Talk:Ali/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

problematic edits

@Albertatiran: If you want to shorten this article, you shouldn't delete the well sourced long standing information of this article, and replace them with contents from other articles, like what you did here. Instead you should summarize the existing information.

Ghazaalch, the version you pointed to also contained the following claim that doesn't exist in the source (which I removed). There is really no doubt that my edits improved this verbose section, which was, almost to the word, copy-pasted from Vaglieri. "The rebels maintained that Uthman had been justly killed, for not governing according to the Quran and Sunnah; hence, no vengeance was to be invoked." Albertatiran (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure what your question is, but I explained it below. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, thanks for the responses below. Instead of clarifying myself, it might be more productive for me to jump to the main point below and answer that. Albertatiran (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I noticed that you deleted some attributions (according to ...), which are needed for controversial contents. You should fix them yourself.

Ghazaalch, the above can be easily addressed without reverting the article. Albertatiran (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't revert them. You should fix them yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also when you want to rearrange or clarify a paragraph, you cannot attribute the information of one source to another like what you might have done here.

Ghazaalch, your claim is false. "According to Poonawala, before the assassination of Uthman, the Basri rebels were in favor of Talha, and the Kufi rebels were in favor of Zubayr, but with the assassination of Uthman, both groups converted to Ali. With the assassination of Uthman, the Umayyads fled Medina, and the Egyptians, prominent Muhajirun, and Ansar gained control. They invited Ali to the caliphate and he accepted the position after a few days," is all sourced from Iranica. Albertatiran (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Again I don't know what you are saying, but I didn't revert them either. You should fix them yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you need more information ask the editors who are more experienced like Mhhossein. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: If you are going to edit the infobox, please could you at least check that your edits are compatible with the templates used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Toddy1:. Sorry I didn't want to. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C, Al Ameer son, Mhhossein, HistoryofIran, Toddy1, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, M.Nadian, and Apaugasma: I would ask you to please look into the edit war started by Ghazaalch. Without any exceptions, I've improved the flow and writing of the article (e.g., [1]), added new sources (e.g., [2]), removed udue weight or shortened verbose content (e.g., [3]), filled in the gaps within the narrative (e.g., [4]), corrected misrperesentations of the source (e.g., [5]), removed repeated or rearranged misplaced content (e.g., [6]), removed content that didn't exist in the source (like [7] or [8]). Ghazaalch has now reverted the article, even though I had posted my proposed edits on the talk page long ago and waited for feedback before editing the article. Thank you for your help. Albertatiran (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Albertatiran: None of the links (diffs) you provided above were reverted except for the number 4, and I already explained why; However, I would explain again. You are saying that the summaries that you copied from the First Fitna and pasted in this article are better than previous ones; but the question is that are they good enough for this article too? Is it okay if we summarize the article, Battle of Nahrawan, for example, and pour it in the relevant section in this article? I am saying no. Because this article is about the life of Ali, and we should concentrate on the information that explain his life not any information about this battle or that battle. That is why I am saying that if you want to shorten this article, you'd better use the existing information which are concentrating on Ali's position about the events of his life, not just the event of his life, and of course you could clarify the existing information or add new information from other sources too. The second point is that we are arranging the events of Ali's life in chronological order, so it is better to write about the Advent of Kharijites before we write about Arbitration; and write about Arbitration before we write about the Battle of Nahrawan. So this point should be taken into account while merging sections.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, thanks for the response. Would the following be agreeable to you? I will attempt to address all of your concerns over the next couple of weeks, starting from this version [9], e.g., by highlighting the role of Ali in those events and separating the Kharijites' genesis story from the Battle of Nahrawan. (I'll also integrate the recent edits by Toddy1 and Thegreatrebellion.) Albertatiran (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

i'll take a look first to learn the case chronology Ahendra (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The point of the reverts was that the long-standing information should be the base of your work not the copy-pasted ones. So I'd prefer to start with the current version. But you can use some of the reverted information which are not problematic. Also you can merge the Advent of Kharijites with one of its adjacent sections, Battle of Siffin or Arbitration.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the future, it'd arguably be more productive to voice your concerns here instead of reverting the article point blank. I'd personally be much more responsive and wellcoming to constructive feedback received on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Salam everyone, I don't have the time to go through all the changes done by Albertatiran, but I have mentioned some of them:

In this one, "insurgents" is changed to "rebels" and ", and the Egyptians," is removed from the text. Also, I would like to know what loaded sentence was fixed in this edit and why sentences like "lacked the criteria set by the first two caliphs" was removed. Although Albertatiran certainly meant to help here, important pages like this should not be mass changed unilaterally. My suggestion is keep up the GA nomination job commenced by Ghazaalch. I can also dedicate a limited time to this if that helps. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Salam, Mhhossein, and thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughts:

1. I might have changed "insurgests" for the sake of consistency with "rebels" used earlier in the text. That said, the two words have close meanings.
2. To me, the following are examples of a "loaded sentence" (a) Source: What is certain is that ʿAlī allowed himself to be nominated also by the rebels who had ʿUt̲h̲mān’s blood on their hands. This was an error, in that it exposed him to accusations of complicity in their crime, although some traditions represent him as vainly endeavouring to rid himself of the most factious of his partisans. Old Wiki: According to Vaglieri, Ali, allowing himself to be nominated by rebels, was an error which "exposed him to accusations of complicity" in rebels' crime, in spit of his vain effort to detach himself from them. (Might imply that the election of Ali was an error.) New Wiki: According to Vaglieri, the nomination of Ali by the rebels exposed him to the accusations of complicity, despite his efforts to distance himself from Uthman's murder. (b) Source: The election of ʿAlī was unquestionably due not so much to the prestige afforded him by his family connections and his alliance with the Prophet, but more to the support of the Anṣār who had regained influence in their city while the Umayyad party was in disarray. Old Wiki: Della Vida believes that the choice of Ali as caliph was not because he and his family held a high position or because he was loyal to Muhammad, but rather because the Ansar who had regained their influence in their city, Medina, supported him, and on the other hand, the Umayyads were troubled and disturbed. (Might be interpreted by the reader as Ali not holding the said credentials.) New Wiki: It has also been stated that, in addition to the prestige of Ali's family ties and his alliance with Muhammad, the support of the Ansar and the disarray of the Umayyad clan were both instrumental to the election of Ali. (c) Source: According to this author, it demonstrates that no previous agreement existed between the leading Companions which could probably be thought to have anticipated these events. Old Wiki: Caetani believes that this choice was made without the prior consent of the famous companions of Muhammad. (Might suggest that Ali was not a campanion and that the companions of Muhammad did not have a say in the election of Ali.) New Wiki: According to Caetani, this chain of events also indicates that the leading companions of Muhammad did not have an a priori agreement about the succession of Uthman.
3. In the source and here, "lacked the criteria set by the first two caliphs" is explained by its next sentence (no council / not enough Quraysh support). So, I think, it was safe and truthfull to remove this sentence in the interest of brevity.
4. I replaced "Egyptians" with "rebels" for the following reason. The old Wiki reads, "With the assassination of Uthman, the Umayyads fled Medina, and the Egyptians, prominent Muhajirun, and Ansar gained control." I think this statement incorrectly excludes the Iraqi rebels. Indeed, the source says, "Following ʿOṯmān’s murder most of the Omayyads fled Medina, thus leaving the provincial opposition in control of the situation. The strongest groups were the Egyptians, the Anṣār, and the prominent Mohāǰerūn." Albertatiran (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think it is better to summarize these sections less and use more resources, the small number of sources makes some things not be said at all. To be sure, all the views should be given in the main article of each topic, and then the sum of different opinions should be summarized in this article. M.Nadian (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: You're welcome, firstly, could I ask you use quotation marks when you copy materials from the sources verbatim? How about numbering the items in question so that we can navigate them easier and refer to them just by numbers? Anyway, as for the first one, I think both old and new versions are fair enough. Regarding the second you're right in that those credentials may be ignored. But your version is giving the same weight to both Ali's family position and Ansar's influence (while the author says the latter is more important). I agree with you regarding the third. As for "rebel" being used by you, how can it be used for "Egyptians, the Anṣār, and the prominent Mohāǰerūn" in this context? Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I added some numbering although this might have made things even less readable since I don't know how to create a numbered list starting at an arbitrary number :) In any case, I just have a comment regarding item 4 above which might have been misunderstood. In my edit here, I had replaced "Egyptians" in the sentence "With the assassination of Uthman, the Umayyads fled Medina, and the Egyptians, prominent Muhajirun, and Ansar gained control" with "rebels" in the new sentence "The Umayyads had fled Medina, and the rebels, prominent Muhajirun, and Ansar had gained control of the city." I think both are correct statements. That said, item 4 above explains why I think the new sentence is closer to the source. However, if you disagree, it's ok with me to undo that. I'm also open to suggestions about (b) in item 2 above though I think the new one is already an improvement. Thanks again for your input. Albertatiran (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Albertatiran: As for the b in the second item, I suggest replacing "rather" with 'more importantly'– this conveys the impression meant by the author. I am not still happy with the "rebel" item. I suggest undoing that if you don't have complementary explanations. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Typo in first paragraph

Excuse me if I am incorrect, but "religius" should be changed to religious in the third sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:fb23:6300:e1aa:87ad:cb6:d8d5 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done by User:Albertatiran. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello. I am going to work on this article to improve it to a good article. Any suggestion? Ghazaalch (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, Mhhossein, Alivardi, and Vice regent: Hello. I have been working on this article for a while and am going to nominate it for a good article. Is there anything I could do before nomination? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: That seems good. But have you noticed the previous attempts? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Every thing has been changed since 2015. I omitted or replaced all unreliable information and could say that it is a new article now. So I do not think it has the previous issues now.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I changed the contents in the infobox a little bit, but the new information are hidden.(can't be seen by readers) Do you know what is the problem?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Are the info you added hidden now? Can you tell me which content you are referring to? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. The following is hidden now:

|Titles: Amir al-Mu'minin, Abu Turab, Haydar, Asadullah, Al-Murtadha, Abu al-Hasan.

Ghazaalch (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Check my edit.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. Well done:) Ghazaalch (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello AhmadLX. You did a great job reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, which was kind of writing the article from the beginning. I am wondering if you have the time to review this article too? If it is too much, I can start preparing Husayn ibn Ali for review first.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have time at the moment for another review. However, you should fix these things before a GAN: (i) primary/poor-secondary/polemic/self-published sources (e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, Kulayni, Razwy Sayed Ali Asgher, Shahin Badr, www.spiritualfoundation.net etc.) should be removed. (ii) the article should be made MoS compliant (iii) Fix ToC (it would qualify as a start class article if written out as text;)) (iv) Reduce verbosity and excessive detail (e.g. Battle of Nahrawan section is almost half the size of the battle article itself; same with Siffin. See Mu'awiya I#Battle of Siffin and arbitration for comparison.). You should also think about GAN requirements, especially 3b, and WP:Summary style. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: You should add Martin Hinds' Kufan Political Allignments and The Siffin Arbitration Agreement in sections on analysis of Ali's Kufan coalition and arbitration. On Kharijites, you should include more recent works such as Jeffrey Kenney's Kharijites and the Politics of Extremism. But Wellhausen's classic The Religio-political Opposition Parties would also be a good addition. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you AhmadLX. I used the sources you mentioned above, including your translation of Wellhausen's book. I couldn't find THE SIFFIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT as I mentioned before. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

See if you can access from this link. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you AhmadLX I cannot reach the Site. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello AhmadLX. Can you take another look at the article and see if we can nominate it now? Ghazaalch (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: If I were to review a nomination in the current state of the article, I would quick fail it: Bukhari, Ibn Taimiyya, Sahih Muslim, Nahj al-Balagha, Ibn Athir, a master thesis, abundant references to primary sources (see this, see that etc), 50+ footnotes, historiography low standard (the crux of it being that Madelung's deviation from the academic consensus on the unreliability of hadith literature is correct and justified), 3 to 4 See Alsos at the start of every section, more than half dozen titles, still thoroughly verbose, undue weight (ghulat,in Quran & Hadith etc). However, the decision to nominate/not nominate is yours. I just gave my opinion. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: Thanks to Apaugasma I saw your proposals below in the Caliphat section. The article might have the problems you mentioned but since I am not the reviewer, I'd prefer to listen to those who are more experienced than me and you in this field, like AhmadLX and Sa.vakilian. AhmadLx has already made some suggestions that I tried to address them, except for the Historiography section which still has the problem he mentioned. So as Mhhossein said bellow, the best thing to do right now is to improve this article to a good article. You have already been of good help summarizing this article and you could continue with it as long as you don't change or remove the essential content of it. (I have already summarized it so be careful not to trim it much). You can also work on Historiography section under Ahmad's revision, if you want to help. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I have (hopefully) helped so far towards raising this to the good article status and would like to continue doing so. At the same, the concerns raised in Talk:Ali#Caliphate are important in my view and I'd like to address them. Albertatiran (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Albertatiran. Do you have the time to improve the Historiography section too, using some other sources and viewpoints? Then we can ask @AhmadLX to review the article and let us know what else should be done. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ghazaalch! What do you have in mind for Historiography? I can see that it's mentioned in the exchanges above but that's also somewhat vague to me. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran. I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's deviation from the academic consensus on the unreliability of hadith literature has been justified in the third paragraph of the Historiography where it reads: Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentiousness alone is no evidence for late origin. According to him, Caetani's approach is inconsistent. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been compiled in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.[195]. I think AhmadLX want to say that Madelung's view has been given too much weight and it should be balanced using some other sources and viewpoints. AhmadLX himself might want to clarify a little or introduce some other sources for this purpose. Ghazaalch (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Give me a couple days. Running short on time these days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, AhmadLx has been of great help reviewing Hasan ibn Ali, until I could nominate it. Battle of Karbala is another article that has been improved to a Good article by AhmadLX and could be good example for our work here. Ghazaalch (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Death and Burial

@Apaugasma, Mhhossein, Al Ameer son, HistoryofIran, Ghazaalch, Toddy1, AhmadLX, Vice regent, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, and M.Nadian: Hi! I'd like to gauge your views about the following minor changes to Death and Burial. If unopposed, I'd hope to implement them by next Friday. Thank you in advance! Albertatiran (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

After consulting the given source (Veccia Vaglieri's Ibn Muldjam article), a couple of sentences in this section can be improved in my view.

CURRENT: According to some narrations Ali knew, or had been informed by Muhammad that his beard would stain with the blood of his forehead. It is mainly emphasized in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate, and in spite of knowing that ibn Muljam would be his killer, did not take any action against ibn Muljam becaus he could not kill someone who has not killed him yet.

PROPOSED: According to some narrations, Ali had long known about his fate, either by his own premonition or through Muhammad, who had told Ali that his beard would be stained with the blood of his head. It is emphasized mainly in Shia sources that Ali, despite being aware of his fate at the hands of Ibn Muljam, did not take any action against him because, in Ali's words, "Would you kill one who has not yet killed me?"Albertatiran (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see much difference between these two paragraphs. M.Nadian (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nor do I.VR _talk 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

sorry for late respond, as i need to review first before giving my words. i doesnt mind for such improvement either. Ahendra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thanks! It seems that the proposal (largely correcting the English and copy editing and adding new bits of info from the source) is seen as uncontroversial. I've implemneted the proposed edits and did some more copy editing on this section. Albertatiran (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Recently, Ishan87 has begun going over my recent contributions on Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation, e.g., my recent edits discussed in Talk:Ali#Proposed_changes_to_Death_and_Burial. This can be traced back to a dispute Talk:Muhammad's children (which makes for an interesting read). Albertatiran (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

False accusations. As I explained in the other talk page. I did gave explanations and valid reasons to change your edits, and none of them had anything to do with your actions in any other pages. Ishan87 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits that you reverted on this page were discussed and approved by other editors in Talk:Ali#Proposed_changes_to_Death_and_Burial. Albertatiran (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ishan87, what is your problem with this edit? Are you see the "Proposed changes to Death and Burial" or not? M.Nadian (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

"Ali's appearance is described as being bald, heavy built, short legged, with broad shoulders, a hairy body, a long white beard; and affected by a form of eye inflammation. In manner, it is said that he was rough, brusque, and unsociable."

This line needs changing as its portraying a false image of a man who was described to be handsome, gentle,generous, compassionate,pure, one who emanated wisdom, faith and valor,. A man raised by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a man who was the spiritual successor of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Ali Ibn Abu Talib is a man who's even spoken by the United nationn.

UN Secretariat, the Committee of Human Rights in New York under the chairmanship of the Secretary General Kofi Annan issued, in 2002 A.D., this historic resolution:

The Caliph Ali Bin Abi Talib is considered the fairest governor who appeared during human history (After the Prophet Muhammed). The United Nations has advised Arab countries to take Imam Ali bin Abi Talib as an example in establishing a regime based on justice and democracy and encouraging knowledge.

^ This was stated by the United Nations, someone clearly wants to bring about a negative image of Caliph Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib, some people in the muslim world try there level best to undervalue this holy figure. SHG98 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Unclear what changes should be made (format X to Y would be helpful). Also, no reliable sources have been provided. From my understanding, this so-called UN resolution never happened and is just a hoax. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad

@Ghazaalch: Hi! Ali#Succession_to_Muhammad currently offers a good in-depth analysis of the Saqifah event and its aftermath but is almost void of any historical details. I've added this analysis to Succession_to_Muhammad#Saqifah where an in-depth analysis like this seems more appropriate. Instead, the text below summarizes (most of) the existing analysis and adds a short account of the Saqifah from standard sources. Are you ok with me replacing the current text with the proposal below? Albertatiran (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

While Ali was preparing Muhammad's body for burial, a group of the Ansar (Medinan natives, lit. 'helpers') gathered at Saqifah with the deliberate exclusion of the Muhajirun (lit. 'migrants'), possibly with the intention of regaining control over their city after Muhammad's death, as suggested by Madelung. Upon learning about this, Abu Bakr and Umar, both senior companions of Muhammad, rushed to join the gathering and were likely the only representatives of the Muhajirun at Saqifah, alongside Abu Ubaidah. Those present at Saqifah appointed Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor after a heated debate that is said to have become violent.

There is some evidence that the case of Ali for the caliphate was brought up at Saqifah and Madelung partly attributes the so-called falta (lit. 'hasty decision') at Saqifah to the very fear that the Ansar might decide to rally behind his case. According to Madelung, Abu Bakr was well aware that a broad council (shura), in which Ali was to be an option, would have led to the election of Ali: The Ansar would have likely supported Ali because of his family ties with them, and the same arguments that favored Abu Bakr over the Ansar (kinship, service to Islam, etc.) would have arguably favored Ali over Abu Bakr. Madelung suggests that the straightforward logic of dynastic succession would have prevailed in a general shura. Veccia Vaglieri, on the other hand, believes that Ali, just over thirty years old at the time, stood no chance in view of Arabs' (pre-Islamic) tradition of choosing their leaders from the elders.

After Saqifah, Omar reportedly dominated the streets of Medina with the help of the Aslam and Aws tribes, and the caliphate of Abu Bakr was met with little resistance. Ali and his supporters, however, initially refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr's authority, claiming that Muhammad had earlier designated him as the successor. There are Sunni and Shia reports that Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house to secure his pledge, which led to a violent confrontation. To force Ali into line, Abu Bakr later placed a boycott on Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim, which gradually led Ali's supporters to accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr.

For his part, Ali is said to have turned down proposals to forcefully pursue his claims to the caliphate, including one from Abu Sufyan. Ali is also known to have prevented the circulation of a poem that advanced Ali's claim to the caliphate, commenting that the welfare of Islam was dearer to him than anything else. Some six months after Muhammad's death, Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr when his wife, Fatima, died. Shia alleges that her death was a result of the injuries suffered in an earlier violent attack on Ali's house led by Omar. It has been suggested that Ali relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of Islam, when it became clear that Muslims did not broadly support his cause. Nevertheless, according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified person to lead after Muhammad by virtue of his merits and his kinship with Muhammad. Mavani adds that Ali considered himself as the designated successor to Muhammad through a divine decree at the Event of the Ghadir Khumm.

The conflicts after the death of Muhammad are considered the roots of the current division among Muslims. Those who had accepted Abu Bakr's caliphate later became the Sunni, while the supporters of Ali's right to the caliphate eventually became the Shia.

I agree that a line or two on Saqifah would be appropriate here, but I would caution against watering down the material on the succession on this page too much, as the material on Ghadir Khumm etc is all quite Ali-specific. I would go easy on reducing the weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Hello! Do I correctly understand your comment as saying that Saqifah and Muhammad's succession are relevant to this article and should be discussed in more detail? If so, my only concern is that this article is already very long. One alternative to a detailed account of these events might be to add in the key details or perspectives that might currently be missing (from your point of view). (As a last resort, we can also remove the mention of some stuff that have been watered down too much, in your view.) Albertatiran (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Albertatiran. It is difficult to decide. The first paragraph of your proposed text presents a detailed view of Madelung about the possibly intention of Ansar which is not necessary, especially when it is not clear how a group of Ansar were dominated by three of Muhajirun. So we would need more explanation and more details here which is too much for this article. Therefore the existing information of the article is better and more summarized in my view. The information of the first part of the second paragraph again seems to be the especial view of Madelung and is not so famous to be mentioned in this article. The same thing can be said about the poem that advanced Ali's claim, etc. In the forth paragraph you wrote "according to Madelung, Ali unequivocally viewed himself as the most qualified...", while the sources you presented for the sentence show that it is not the view of Madelung alone. It is according to Madelung, Momen, Mavani and maybe some others. In the existing article we read "Madelung considers the main Shia claims, to be Ali's own view, because Ali considered himself ...", which seems more correct. Again you wrote "Mavani adds that Ali considered himself ....", while it is not the view of Mavani alone. Ghazaalch (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch! Thanks for the feedback. What motivated me to write this proposal was that the current Ali#Succession_to_Muhammad offers a good analysis of the Saqifah and its aftermath but is light on the necessary historical details. If the reader doesn't already know about these events, he or she would have a difficult time understanding the right context for this analysis. On the other hand, it may be argued that some of the analysis here is better suited for Succession to Muhammad, e.g., the detailed discussion of whether the Shia view is aligned with Ali's own view. (I've already added this analysis to Succession to Muhammad.) Here is an attempt to address your comments, summarize the analysis to the extent possible, and add the necessary historical details to the text. Let me know what you think, please. (Note that paragraphs 1 and 3 contain historical details while paragraphs 2 and 4 give a brief analysis of Saqifah and the events that followed.)Albertatiran (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

While Ali was preparing Muhammad's body for burial, a group of the Ansar (Medinan natives, lit. 'helpers') gathered at Saqifah with the deliberate exclusion of the Muhajirun (lit. 'migrants') to discuss the future of Muslims. Upon learning about this, Abu Bakr and Umar, both senior companions of Muhammad, rushed to join the gathering and were likely the only representatives of the Muhajirun at Saqifah, alongside Abu Ubaidah. Those present at Saqifah appointed Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor after a heated debate that is said to have become violent.

There is some evidence that the case of Ali for the caliphate was brought up at Saqifah and it has been suggested that in a broad council (shura) with Ali among the candidates, Ansar would have supported the caliphate of Ali because of his family ties with them and the same arguments that favored Abu Bakr over the Ansar (kinship, service to Islam, etc.) would have favored Ali over Abu Bakr. Veccia Vaglieri, on the other hand, believes that Ali, just over thirty years old at the time, stood no chance in view of Arabs' (pre-Islamic) tradition of choosing their leaders from the elders.

After Saqifah, Omar reportedly dominated the streets of Medina with the help of the Aslam and Aws tribes, and the caliphate of Abu Bakr was met with little resistance there. Ali and his supporters, however, initially refused to acknowledge Abu Bakr's authority, claiming that Muhammad had earlier designated him as the successor. There are Sunni and Shia reports that Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house to secure his pledge which led to a violent confrontation. To force Ali into line, Abu Bakr later placed a boycott on Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim, which gradually led Ali's supporters to accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr.

For his part, Ali is said to have turned down proposals to forcefully pursue his claims to the caliphate, including one from Abu Sufyan. Some six months after Muhammad's death, Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr when his wife, Fatima, died. Shia alleges that her death was a result of the injuries suffered in an earlier violent attack on Ali's house, led by Omar. It has been suggested that Ali relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of Islam, when it became clear that Muslims did not broadly support his cause. Others have noted that Ali viewed himself as the most qualified person to lead after Muhammad by virtue of his merits and his kinship with Muhammad. There is also evidence that Ali considered himself as the designated successor to Muhammad through a divine decree at the Event of the Ghadir Khumm.

The conflicts after the death of Muhammad are considered the roots of the current division among Muslims. Those who had accepted Abu Bakr's caliphate later became the Sunni, while the supporters of Ali's right to the caliphate eventually became the Shia.

• Hello Albertatiran. It seems good except for the sentence Ansar would have supported the caliphate of Ali because of his family ties with them, because as far as I know Ali had no family ties with Ansar. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ghazaalch. It seems that Ansar claimed some distant relationship with Ali (and also Muhammad) on the basis that Abd al-Mutallib's wife was of the Khazraj tribe. (Madelung, p. 36) I'll implement these changes in the article. Albertatiran (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Caliphate of Abu Bakr

@Ghazaalch: Could you also help me with your feedback on this section? (Of course, everyone is also welcome to join the discussion.) The current text is repeated below for convenience.

At the beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate, there was a controversy about Muhammad's endowment to his daughter, especially the oasis of Fadak, between Fatima and Ali on one side and Abu Bakr on the other side. Fatima asked Abu Bakr to turn over their property, the lands of Fadak and Khaybar, but Abu Bakr refused and told her that "The Messenger of God has said: We do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." Fatima became angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. According to a narration by ibn Sa'd, Ali countered Abu Bakr by quoting some verses of the Qur'an, according which "Solomon became David's heir" (Qur'an 27:16) and "Zachariah said [in his prayer: give me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob". (Qur'an 19:6). According to some sources, Ali did not give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until some time after the death of his wife, Fatima, in the year 633. According to Tabari, a group of Abu Bakr's opponents, including Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, gathered at Fatima's house. To make them come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar threatened to set the house on fire and pulled them out. While al-Baladhuri states that the altercation never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance, some traditions add that Umar and his supporters forcibly entered the house, resulting in Fatima's miscarriage of their unborn son Muhsin. Professor Coeli Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution.

Ali lived an isolated life during Abu Bakr's period and was mainly engaged in religious affairs, devoting himself to studying and teaching the Quran. He also advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government matters. According to Ismail Poonawala, the first historically compiled Quran is attributed to Ali. Ali's knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah would help the previous caliphs in religious matters. The order of Qur'an, compiled be Ali, reportedly differed from that which was gathered later during the Uthmanic era. This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them. Despite this, Ali made no resistance against the standardised mus'haf.

A couple of comments about it:

• "...and pulled them [the residents] out" doesn't seem to be in the given source (which only writes that Zubayr came out after Umar's threat).
• The information about the Mushaf of Ali is perhaps unnecessary since it's covered in detail later in the article. It might be a good idea to remove it to avoid repetition.
• Not sure where to look for the current version of this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20071016200056/http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-68890/Quran
• Instead of "the lands of Fadak and Khaybar", "the lands of Fadak and her share in Khaybar" seems closer to the source (Madelung, pp 50, 51)

With these comments in mind, here is the revised text that rewords and expands the current text in some places. Please let me know what your comments (if any) are. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The beginning of Abu Bakr's caliphate was marked by controversy surrounding Muhammad's land endowments to his daughter, Fatima, the wife of Ali. She requested Abu Bakr to return her property, the lands of Fadak and her share in Khaybar, which Abu Bakr refused, saying that Muhammad had told him, "We [the prophets] do not have heirs, whatever we leave is alms." After this exchange, Fatima is said to have remained angry with Abu Bakr until her death, within a few months of Muhammad's death. Abu Bakr was initially the sole witness to this statement, which later became known as the hadith of Muhammad's inheritance. In effect, Abu Bakr's decree disinherited Muhammad's family and brought them to rely on general alms which Muhammad had forbidden for them in his lifetime. In connection to this dispute, Ibn Sa'd relates that Ali countered Abu Bakr's claim by quoting parts of verse 27:16 of the Qur'an, "Solomon became David's heir," and verse 19:6, "Zechariah said [in his prayer: grant me a next-of-kin] who will inherit from me and inherit from the family of Jacob." Explaining this ostensible conflict between the Qur'an and Abu Bakr's hadith presented a challenge for Sunni authors.

The death of Fatima, the wife of Ali, was another controversial incident in this period. There is strong evidence that shortly after the appointment of Abu Bakr as caliph, Umar led an armed mob to Ali's house and threatened to set it on fire if Ali and the supporters of his caliphate, who had gathered there in solidarity, would not pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene soon grew violent and, in particular, Zubayr was disarmed and carried away. The armed mob later retreated after Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, loudly admonished them. It is widely believed that Ali withheld his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima, within six months of Muhammad's death. In particular, Shia and some early Sunni sources allege a final and more violent raid to secure Ali's oath, also led by Umar, in which Fatima suffered injuries that shortly led to her miscarriage and death. In contrast, the Sunni historian al-Baladhuri writes that the altercations never became violent and ended with Ali's compliance. Fitzpatrick surmises that the story of the altercation reflects the political agendas of the period and should therefore be treated with caution. Veccia Vaglieri, however, maintains that the Shia account is based on facts, even if it has been later extended by invented details.

In sharp contrast with Muhammad's lifetime, Ali retired from the public life during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (and later, Umar and Uthman) and mainly engaged himself with religious affairs, devoting his time to the study and teaching of the Quran. This change in Ali's attitude has been described as a silent censure of the first three caliphs. Ali is said to have advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government and religious matters, though the mutual distrust and personal animosity of Ali with Abu Bakr and Umar is also well-documented. Their differences were epitomized during the proceedings of the electoral council in 644 where Ali refused to be bound by the precedence of the first two caliphs.

• Looks good to me Albertatiran. Thanks for your good work. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Caliphate of Umar

Some fairly reasonable edits and corrections are proposed below. They are unlikely to be controversial but your feedback is very welcome. The current text appears below for convenience.

Ali retired from public life during Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, however, he accepted their rule and even gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also was consulted in matters of state. According to Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked Ali's advice on legal issues, due to his great knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri mentions Ali's view on Diwani revenue, which was opposite to that of Umar. Since, Ali believed the whole income should be distributed, without holding anything in stock. During the Caliphate of Umar (and Uthman) Ali held no position, except, according to Tabari, the lieutenancy of Madina, during Umar's journey to Syria and Palestine. During the caliphate of Umar, Ali claimed Fatima's paternal inheritance again; But Umar's answer was the same as Abu Bakr's. However, Umar agreed to return some of the property of Medina (which was considered part of Fatima's inheritance) to the sons of Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, who represented Banu Hashim; But the property of Fadak and Khybar remained as state property and was not returned to Banu Hashim.

Ali was one of the electoral council to choose the third caliph which was appointed by Umar. Although Ali was one of the two major candidates, the council was inclined against him. Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, who were cousins, were naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Abdur Rahman's brother-in-law. In addition, Umar gave the deciding vote to Abdur Rahman, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the Sunnah ( the example set by Muhammad), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. According to ibn Abi al-Hadid's Comments on the Peak of Eloquence, Ali insisted on his prominence there, but most of the electors supported Uthman and Ali was reluctantly urged to accept him.

According to Madelung, Ali could not have hoped to become the caliph after Umar, on the basis of his kinship with Muhammad; Because the Quraysh did not support the accumulation of prophethood and caliphate in one clan. He believes that it was not "Abu Bakr's and Umar's coup" at Saqifah which prevented Ali from becoming caliph, but it stems from the deep jealousy of the Quraysh toward Ali. Therefore, Madelung says, Ali's only chance to participate in the affairs of the Muslims could be his full participation in the council, which was founded by Umar. Ibn Abbas narrates that Umar once told him that Ali was in fact the most worthy person to succeed Muhammad, but we were afraid of him for two reasons. When ibn Abbas eagerly asks Umar about these reasons, Umar replied that the first is his youth and the second is Ali's great interest in the Banu Hashim family. In his address, Umar refers to his belief in the formation of the council as the basis for appointing a caliph, and in practice, from now on, denounces any appointment of a caliph without consultation. Thus, by doing so, the caliphate could not be monopolized by certain clan and belonged to all the Quraysh.

A few comments about the current text above:

• "During the caliphate of Umar, Ali claimed Fatima's paternal inheritance again" is likely incorrect, see the analysis on page 63 of Madelung.
• "Umar agreed to return some of the property of Medina (which was considered part of Fatima's inheritance)" The source doesn't appears to be saying that these were part of what Fatima laid claim on.
• The last paragraph "According to Madelung, Ali..." can be summarized since the main pint is Umar's conviction in the separation of the caliphate and the prophethood. This text might also be moved up, considering that it's not directly related to the election of Uthman.
• Some background information is necessary before "Ali was one of the electoral council to choose the third caliph...," e.g., Umar formed this council after being stabbed. Likewise, some intro is needed for the committee members, e.g., they were all from the Quraysh and closely related to Muhammad.
• Dakake doesn't seem to be the correct source for these claims.
• The reference to Ibn Abi al-Hadid's book doesn't seem to appear in the given sources. It might be best to remove it, considering that it's a primary source.

What follows is an attempt to address these comments.

Ali remained withdrawn from public affairs during the caliphate of Umar, though Nasr and coauthor write that he was consulted in matters of state. According to Veccia Vaglieri, however, while it is probable that Umar asked for Ali's advice on legal issues in view of his excellent knowledge of the Quran and the sunna, it is not certain whether his advice was accepted on political matters. As an example, al-Baladhuri notes that Ali's view on diwani revenue was opposite to that of Umar, as the former believed the whole income should be distributed among Muslims. al-Tabari writes that Ali held the lieutenancy of Madina during Umar's expedition to Syria and Palestine.

Umar was convinced that the Quraysh would not tolerate the combination of the prophethood and the caliphate in Banu Hashim, the clan to which Muhammad and Ali belonged. Early in his caliphate, he confided to Ibn Abbas that Mohammad intended to expressly designate Ali as his successor during his final illness if not prevented by Umar. However, realizing the necessity of Ali's cooperation in his collaborative scheme of governance, Umar made some overtures to Ali and Banu Hashim during his caliphate without giving them excessive economic and political power. He returned Muhammad's estates in Medina to Ali and Muhammad's uncle, Abbas, though Fadak and Khayber remained as state property under Umar's control. Umar also insisted on marrying Ali's daughter, Umm Kulthum, to which Ali reluctantly agreed after the former enlisted public support for his demand.

Umar was stabbed by Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, a Persian slave in 23 AH (644 CE). On his deathbed, Umar tasked a committee of six with choosing the next caliph among themselves. These six men were all all early companions of Muhammad from the Quraysh. Ali and Uthman were the two main candidates in the committee, though it is generally believed that the makeup and configuration of the committee left little possibility for Ali's nomination. Two members, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, were cousins and naturally inclined to support Uthman, who was Ibn Awf's brother-in-law. The tie-breaker vote was given to Ibn Awf, who offered the caliphate to Ali on the condition that he should rule in accordance with the Qur'an, the sunna (the prophetic precedence), and the precedents established by the first two caliphs. Ali rejected the third condition while Uthman accepted it. It has been suggested that Ibn Awf was aware of Ali's disagreements with the past two caliphs and that he would have inevitably rejected the third condition. Albertatiran (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Author name - Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı

​ In this edit that was made to the article on Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, an editor changed the family name of an author:

• from Ruhı Fığlalı
• to R.Fığlalı

Note that the editor changed the family name. The author's first name was listed as Ethem. There is an article on Wikipedia about this author: tr:Ethem Ruhi Fığlalı (Google translation from Turkish). The Wikipedia article suggests that the family name was Fığlalı and that the author's first names were Ethem Ruhi. As for whether the last letter of Ruhi should be the conventional Latin script "i" or the mysterious "ı" character: Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr and Turkish Wikipedia support the Latin script "i".

I will correct the author's names on the basis that Turkish Wikipedia is correct.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: a new Spin-off article "Election of Ali"

The circumstances around Ali's accession to the caliphate have been intensely debated but there is hardly any room in Ali#Election or in Caliphate_of_Ali#Election to summarize the recent research. As for the precedents, there already exist Election of Uthman about Uthman and Saqifa about Abu Bakr.

The proposal is to create a new article entitled "Election of Ali," the draft of which can be found in Draft:Election_of_Ali. This submission was declined (rather than reviewed and rejected) on August 31 and the protocol seems to require a consensus here to back the new article. (It doesn't seem that this spin-off article would qualify under the "special notability guide.") Your input is welcome below: do you support the creation of this new article? Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not, given that there is plenty of additional material to mention beyond that already present on this page, which, in this context, would be better hosted on a dedicated page rather than used to over-expand the election sub-section on this page. As noted, precedents exist for other Rashidun. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure at the moment if this coatracky gathering of information should be a stand alone article. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Mhhossein! Thanks for the input. We should probably distinguish between the creation of the new article and its content. More detailed comments are obviously welcome on how to improve the draft but, at this early stage, maybe the key question is whether you support the proposal to create the new article "Election of Ali." If there is a consensus to that effect on this talk page, then the proposal and the article itself would be reviewed by someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. If it goes through, then this can be edited by anyone. Albertatiran (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Though I see Albertatiran's nice effort to create a page on the topic, the creation seems like an academic paper, not an encyclopedic one. Almost same thing has occurred Saqifa and Election of Uthman. Had I enough time, I would go through all those changes. Look at sections like "Why a committee?". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The subheadings/page structure on Election of Uthman could definitely do with some work - the questions marks are grim. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: This applies to the new draft as much as that piece. Questions do not make good encyclopedic headers. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I support. This is good article but I think title "Election of Ali" better change to "Election of Ali for caliph" because for Ali there is also the being elected as imam And the successor of the Prophet from shia view. And it's better we have summary of election of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman And the point he could be the next caliph in the council of six. M.Nadian (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, M.Nadian! Made a note of your comments to address them in the background section after/if the new article is created. For the suggested new title, it's a good idea to make that distinction and we should revisit this later. (More inclined to "Election of Ali to the caliphate" which may sound a bit better...) Albertatiran (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I took a look at your draft Albertatiran. Of course it could be better organized, especially in the matter of sub-section headings which could be changed to more neutral ones, or you could merge some of them, however I appreciate your good work and support your proposal. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Took note of your comment about the headings for the next revision (hopefully very soon). Alternatively, please feel to directly edit or comment on the draft. Thank you for your support, Ghazaalch! Albertatiran (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! Thanks for the support. Election of Ali to the caliphate is now live after some edits to address your comments. More work is needed though to address all the comments and hopefully, I'd be able to revise this article in the near future. Albertatiran (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Siddiq e akbar and first caliph of shia

Kindly don't change it Umarabubakr (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2022

Write more about how the sunnis were not following the prophet by not following Ali and he is a Imam 24.5.35.81 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You'll need to give more specific suggestions, along with reliable secondary sources that support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely they're not following instructions of prophet Muhammad saw. Prophet said I leave you two weighty things, if you stick to both you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny they ignore the Hadith and follow the self made caliphs Umarabubakr (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want reference I'll provide you Umarabubakr (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

He whose mawla I am, Ali is his mawla ( master ) Umarabubakr (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

In the first sentence of the introduction, could the word "companion" be linked to Companions of the Prophet? Thanks. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction in date of shahada

Converted 20 January 0662 CE to Hijri Date sunday, 21 Ramadhan 41 114.76.168.60 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Sindhi Jats too fought for Ali

reliable source here-https://archive.org/details/religion-and-society-in-arab-sind/mode/2up

Please add this info Virk0001 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghadir event

Salam @Albertatiran: Can you explain why "Muhammad asked his followers whether he was not closer..." was removed in this edit? thanks. Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Salam Mhhossein, thanks for the feedback. This is a long article and, whenever possible, content that's not central to the narrative should be deferred to elsewhere, e.g., the statement you mentioned can still be found in the main article and can be safely removed from Ali#Ghadir_Khumm without leaving any gaps in the 'storyline'. We can put it back if you're not convinced. Albertatiran (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome Albertatiran, I was just thinking that the Prophet's comments are important and would better be mentioned. My opinion. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Mhhossein. I plan to put it back in the next round of edits. Albertatiran (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Add Photo Imam_Ali_bin_abi_Talib_(as) 37.237.61.18 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The image cannot be used because of copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

In the introduction it says Ali was killed on orders of Muaviyah. This is incorrect. Please see the detailed section about Ali's Death. It is correctly mentioned that he was killed by Ibn Muljim. This page is heavily modified to lean towards Shia Ideology which only represents 10% of entire Muslim population. 2405:201:5501:D01C:387A:A38C:810F:1DD1 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right and I edited the lead. If you have a better wording please share it here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You can use this "Ali was assassinated at the age of 62 or 63 by a Kharijite, ibn Muljam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.246.22 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect ordering?

The first of the two arbitration meetings took place in February or March 658, according to Ali#Arbitration. The second meeting happened later but was not recognized by Ali and shouldn't be counted as part of the arbitration. On the other hand, the Battle of Nahrawan took place in July 658, according to Battle of Nahrawan. So it seems reasonable to reverse the order of Ali#Arbitration and Ali#Battle_of_Nahrawan in keeping with the chronological order. After that, it'd also perhaps make sense to change Ali#Advent_of_Kharijites and Ali#Arbitration into subsections of Ali#Battle of Siffin. Unless there are any objections, I plan to make these changes when revising Ali#Battle of Siffin in the coming days. Albertatiran (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran, why do you think 'Ali#Advent_of_Kharijites' should be a subsection of Ali#Battle of Siffin? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, some 12,000 broke away from Ali on his way back from Siffin and camped outside of Kufa at a place called Harura. Some left, some joined, and soon they established themselves in Nahrawan, and became known as the Kharijites. I've omitted the sources for brevity. Hope this answers your question. Albertatiran (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thank you Albertatiran. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

“change Quraysh (Banu Hashim) to Ahl Al-Bayt” Omomani1 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears that the current listing is correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Tribe in the infobox can't be changed to 'Ahl al-Bayt', assuming that this is what you're referring to. Albertatiran (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

in titles also include his title Yad-ul-lah meaning hand of Allah/ hand of god reference Hayat al qulub vol 3 by Mohammad Baqir majlisi 39.51.203.60 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Caliphate of Uthman

• The current text does a good job of collecting the views of various historians about the involvement of Ali in the rebellion (or lack thereof). As a result, the prevalent view (Ali's spiritual but not political support for the uprising) is repeated multiple times with different wordings, which can be summarized. A shortcoming of the current text is that it does not list the key historical events that are necessary for understanding Ali's role, e.g., the accusations against Uthman and the timeline of the crisis are both missing. For convenience, the current text is repeated below.

In the Islamic family there was controversy among historians about the relationship between Ali and Uthman. According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr Ali recognized Uthman as the caliph, but had taken a neutral position among his supporters and opponents. Robert M. Gleave believes that Ali was at least spiritually at the forefront of Uthman's opponents; Ali, along with Talha and Zubayr, were among the critics of Uthman; and Ali stated that Uthman had deviated from the Sunnah of the Prophet, especially on the question of religious law which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar and Walid ibn Uqba(accused of drinking). Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey'. Ali also endeavored to protect companions such as ibn Mas'ud, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (who was exiled from Medina, due to his preaches against the misdeeds of the powerful), and Ammar ibn Yasir from maltreatment by the caliph. According to Madelung, when people revolted against Uthman in some cities and regions and moved to Medina, Uthman asked Ali to speak with them and convince them to return to their cities. Uthman, committing himself to follow Ali's advice from now on, Madelung writes, gave him full authority to negotiate with the insurgents as he wished. According to this report, Ali reminded Uthman that he had talked to him about this before, but he preferred to listen to Marwan ibn Hakam and the Umayyads instead. Uthman accordingly promised that from now on, he would turn away from them and listen to Ali; and ordered other Ansar and Muhajirun to join Ali. He also asked Ammar to join the group, but he rejected the offer. Accordiing to Poonawala Ali had a restraining influence on Uthman at this time without directly opposing him. He conveyed criticisms of the Companions to Uthman, and negotiated on behalf of Uthman with the opposition who had come to Medina; which seems to have caused suspicion between Ali and Uthman's relatives. Later, when the rebels besieged Uthman's house, Ali tried to mitigate the severity of the siege by his insistence that Uthman should be allowed water. When Uthman was in danger of being attacked, Ali sent his sons to protect his house. When Uthman was killed by the insurgents, Ali blamed his sons for inadequate protection of Uthman's house. According to Vaglieri, the rebels asked Ali to be their head, and although he refused and should be excluded from the bloody conclusion of their act, but, Vaglieri says, there are reasons that Ali was in agreement with rebels that Uthman should abdicate. According to Madelung "there is no evidence that Ali entertained close relations with them at this time or directed their actions. But he was certainly aware of them." It is reported from Tabari that Ali tried to detach himself from the besiegers of the house of Uthman and their partisans, as soon as circumstances allowed him. Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master than your master."

• Below, the timeline of the crisis has been added, leading up to Uthman's assassination. The revised text below also lumps together the similar views of the historians.

Uthman's reign was marked with widespread accusations of nepotism and corruption, and he was ultimately assassinated in 656 by dissatisfied rebels in a raid during the second siege of his residence in Medina. Ali was critical of Uthman's rule, alongside other senior companions, such as Talha. He clashed with Uthman in religious matters, arguing that Uthman had deviated from the sunna (practices of Muhammad), especially regarding the religious punishments (hudud) which should be meted out in several cases, such as those of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar (accused of murder) and Walid ibn Uqba (accused of drinking). Ali also opposed Uthman for changing the prayer ritual, and for declaring that he would take whatever he needed from the fey money. Ali also sought to protect Muhammad's companions such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and Jundab ibn Kab al-Azdi, who all faced Uthman's wrath for opposing the caliph. Prior to the rebellion, in 34 AH (654-655 CE), Ali admonished Uthman for his nepotism on behalf of other companions.

During the rebellion, Ali frequently acted as a mediator between the rebels and Uthman. Prior to their first siege in 35 AH (656 CE), he warned the Egyptian rebels about the evil consequences of their advance, unlike other senior companions who urged the rebels to enter Medina. Ali also led the negotiations with the rebels on behalf of Uthman and persuaded the rebels to return home by promising them, in the name of caliph, redress for all their grievances and agreeing to act as guarantor. At the insistence of Ali, Uthman then delivered a public statement of repentance in the mosque, which he later withdrew under the influence of Marwan, his cousin and secretary. As their disagreements mounted, Ali refused to further represent Uthman. Soon after, the Egyptian rebels returned to Medina when they intercepted a messenger of Uthman who was carrying official instructions for the governor of Egypt to punish the dissidents. Marwan is often blamed for this letter rather than Uthman, who maintained his innocence about it. Kufan and Basran rebels also arrived in Medina but they did not participate in the siege, heeding Ali's advice for nonviolence. The second siege soon escalated and Uthman was murdered by the rebels in the final days of 35 AH (June 656). During the second siege, Ali's son, Hasan, was injured while standing guard at Uthman's residence at the request of Ali, and he also mitigated the severity of the siege by ensuring that Uthman was allowed water.

According to Jafri, Ali likely regarded the resistance movement as a front for the just demands of the poor and disenfranchised, though it is generally believed that he did not have any close ties with the rebel. This spiritual rather than political support of Ali for the uprising has been noted by a number of modern historians. Al-Tabari also writes that Ali attempted to detach himself from the besiegers of Uthman's residence as soon as circumstances allowed him. Madelung relates that, years later, Marwan told Zayn al-Abidin, the grandson of Ali, that, "No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate toward our master [Uthman] than your master [Ali]."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertatiran (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Signature

Can anyone confirm the authenticity of Ali's supposed signature? The File:Transcription of a Signature Believed To Be Of Ali ibn abi Talib.png. created by User:Taha b. Wasiq b. Hussain doesn't seem to be confirmed by any WP:RS. Hezbollaist (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Another name

Add Abu al-Hasan in names Trannoyye (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Nov 24, 2023

I am not an expert on this topic but the reference in the lead para to Ali's being a "senior companion" of the prophet threw me. It sounds he like was older than Mohammed. (He wasn't.) Someone please correct it. 115.99.48.36 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)