This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
This is an academic and reliable book which describes Rashidun's era in detail.
An academic brief history Of Islam.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Other issues include the following:
Great job on this article. I am truly impressed with how far it has come.
--
Enzuru 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Ali is also said to be inventor of Jafr. Can anybody find more information on the same Wikion 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
What's your idea about nominating this article after adding some more references.-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Seyyed( t- c) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
NotePrimary sources are just for clarification and in every case they need secondary sources and we've tried to add both of them.
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 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)
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)
[8] was removed.
Done-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:47, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
As I discussed before, I think we should separate historical and theological issues. So I propose to revert 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)
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)
Now please explain why did you revert my edition.-- Seyyed( t- c) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Following quotaion is being removed continously by few users(especially one):
“ | One morning Muhammad went out wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there 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: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying). | ” |
— Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5955 |
All editors are envited to have discussion on this issue.
Thanx
-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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).
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 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:
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.
Please add your signature here to be part of this effort:
# | 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.
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)
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)
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 أكبر Mohammad Adil 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Please remove the photographic images they are highly offensive:} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almortian ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
he is right please the pictures it is offensive to all the muslims of the world.
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)
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)
Text and/or other creative content from Asadullah was copied or moved into Ali with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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
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)
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)
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)
The data that is available about the birth-date of H. Ali are as follows:
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:
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 think we must remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.205.151 ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:
Considering above points please change dates only when you have sufficient proof and not on basis of any date conversion tool.
--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s 09:03, 11 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)
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 Haider t c s 15:23, 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
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.
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)
The drawing of Ali (R) should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranmajeed ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a lot of unreferenced material which needs verifiable sources in "Succession to Muhammad". I moved them to talk age:
-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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)
@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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
121.52.155.4 (
talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
you should not supposed to display picture
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).
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.
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)
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.
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the image depicts Ali(Razhiyallahu Anhu)
Yas.9944 ( talk) 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
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
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.
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) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
lahem mishwi 68.61.18.234 ( talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
This is an academic and reliable book which describes Rashidun's era in detail.
An academic brief history Of Islam.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Other issues include the following:
Great job on this article. I am truly impressed with how far it has come.
--
Enzuru 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Ali is also said to be inventor of Jafr. Can anybody find more information on the same Wikion 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
What's your idea about nominating this article after adding some more references.-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Seyyed( t- c) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
NotePrimary sources are just for clarification and in every case they need secondary sources and we've tried to add both of them.
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 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)
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)
[8] was removed.
Done-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:47, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
As I discussed before, I think we should separate historical and theological issues. So I propose to revert 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)
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)
Now please explain why did you revert my edition.-- Seyyed( t- c) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Following quotaion is being removed continously by few users(especially one):
“ | One morning Muhammad went out wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there 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: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying). | ” |
— Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5955 |
All editors are envited to have discussion on this issue.
Thanx
-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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).
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 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:
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.
Please add your signature here to be part of this effort:
# | 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.
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)
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)
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 أكبر Mohammad Adil 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Please remove the photographic images they are highly offensive:} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almortian ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
he is right please the pictures it is offensive to all the muslims of the world.
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)
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)
Text and/or other creative content from Asadullah was copied or moved into Ali with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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
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)
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)
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)
The data that is available about the birth-date of H. Ali are as follows:
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:
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 think we must remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.205.151 ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:
Considering above points please change dates only when you have sufficient proof and not on basis of any date conversion tool.
--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s 09:03, 11 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)
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 Haider t c s 15:23, 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
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.
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)
The drawing of Ali (R) should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranmajeed ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a lot of unreferenced material which needs verifiable sources in "Succession to Muhammad". I moved them to talk age:
-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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)
@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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
121.52.155.4 (
talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
you should not supposed to display picture
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).
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.
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)
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.
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the image depicts Ali(Razhiyallahu Anhu)
Yas.9944 ( talk) 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
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
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.
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) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
lahem mishwi 68.61.18.234 ( talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)