Talk:Ali al-Hadi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV (Talk) 08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Family of Imam Ali Hadi (Naqi)[edit]

Family tree starting from Imam Ali Naqi is called as NAQVI family which can be largely found in India, Pakistan, Iran & Iraq. Regards Shadab Naqvi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC).


Do we have any reason to doubt that this source is valid? I've Googled the source, and it seems prominent and is used elsewhere aside from Wikipedia. --Enzuru 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made little search over Al-Ḳāsim Ibn Ibrāhīm's Theory of the Imamate by Binyamin Abrahamov from Arabica and found following details:
Abu Mohammad al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim Taba-
Abu Mohammad al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim Taba (ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Hasan al-Muthanna ibn al-Hasan ibn Abi Talib [a]) was one of the leaders of Zaidiyyah, and his brand of Zaidiyyah was called Al-Qasimiyyah. He was born in 169/785(AH/AD) and died in 246/860(AH/AD). Following are the sources about him:
Negative: Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam By Muḥammad ibn Hārūn Warrāq, David Richard Thomas,
Positive: The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam By Herbert Berg
Informative: Shi'ism By Heinz Halm, Janet C. E. Watson, Marian Hill, Anthropomorphism and Interpretation of the Qur'an in the Theology of Al-Qaim Ibn Ibrahim: Kitab Al-Mustarshid by Binyamin Abrahamov
Binyamin Abrahamov
Binyamin Abrahamov is professor of Islamic Theology and Quranic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
Informative: Al-Kasim B. Ibrahim on the Proof of God's Existence: Kitab Al-Dalil Al-Kabir, Abrahamov
  1. No excerpts of his work quoted in this article are available, probabily the person who first provided this source owns hardcopy of the book and used it is source; in that case we can ask for his collbration & contribution on this issue.
  2. It is clear that Al-Ḳāsim Ibn Ibrāhīm is not a very agreed source and Binyamin Abrahamov probably have based his work on Ḳāsim's work so Abrahamov's work fall under same category.
  3. Abrahamov is an Israili & a Jew so there may be serious questions on his neutrality over all these contraversial issues.
  4. Regarding usage - anything which maligns face of Islam/Ahl-e-Bayt becomes popular with westerns scholars
  5. Regarding prominency - I want to say that any thing which is prominent may not be just/correct.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the first source being both invalid because in MOS:Islam we avoid ancient sources, and second because it is polemical and not reliable scholarship. Someone's Israeli Jewish background does not make their scholarship invalid (Bernard Lewis is a huge source for most of our articles on Islam), so we must investigate the stature of his writings within the scholarly community. I think however the information itself is notable enough for inclusion about this individual, but I'd like to further probe into Abrahamov's stature in scholarship (if he is considered a fringe radical that breaks WP:reliable). I believe the best thing to do is perhaps include that these two figures are stating it, as well as that these two figure's backgrounds. So for example, "Zaidi scholar al-Kasim states," and so forth. On Wikipedia we can't really argue about the validity of those statements unless the source is downright polemic (as the first one is, however the second one is a secondary source so perhaps may be contribution to serious scholarship). --Enzuru 09:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick google, including this page, reveals a character who seems to be a serious individual within the scholarly establishment. Also, on second thought, we cannot really state the background of the person stating it (but their name is fine) unless we can cite a source noting that his scholarship is controversial because of his background, as long as we're careful not to break WP:synth. --Enzuru 10:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding an Author's description on a website which sells his book I think no website/shop will say that the author of book for sale is of controversial background. But primary reason of believing this source as weak is that Abrahamov's work is based on Kasim's work & Kasim's standing is not very strong among scholors. Probably Abrahamov's work is an extended translation of Kasim's work with footnotes, enhancements, explations and views of Abrahamov. I still insist that we should also look for excerpts of his work quoted here to compare exact nature of what is stated in source and what is mentioned here on this article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It's true Kasim's work is controversial, but if a respectable scholar chooses to use his work, it makes the situation much different (we aren't in a place to criticize a respectable scholar for their sources). But sure, we should see if we can get excerpts of that work, it could very possibly be in a separate context. --Enzuru 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There may be case that this excerpt has been quoted by Abrahamov followed by his views/commentry which may be contrary to quote. But I still maintain my stand that as base work is controversial so any subsequent work is liable to be weak despite credebility of scholar. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not allowed to criticize a reliable secondary source because of the primary sources it uses (that is WP:original research) unless scholarship itself is doing that. Once again, let's look out the context and see what we can find. --Enzuru 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is irrationale & illogical argument, neverthless I'm not the sort of aggresive editor whose aggrisivenes makes him vandal thats the reason I have not even touched the section of article being discussed but varily I think I'm free to express my discontent atleast on talk page so that if any user refers here he can get to see some debate and views about article & its sections. I'll try to find some support on my point meanwhile, but it seems I'll be little busy next 15 days due to Muharram. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll continue this after the mourning, insha'Allah. --Enzuru 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sayed Rizvi. By the way, does that mean you're Akhbari and not Usuli? --Enzuru 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm not Akhbari or Usuli in hard sense. I don't follow Taqleed of any single Mujtahid but also I don't curse Mujtahideen. I follow path of Ihtiyat which is one of the three principle doctrines of practicing Masail-e-Fiqh i.e.
  • either be a Mujtahid (jurist) himself, capable of inferring and deducing from the religious sources and evidence;
  • or if he is not a Mujtahid himself, he should follow one, i.e. he should act accordi ng to the verdicts (Fatwa) of the Mujtahid;
  • or if he is neither a Mujtahid nor a follower (Muqallid), he should act on such precaution which should assure him that he has fulfilled his religious obligation. For example, if some Mujtahids consider an act to be haraam, while others say that it is not, he should not perform that act. Similarly, if some Mujtahid consider an act to be obligatory (Wajib) while others consider it to be recommended (Mustahab), he should perform it. Therefore, it is obligatory upon those persons who are neither Mujta hids, nor able to act on precautionary measures (Ihtiyat), to follow a Mujtahid.
Usually people don't take this path as it is little tricky & requires some research & findings but I prefer this one than following without thought, and surely Almighty Allah mentions in Qur'an that Each one is accountable of his account(deeds). Hope this has cleared confusions, if any. By the way my name is Faiz so you don't need to call me by my family name. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, so you follow the last one. Most Akhbari don't curse Mujtahids, only Malaangs seem to, am I correct? --pashtun ismailiyya 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Neo-Akhbarism is very recent happening in India and is mostly found in cities of Hyderabad & Mumbai and you don't find many Malangs in India so I'm not sure of this point, but it seems most of them see Mujthadis (especially of Iran who support Wilayet-Fiqh) as userpers and curse them. My family is very strong Usuli one, being Muqqallad of Aqa-e-Khui & now Aqa-e-Seestani but I from start onwards follow path of Ihtiyaat and most of the people know about it (even Imam-e-Juma of few mosques who are Aalim also) but no one brands me as Akhbari. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed lots of Neo-Akhbarism! Why is this happening? I heard Akhbarism lasted in India longer than it did in other places, but Usulism eventually defeated it. --pashtun ismailiyya 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually until very recently Indians(unlike Pakistanis) were critical of Wilayt-e-Fiqh and most of the Indians even today follow Mujtahids of Najef(e.g. Aqa-e-Khui, Aqa-e-Seestani, etc) rather than Qom(Aqa-e-Khamnei). Even I know Aalims who have studied in Qom but are advocate of Najaf ideology(i.e. not in favour of Wilayat-e-Fiqh although now due to increase of impact of Hauza-e-Qom people are becoming more inclined to Qom ideology but still majority of them follow Aqa-e-Seestani. Akhbaris never lost their full ground in India due to tolerance in India (e.g. Ahamadis/Qadiyanis practice freely in India having their Mosques/institutions). Yes they never got into main-stream. Although most of Indians in principle are Usuli but majority don't abide by Fatwas regarding Azadari(esp. Qama & Zanjri Matam etc.). So, in general Indians can not be considered as very strict Usuli or Akhbari they are bit rationalist and bit traditionalist. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I added that reference a long time ago, I have the book in published form (not from the Berlin MS) in 'Arabic as well as the secondary references I used from Benyamin and Madledung. I don't edit wikipedia anymore because of the ease with which religious apologists are able to remove recognized research on these matters with no other justification given than a shallow claim that the author is "wahabi" or a Jew. It's sad because Imam al-Qasim (rah) is one of our earliest sources detailing the character of 'Ali, predating any written material even by the Twelvers concerning him. All our other information about him comes generally from Shi'ite Twelver sources since mention of him is scarce outside of these as having actually done anything. And on the basis of that naturally polemical material, this whole article has been crafted, to the exclusion of anything from outside these sources that would threaten said set of beliefs (though to be fair, it's seen a lot of improvement from two years ago...) (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article[edit]

Hello. I am going to improve this article a little bit using reliable sources.Hadi (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Dear Read-write-services. Many thanks for your recent edit on this article which is much better now. Do you think we could nominate this article as a Good Article now or you think it needs some more changes? Best Hadi (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sons of Ali al-Hadi (Imam Ali Naqi)[edit]

There is no conclusion over three sons or seven. Why it is considered necessary to place a full stop after mentioning three sons. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the reliability of reference being emphasized with the availability of an ISBN # and its publishing in English language by a foreign expert (his dignity is recognized, but critical view is our right). In my discussion Abu Mikhnaf is one of primary sources per norm of social science (history).

  • Primary sources: relate to an event, written by someone who experienced or witnessed the event in question by letters, memoirs, journals, speeches, manuscripts, etc.
  • Secondary sources: function to interpret primary sources. Secondary sources interpret to assign value and draw conclusions about the events reported in primary sources.

When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the very basis warrants to know:

(i)How does the author know these details
(ii) Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene?
(iii) Where does this information come from, i.e. personal experience, eyewitness, or reports written by others?

Thus the reliability of an scholar (Wilferd Madelung ) belonging to a belated period (20th century) depending on single source of tenth century does not sense to overrule the very old primary source of 8th century which is not only supported by millions of naqvis/naqavis of the world (particularly the sub-continent) but also evident from the various published (secondary) sources e.g. Gulzar-e-Naqi (Riaz ulnasab), compiled with the help of 38 books annexing 40 pedigrees, by a family member of Ali Naqi Naqvi . The writer belongs to well educated family, his two elder brothers were college principals in colleges of Punjab. Among his brothers Dr. Sohail Bukhari was an authority in Urdu Literature in his time besides being an author for Punjab Text Books for school and colleges.

In view of above discussion the section which provides explanation to the confusion in numbering and names of sons should remain in the main article for research and reference, in terms of EN-WP being the tertiary source. Nannadeem (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Dear Nannadeem. As you could see here, Madelung's article is not based on a single source. Beside do you think someone like you and me could analyse all primary sources about the conditions of Hasan-Muawiya treaty for example to realize which one tell the truth and which one is false. Look at chapter 6 of this book for example to see how a new historian do this job. See also how these information has been used in a wiki article. Regards. Hadi (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

View point (treaty)[edit]

According to general rule, no primary source can be deleted. Acceptance or rejection is discussed in secondary source and comments/explanations provided therein are evaluated by groups and schools. However a primary sources may or may not be a truth e.g. the theory of 04 elements (air, water, fire and sand) is classic primary source, rejected in secondary sources of the modern era. Thus, treaty of Hasan-Muawiya and primary sources relating to the event can be discussed in secondary sources per Doctrine of Repugnancy in view of conflicts and wars between Ali & Muawiya and our stance of silence with respect to events of that time was force meajure. Battle of Karbala is the final proof under retrospective doctrine of history which also validates our strategy for avoidance of bloodshed and provision of guidance with no greed for dominance. In this scinerio a number of events were recorded as primary source, many of these events contradict to each other, which is a bone of contest in our secondary sources.Nannadeem (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Internet meme[edit]

@ user:3hunna I think "Internet Meme" section should not be placed in the page in order to avoid like stories whether retrospective or prospective. Nannadeem (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is not censored. The added section covers a modern controversy related to a major religious figure in an objective and verifiable manner. I am not endorsing or promoting such topics, I am merely describing them. While I understand that Imam Naghi (a.s.) is sacred to you and your fellow Shia, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be edited from any explicit religious viewpoint. Best regards. 3hunna (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)