp. 14.

al-Qurashi, Baqir (2006). The Life of Fatimah az-Zahra. Ansariyan Publications. pp. 240–241. Ordoni, Abu-Muhammad (1992). "52". Fatima the Gracious. Ansariyan Publications. pp. 255.

[[16]]

for further scholarly observation please check, following wiki page; Fatimah_marital_life#Shia.2FSunni_debate

About the name; this is not a problem of spelling; the problem is that the present name does not comply any standard; It should be written as it is used in Arabic world. Nowhere in any arabic literature his name is written as Ali ibn Abdu Munaf. He's always referred to as Ali ibn Abi Talib and that's how he should be dressed, particularly when we are suing Arabic method of naming (using the father's name) For example i don't use my name as "Mutawassam son of Ghulam Ali", since I am not Arab. "Ali ibn Abi Talib" is Arabic tradition so it should be written as it is popular in Arabic literature.

--Mutawassam (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

'Ali ibn Abi Talib' is commonly referred name in all literature and Ali commonly known by this name only amongst its follower.--Md iet (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I revereted the edits of user Aparytai about Ali's father name (obviously wrong and no need for more clarification) and pushing OR about Ali's family to the article for 3 reasons. First, S/he has cited Bihar al-Anwar which is a an example of original research (book is written more than 3 centuries ago); second the book is a non reliable source for Wikipedia, alspo even for Islamic topics since it's just a collection of narrations (It's author wrote the book just to save all the existing narrations left by his time in order to be a primary source for future Shia scholars since lots of Shia narrations were destroyed due to long years of Ottoman-Persian wars and previously Mongolian invasion; So even for Muslims it's not a reliable source! 4 Canonical Shia Hadith collections are Kafi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, and Al-Istibsar); Third, even if we consider it as RS (which is not), we can't write such essay due to WP:WEIGHT. Regards,--Aliwiki (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please Be only factual !!!

To expose more clearly the issue that I am talking about... For example: reading the paragraph "Ash'ath ibn Qays and some others rejected Ali's nominees, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas and Malik al-Ashtar, and insisted on Abu Musa Ash'ari, who was opposed by Ali, since he had earlier prevented people from supporting him". Let us have a look at the sentence "since he had earlier prevented people from supporting him".

This sentence does not reflect an objective and a factual view of events. Furthermore, no reference has been provided to entitle this statement. Hence, the neutrality of this saying is disputed... So, this is why I think that it has to be removed (and all non-factual statements) and the content of the article has to be reformulated in neutral way; a way that exposes only facts. But if you want to exposes anything but a fact, references must be provided. So, the reader can make freely its own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.126.40.180 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

about Hazrat Ali a.s according to nahajul balaga

when Hazrat Ali a.s accepted islam that what was his age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.60.235 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to most accepted Islamic view for accepting Islamic one should be in the age of puberty/Wise enough/ Mature in thinking etc...The tradition that we came is 5 years old which is proved by Ali's own words that I was not 20 when I stood in the Battle of Badr.Ashurnasirpal 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

You don't have to be of a certain age to accept Islam. Xareen (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-Muslim views

I think that more quotes need to be added from prominent figures about Ali ibn Abi Talib along with references. This will help to provide better insight on Ali ibn Abi Talib's character from outside perspectives which will aid in clearing misconceptions. Mqadir2 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, generally speaking, we don't want quotations--we want a summary of what reliable sources have said. While some quotations are okay, no article should be primarily a summary of quotations. Do you have any sources in mind that would be good for the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Could you please remove this picture it is a violation of our religious beliefs. Other then that everything looks like just the picture is very disturbing since Islam forbids pictures of people. Thank you.

173.206.215.92 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012


121.52.155.4 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) you should not supposed to display picture

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Doc Tropics 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Biased Material

This page has very biased material. (Not necessarily so... just very CONTROVERSIAL material! Ramehtar (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC))


Most of the information is told from the standpoint of the Sunnis. It would be better to allow the story be told by both shias and sunnis. For example there can be a story about the burning of Lady Fatima's home by sunnis, and then another section can be the same story except the shia perspective. Therefore both sides win. Also, please allow those who more closely know Imam Ali to better explain who he was. Alot of the actual history is censored or neglected in this article. This page is supposed to be about Imam Ali, however much of the information is focused on Abu Bakr and the other Caliphs and on how to make them appear as high and honorable people. Please reserve those comments only for the pages about Abu Bakr and the other Caliphs. This page should be about Imam Ali and only Imam Ali. I also would like to request that the people writing the page to speak of Imam Ali with respect. It is very disrespectful to just plainly call him Ali. It is preferred that he is called by his revered name Amir Al momineen Imam Ali ibne Abi Talib (as) or at least Imam Ali (as).

Okay, as I suspected, you're not coming at the page from the right perspective; I'm going to start at the end of your post, because that points out the key problem. Wikipedia does not follow the requirements of various religions to "respect" the subjects it writes about. We don't act disrespectfully, but we also don't use honorifics in our articles. Similarly, editing of articles is not limited to those "close" to the subject; all that matters is that we follow what reliable sources say. As such, if you have reliable sources that you know of that are not currently included, feel free to extract information from them, add it to the article, and provide sources. However, you can't just remove a lot of reliably sourced information because you don't like it. You are correct that this article should tell both the Sunni and Shia perspective. I don't know why you think this article is from a Sunni perspective--I see all sorts of phrases that say things like "According to Shia manuscripts" and "Shia consider him..."
At this point, the next best step is for you to point out specifically the things in the article that you think need to be removed. I recommend not listing them all at the same time--instead, lets go through part by part and try to figure out if there are problems. I'm sure that the article can be improved; but massive removal of sourced text is generally not the way to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm Shia and I have improved the article and reviewed it many times. I think it is not biased towards Shia or Sunni viewpoints. I tried to follow authentic historical records based on WP:MOS. In the cases which you want to add to the article such as the burning of Lady Fatima's home, I could not find a verifiable source. Thus, I moved them to this page and you can try yourself in these cases. Talk:Ali#Verifiable information for succession section.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Regardless of whether you are shia or not, it does not make any of the points in the article anymore valid or invalid. The reason why I removed the "sourced" material is because whether it was sourced or not doesnt justify it to be accurate information. And the sources that the article claims to be supported by is mostly from sunni roots that both sects do not agree with, or weak roots. Whatever perspective you approach this page by, you will see imam ali is introduced as someone with selfish desires toward the high political positions, which is the total opposite of who imam ali was. This is why many people become angered when they come upon certain points in this page. The actual imam ali is not even close to how this page portrays him as. On the topic of the burning of lady fatima's home, that entire story is completely inaccurate in this page and is told in a manner that ridicules lady fatima and imam ali and completely twists the truth. Lady fatima was a very pious lady. She was the daughter of the prophet of islam. She is the role model for all muslim women. She was infallible, pure and clean from all sin as the Quran declares "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey God and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a [thorough] purifying." --Quran 33:33. It is illogical to then deliberately state that she would threaten to remove her veil in front of the alleged 40 men to be standing there? This statement is completely illogical and very offensive and attacking to lady fatima's pure and highly dignified character. This is the reason for the removal of that offensive sentence. You may reference the verse in the Quran for proof of that.

Then this page completely ignores the fact that immediately after this event, lady fatima lost her son mohsen who she was pregnant with and then 3 days after this event lady fatima died of severe injuries from the beatings she received from certain companions during this event (ibne sa'ad, al-tabaqat al kubra, vol. 2, 85). Lady fatima was 18 years and 7 months old when she died. During the 3 days, she suffered from extreme pain. She was beaten so badly behind the door, they broke 3 of her ribs, her hip, a nail from the door pierced her heart and they also caused her to miscarry her son, muhsen. During the 3 days she was very upset with the companions who did this to her, she requested to be buried in the night because she didn't want those companions to be present at her burial. When lady fatima died, imam ali buried her in the middle of the night with just a few sincere companions (sahih bukhari, vol 5, 177). At this time, imam ali also visited the prophet of islam's grave, here he began to complain about the sufferings he and lady fatima endured during the past few days:
"O’ Prophet of Allah, peace be upon you from me and from your daughter who has come to you and who has hastened to meet you. O’ Prophet of Allah, my patience about your chosen (daughter) has been exhausted, and my power of endurance has weakened, except that I have ground for consolation in having endured the great hardship and heart-rending event of your separation. I laid you down in your grave when your last breath had passed (when your head was) between my neck and chest.
... Verily we are Allah’s and verily unto Him shall we return. (Qur’an 2:156) Now. the trust has been returned and what had been given has been taken back. As to my grief, it knows no bounds, and as to my nights. they will remain sleepless till Allah chooses for me the house in which you are now residing. Certainly, your daughter would apprise you of the joining together of your (1) ummah (people) for oppressing her. You ask her in detail and get all the news about the position. This has happened when a long time had not elapsed and your remembrance had not disappeared. My salam (salutation) be on you both, the salam of a grief stricken not a disgusted or hateful person; for if I go away it is not because I am weary (of you), and if I stay it is not due to lack of belief in what Allah has promised the endurers."
-Najul Balagha Sermon 201.

To the end of her life, lady fatima was very angry at those alleged companions. You must be careful because many people try to dust over the truth to save face for their religious leaders. In the sunni community omar is referred to as a respectful person, and because of their love for him, many sunnis refuse to admit this event even occurred. Like I said many people like to dust up the truth. This page needs to be revised, many muslims that come across this page, regard this page as unreliable material because some of the truth is either hidden or twisted. Not all of the truth is neglected in this page, though to give it more credibility, we must make sure it has accurate material. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstone2222 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So....this page is not the place to have religious arguments. Goldstone2222, you appear, as far as I can tell, to be referring directly to primary religious sources (hadith)--is this correct? If so, you need to alter your thinking in how to proceed. What we actually need are secondary sources--i.e., information written by scholars who have commented one way or the other. Ideal for this situation would be those who have examined multiple sides of the situation, made critical commentary, etc. As a general rule, hadith are not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia for anything other than exactly what they say. That is, we can say, "According to X hadith, Y happened." However, we cannot say "Y happened.<+ref Hadith X>". We want that first sentence, along with some commentary by secondary sources about the meaning of the hadith, how well accepted it is, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


This is not a religious debate or argument but proof of history, according to Sunni scholars, you cannot get any more accurate then the sahihs and the quran. If you would like commentary I will provide you with commentary. Your requests of me are unreasonable, secondary sources will be biased, I cannot give you unbiased material based off of biased information. The primary source is what you need to be seeking in order to obtain objective historical documentaries. Secondary sources will just be taking the history and incorporating their own biased into it. That's where I see your problem is here, this page is filled with biased and inaccurate material and it is all because you rely solely on biased sources, you are losing credibility. If you would like to have an accurate account of history your heading the wrong direction. I have provided you with historical information. May I ask you where you get your authority to be as a judge between historical material regaurding Imam ali? You need to understand that some information in this page is wrong. It completely takes away the credibility from the entire page. and you must correct that information because it makes the whole page unreliable, most Muslim scholars who have vast knowledge about Islamic history and have studied their entire lives would ridicule many points in this page. They must be changed.

Plus I wrote the Surah from the quran to prove to you the point about lady fatima and her being pure and why it is impractical for her to ever say she would remove her scarf in front of men. Just like the format you were requesting me to write it in. because of surah X, Y happened. Also I wrote the entire sermon 201 where imam ali is speaking at the grave of prophet mohammad (sawas) after he buried lady fatima at night. I also wrote that in the format you requested. Then please allow me to fix at least those parts that I directly wrote down the quotes for as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstone2222 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The page WP:PRIMARY gives a detailed explanation of why an encyclopedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources in articles. When there are different points of view, as may be between Sunni and Shia traditions, then we use the sources and weight policies to determine which views to include and how much coverage they get. And as Qwyrxian pointed out, Hadith are not generally reliable sources for anything except exactly what they say. Original research and synthesis like you engage in above ("...I wrote the Surah from the quran to prove to you the point about lady fatima...") are simply not permitted under the project's policies because you used primary sources to form conclusions and opinions. So, if you want to make a change in the text, the very first thing you need is good sources, and the second thing you'll need is consensus on how to balance and present the information, if it is to appear at all. I hope these links will help you to understand how WP works. Good luck, Doc Tropics 21:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this article is based on reliable sources in accordance with WP policies. As you can see there is not any major change during last two years and it is the best evidence which shows the article is not POV. Please tell us whether you agree to remove POV tag.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How can information written hundreds of years after an incident be more reliable than information written at the time of the incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.15.99 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Remove the image depicts Ali(Razhiyallahu Anhu)

Yas.9944 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Ogress smash! 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mola Ali.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mola Ali.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mola Ali.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

It says Fatima was the only child to 'have surviving progeny' - it should be have 'survived progeny.' More important than this grammatical error, this is a Shia perspective, as the Sunnites hold that Mohammed (pbuh) had four daughters, not just one. You may see the progeny of Muhammed (pbuh) page for reliable sources.

41.234.171.128 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Progeny is basically a synonym for descendants. The current sentence means that Fatima was the only child of Mohammed to have descendants alive today (or possibly just at the time being discussed.) I am sorry to say that I do not know whether that statement is accurate. If it isn't, please provide a reliable source and reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

Kindly remove the pictures of someone portrayed as Hazrat Ali. None of us have any assumptions of how they looked and it is not appropriate to publish pictures of any PROPHET, KHALIFA, OR SAHABA KARAM.

Jazak Allah

Anierules (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done why is this necessary? Bmusician 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

lahem mishwi 68.61.18.234 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you intend to provide reasoning? Peter Deer (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2012

"Please change 'Ali' to 'Hazrat Ali(A.S.)' because he is a revered figure and should be given due respect".

59.177.64.78 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Its creditably of Wikipedia, Kindly remove the picture asap because no authentic picture available of Hazrat Ali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.175.237 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia currently does not consider Muslim concerns about pictures of people; there has been much discussion of the issue recently, but the current consensus is that they serve an important, encyclopedic purpose. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

Remove the Artistic depiction of Ali. There is no evidence that Ali looked like that. This has been requested before and it has been denied, don't know how you can add something without evidence and that is exactly why I'm going to quote evidence in support of removing it.

I'll make a simple point. The muslims have been told to trim their mustaches (closely) and let their beards grow. Look at the mustache in that image, why would Ali let his mustache grow so big? He would not. Even his beard does not look a handful or bigger in that image. The image has no basis, so remove it. Even if one tries to argue that it is an artistic impression of what someone who has not been seen by the artist, when there is significant evidence that he did not look like what is depicted, then it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrayzieG (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Below is evidence for the stance regarding beard and mustache.

Below I'm going to prove that moustaches should be cut short and why would Ali not conform to it? He was very knowledgeable and there is nothing to say that he departed from sunna. So if his mostache was short, then there is an error in the image, from that standpoint it does not accurately reflect the person, having said that there is still no proof that he actually looked like that.


Sahih Bukhari

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 776 : Narrated by Ibn Umar The Prophet said, "To get the moustaches cut 'short is characteristic of the Fitra."


Volume 7, Book 72, Number 777 Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah's Apostle said, "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic region, clipping the nails and cutting the moustaches short."


Volume 7, Book 72, Number 778 : Narrated by Ibn 'Umar Allah's Apostle said, "To shave the pubic hair. to clip the nails and to cut the moustaches short, are characteristics of the Fitra."


Volume 7, Book 72, Number 779 : Narrated by Nafi' Ibn Umar said, The Prophet said, 'Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short.' Whenever Ibn 'Umar performed the Hajj or 'Umra, he used to hold his beard with his hand and cut whatever moustaches. Ibn Umar used to cut his moustache so short that the whiteness of his skin (above the upper lip) was visible, and he used to cut (the hair) between his moustaches and his beard.


Volume 7, Book 72, Number 781 : Narrated by Ibn 'Umar Allah's Apostle said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard (as it is)."


Volume 8, Book 74, Number 312 : Narrated by Abu Huraira The Prophet said "Five things are in accordance with Al Fitra (i.e. the tradition of prophets): to be circumcised, to shave the pelvic region, to pull out the hair of the armpits, to cut short the moustaches, and to clip the nails.'


Sahih Muslim Kitab Al-Taharah Chapter 11 : CHARACTERISTICS OF FITRA

Book 2, Number 0495: Abu Huraira reported: Five are the acts quite akin to the Fitra, or five are the acts of Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits and clipping the moustache.


Book 2, Number 0496: Abu Huraira reported: Five are the acts of fitra: circumcision, removing the pubes, clipping the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits.


Book 2, Number 0497: Anas reported: A time limit has been prescribed for us for clipping the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking hair under the armpits, shaving the pubes, that it should not be neglected far more than forty nights.


Book 2, Number 0498: Ibn Umar said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Trim closely the moustache, and let the beard grow.


Book 2, Number 0499: Ibn Umar said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered us to trim the moustache closely and spare the beard.


Book 2, Number 0500: Ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be opon him) said: Act against the polytheists, trim closely the moustache and grow beard.


Book 2, Number 0501: Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Trim closely the moustache, and grow beard, and thus act against the fire-worshippers.


Book 2, Number 0502: 'A'isha reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be npon him) said: Ten are the acts according to fitra : clipping the moustache, letting the beard grow, using the tooth-stick, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubes and cleaning one's private parts with water. The narrator said : I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.


Book 2, Number 0503: This hadith has been narrated by Mus'ab b. Shaiba with the same chain of transmitters except for these words: "His father said : I forgot the tenth one."



Sunan Abu Dawood Kitab Al-Taharah

Book 1, Number 0052: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Ten are the acts according to fitrah (nature): clipping the moustache, letting the beard grow, using the tooth-stick, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the arm-pits, shaving the pubes, and cleansing one's private parts (after easing or urinating) with water. The narrator said: I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.


Book 1, Number 0188: Narrated Al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah: One night I became the guest of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He ordered that a piece of mutton be roasted, and it was roasted. He then took a knife and began to cut the meat with it for me. In the meantime Bilal came and called him for prayer. He threw the knife and said: What happened! may his hands be smeared with earth! He then stood for offering prayer. Al-Anbari added: My moustaches became lengthy. He trimmed them by placing a took-stick; or he said: I shall trim your moustaches by placing the tooth-stick there.



Sunan An-Nisai Kitab Al-Taharah

Hadith no: 9 Narrated: Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Fitrah are five: Circumcision, removing the pubes, trimming the mustache, clipping the nails, and plucking the armpit hairs.” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 10 Narrated: Abu Hurairah “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'The Fitrah are five: Trimming the mustache, plucking the armpit hairs, clipping the nails, removing the pubes, and circumcision.'” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 11 Narrated / Authority Of: Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (saw) said: “The fitra (Fitrah) are five: Circumcision, shaving the pubes, plucking the armpit hairs, clipping the nails and taking from the mustache.” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 12 Narrated / Authority Of: Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The deeds connected to the fitra (Fitrah) are: Clipping the nails, removing the mustache and shaving the pubes.” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 13 Narrated / Authority Of: Zaid bin Arqam “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Whoever does not trim his mustache, he is not from one of us.'” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 14 Narrated / Authority Of: Anas bin Malik “A time limit was set for us, by the Messenger of Allah (saw), regarding trimming the mustache, clipping the nails and plucking the pubes; we were not to leave that for more than forty days,” on one occasion he said: “Forty nights.” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 15 Narrated / Authority Of: Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: “Trim the mustache and let the beard grow.” (Sahih)



Sunan Ibn Majah Kitab Al-Taharah


Hadith no: 292 Narrated / Authority Of: Abu Hurairah “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The deeds connected to the Fitrah are five (or five things are connected to the Fitra): circumcision, shaving the pubic hairs, clipping the nails, plucking the armpit hairs and trimming the moustache.’” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 292 Narrated / Authority Of: Abu Hurairah “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The deeds connected to the Fitrah are five (or five things are connected to the Fitra): circumcision, shaving the pubic hairs, clipping the nails, plucking the armpit hairs and trimming the moustache.’” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 292 Narrated / Authority Of: Abu Hurairah “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The deeds connected to the Fitrah are five (or five things are connected to the Fitra): circumcision, shaving the pubic hairs, clipping the nails, plucking the armpit hairs and trimming the moustache.’” (Sahih)


Hadith no: 295 Narrated / Authority Of: Anas bin Malik “We were given a time limit with regard to trimming the moustache, shaving pubic hairs, plucking the armpit hairs and clipping the nails. We were not to leave that for more than forty days.” (Sahih)



Muwatta Imam Malik

Chapter No: 20 Hadith no: 196 Narrated: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to trim his beard and moustache when he shaved at the end of a hajj or umra.


Chapter No: 20 Hadith no: 199 Narrated: Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that when Salim ibn Abdullah intended to go into ihram he would call for some scissors and trim his moustache and beard before setting off and before going into ihram.


Chapter No: 49 Hadith no: 3 Narrated: Yahya related to me from Malik from Said ibn Abi Said al-Maqburi from his father that Abu Hurayra said, "There are five things from the fitra: cutting the nails, trimming the moustache, removing the hair from the armpit, shaving the pubic region and circumcision."


Hadith no: 4 Narrated: Yahya bin Said Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyub said, "Ibrahim, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was the first to give hospitality to the guest and the first person to be circumcised and the first person to trim the moustache and the first person to see grey hair. He said, 'O Lord! What is this?' Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, said, 'It is dignity, Ibrahim.' He said, 'Lord, increase me in dignity!' " Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "One takes from the moustache until the edge of the lip appears, that is the rim. One does not cut if off completely so that one mutilates oneself."


Chapter No: 51 Hadith no: 1 Narrated: Abdullah bin Umar Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Bakr ibn Nafi from his father Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered the moustache to be trimmed and the beard to be left.


KrayzieG (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please see the request above your comment for the reasons. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See also hatnote

There is a see also hatnote that points to Nahj al-Balagha. This does not appear to belong on this article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right. That article does not relate to whole of this one. Thus I moved it to the related section.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 June 2012

A full history of the wives of Ali after the death of Fatima should be revealed

Wives and Children of Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him]

1 - Hazrat Fatimah Bin Mohammad [May Allah be pleased with her]:

Hassan, Hussain, Zainab ul Kubra and Umme Kulthum [she became wife of Hazrat Omar (May Allah be pleased with him and all those who were mentioned earlier.

2 - Umm-ul-Bunian Bin Haram Bin Kalabia [she was related with Shimar Bin Zil Joshan (the alleged Criminal of Karabala){Ref: Jumhartul Ansab by Ibn Hazm}] who was the daughter of Hazam b. Khalid. Hadrat Ali had five sons from her, namely: Abdullah, Jafar, Abbas, Othman, and Umar. All of them were martyred in the battle of Karbala along with Hadhrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him].

3 - Laila Bin Masood Bint Khalid Nehshaliya Tameema who was the daughter of Masud. She was the mother of two sons, namely Ubaidullah and Abu Bakr. Both of them were martyred in Karbala.

4 - Asma who was the daughter of Umais. She was in the first instance married to Hadrat Jafar, an elder brother of Hadrat Ali. On the death of Hadrat Jafar, Hadrat Abu Bakr married her. After the death of Hadrat Abu Bakr she married Hadrat Ali. She had to sons from Hadrat Ali, namely: Yahya and Muhammad Al Asghar who martyred in Karbala.

5 - Umama [her mother Zainab was the daughter of Prophet Mohammad - PBUH]d/o of Abi Al Aa's. Her son from Hadrat Ali bore the name of Muhammad Awsat.

6 - Khaula Bin Jafariya was the daughter of Jafar Hanfiyah. She was the mother of the son known as Muhammad b. Hanfiyah aka Mohammad Al Akbar.

7 - Sehba Bin Rabia Taghlibiya who was the daughter of Rabiah. She gave birth to a son Umar, in the daughter Ruqiya.

8 - Umm Saeed Bin Urwa Bin Masood Thaqeefa who was a daughter of Urwa. She bore Hadrat Ali three daughters, namely: Umm-ul-Hasan, Ramlatul Kubra and Rumia.

9 - Mukhbita Bin Amral Qais Bin Adi Al Kalbiya Muhyat was a daughter of the famous Arab poet Imra-ul-Qais. She gave birth to a daughter who expired in infancy.

Hadrat Ali married nine wives in all including Hadrat Fatima. The number of wives at a time however did not exceed four. He had a few slave girls of whom Humia and Umm Shuaib bore him 12 daughters, Nafisa, Zainab, Ruqiya, Umm-ul-Karaam, Humaira, Umm Salma, Sughra, Khadija, Umm Hani, Umm Kulthum Jamana and Maimuna. Hadrat Ali was, in all, the father of 15 sons and 18 daughters. [total = 33 children]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, just so you know, they need to be reliable, secondary sources, not ancient religious documents. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

The foul language used against the most prominent leader of the muslim community espcially Shia muslim is highly unacceptable and should be edited at its earliest. In my opinion this article should be removed. Its a disgrace to the platform of wikipedia to have such content published. I please hereby request to remove all of the data in this write up as early as you can please. 80.77.220.164 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  •  Not done While we should provide a considerable amount of deference to edit requests that seek to trigger a procedural action such as a listing at WP:AFD, a deletion nomination on this article would be WP:SNOW closed in a blizzard. If you have specific complaints about the content or wording of the article feel free to request removal of the bits that you find offensive, but there is no way the whole article will get deleted. Monty845 15:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sahih Bukhari 5.57.50
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali/Archive_5&oldid=1136290070"