This page 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. |
Long time after discussion on biased materials in last year, nobody has put forward any idea to improve the article. Thus I moved the tag to the related section.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please verify the authencity of the photograph attached to the article, as no known photgrapher was able to create an image of Hazrat Ali, based on true factual informations, the artist rendering is not correct, hence the picture attributed to Hazat Ali is incorrect, please remove it Factualislam ( talk) 09:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just request the editor of this page to kindly remove the photograph of Hazart Ali R. A
Ahmar Hussain Khan 04:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Introduction: "leading parties of warriors on battles" shouldn't "on" be "in"? 131.174.90.25 ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has 3 core content policies: First, that all information be presented in a 'neutral' way; second, that all major information lead to a reliable source; third, the 'no original research' policy.
The picture defies all 3 core content policies. Putting up a picture of a historical person of Ali's importance is sacrilegious in Sunni Islam. Add to that the fact that the artist who drew him has no way of knowing what Ali would look like. It is an amateur portrait. There is no way of knowing whether or not the facial features were really Ali's or simply what the artist imagines them to have been.
That said, it seems to me that the person putting this picture up (and insisting on keeping it up, despite numerous requests to take it down) is doing so in an attempt to deliberately aggravate certain people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomeyeahyou000 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.)" In short, wikipedia will not and by that matter, SHOULD NOT remove any images just because they are offensive to one group particular group. Doing so would be censorship, not presenting information in a neutral way. If you have a problem with these images being present you can hide the pictures by creating an account and following these instructions: Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_images#Specific_pages. > My suggestion (Not linked to wikipedia at all): Grow a thicker skin. Brough87 ( talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It could very easily be based on evidence, it is quite impossible to say. And anyway what makes a 'historical' piece of art more useful to Wikipedia and Wikipedians than ones that have been created more recently? If that had been created 100 years ago would that make a relevant image for use with this article? Note that we have pictures of Muhammad (on his article) that are artistic depictions and not necessarily based on fact. As well as this, there is artistic calligraphy of various figures in Islam that are not necessarily historic but remain central to Wikipedia's articles and yet there is no problem with that. So long as we make sure that people know that it is not meant to offend and is only a artistic representation of Ali then there should be no problem. But we must not simply remove images because a certain group of people get (needlessly (as far as I'm concerned)) hurt by these pictures. We would not being doing any good if we did so. Brough87 ( talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I have opened a mediation request regarding the use of the current picture in the infobox. If you are interested in participating in the mediation, please sign as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ali. Qwyrxian ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomcat7 ( talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Before I do a full review the following points need to be exhamined:
My Edits have been reverted by a number of editors for replacing the infobox with a new one. The reason for my change is that it will synchronize the appearance of the infobox of Rashidun Caliphate : Abu Bakr, umar, uthman and ali to look the same. And the new one possesses the same info of the previous infobox with some addition. Please help a way out of this situation. Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
To wit:
Your efforts are an attempt to remove the image of Ali which the above-mentioned citation is extracted from - that is, objections to depictions of Ali. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The date of death for the historian al-Tabari is given here as 932, a simple error for '923' (26 or 27 Shawwal 310/16 or 17 February 923). Somebody with editing privileges should change it as a minor correction.
Chmelchert ( talk) 11:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the picture currently used in the article's infobox appropriate, per WP:IMAGE LEAD? Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In what way is it not appropriate? Brough87 ( talk) 23:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please remove the image of Hazrat Ali (Alehe Salaam). It is highly disrespectful to associate an image of the great caliphs and the companions of the Holy Prophet (Sallala ho ale he Wasalam) to any sort of image. Eabdul ( talk) 21:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the points raised at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ali, the fact that image clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:IMAGE LEAD (that is, no other high-quality reference work would use a user-made image without historical provenance in its work), the fact that there has been no policy compliant defense of the image, and the fact that multiple, good-faith editors have recommended its removal, I have removed the image. Should Brough87 attempt to reinsert, I shall seek further remedy. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ali ibn Abi Talib's chronology underwent a major mutation from his first historical biographers. Before the socio-religious institution of ahadith (narrations) was firmly established (circa 820-825 CE), or during the Caliphate of 7th Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun Al-Rashid, the earliest standard Islamic historiographers and hagiographers were primarily the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). With the development of ahadith (narrations) in standard Islam, the muhaditheen (narrators) inexorably eclipsed the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). Since there is virtually no contemporaneous literature surviving from the Umayyad Caliphate (with the exception of Quranic calligraphy), all of the literature of standard Islam are the product of the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE-Iraq; 1261-1517 CE-Egypt). There remains only sparse references to literary sources from Umayyad times of which absolutely no surviving copies exist. Amidst all of this, the first three (3) biographies of Ali ibn Abi Talib were:
Kitab Maqtal Ali (144 AH/761 CE) by Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya bin Said bin Mikhnaf bin Salim al-Azdi al-Ghamidi al-Kufi (died 157 AH/773 CE),
Kitab Maqtal Amir Al-Muminin (183 AH/799 CE) by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sulayman Hashami al-Khazzaz al-Kufi (died 204 AH/819 CE),
and Maqtal Amir ul-Muminin (201 AH/817 CE) by Abu Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad bin Saib Al-Kalbi (died 206 AH/821 CE)
Both Hashami and Al-Kalbi adapted Abu Mikhnaf's very first known hagiography of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hence, they all recorded the same chronology for Ali ibn Abi Talib. The three (3) factors which determined Ali's timeline were his age during the Hijrah of Prophet Muhammad, his age when Prophet Muhammad passed away, and his age when he himself was martyred. The following is a summary:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 16 (during the Hijrah) - Age 27 (when Muhammad passed away) - Age 56 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 16 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
However, with the rise of the institution of ahadith (narrations), the muhaditheen (narrators) almost unanimously felt that Ali's acceptance of the Islamic faith as a cognitive and cognizant nine(9)-year-old preadolescent would appear far better for his historical reputation and image, than him being a three(3)-year-old small child when Muhammad was made aware of his prophethood. It was this primary reason that the muhaditheen (narrators) altered in their oral and written traditions, the date of Ali's birth to 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). Henceforth, Ali ibn Abi Talib was almost unanimously documented by historians, hagiographers, and narrators as having been born in 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). This led to the following:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 9 (when accepting Islam) - Age 22 (during the Hijrah) - Age 33 (when the Holy Prophet passed away) - Age 62 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
The original date of Ali ibn Abi Talib's birth remains almost exclusively recorded in the historiographical archives of his first three (3) biograhphies. As for the birth years of 24 B.H.(599 CE) & 23 B.H.(600 CE), these dates are the product of 19th & 20th Century historians. As with the literary evolution of ahadith (narrations) about Prophet Muhammad, who had over 600,000 ahadith (narrations) attributed to him alone by the time muhaditheen Al-Bukhari sorted out what he considered sahih (authentic), Caliph Ali similarly had countless ahadith (narrations) attributed to him, as well as about him. Amongst some of these, there emerged accounts reporting him to be ages 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and even 16 when he accepted Islam. However, each of these were only the single sources and generally cited as weak by the most renowned standard Islamic scholars. Summarily, there is also the question of Arabic semantics. When any of the Arabic scholars wrote (for example) that Muhammad received prophethood in his 40th year, that meant that he was actually thirty-nine (39) years old, but in his 40th year running. Subsequently, when Caliph Ali was recorded as accepting Islam in his 10th year, that meant that he was actually nine (9) years old, but in his 10th year running. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 05:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | ||
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
I don't know what is going on in the Ali WP page, but there seems to be an info box edit war being engaged. Whatever issues SpidErxD or Ibrahim ebi have regarding how the info box of Ali ibn Abi Talib should appear, I would like to request that both the ORIGINAL Sunnih and Shia birthdates be included. I am tired of repeatedly re-editing all the coding info back in. A formal requisition to a WP Administrator to mediate between all these pro-Shia or pro-Sunni editors who cannot agree on just the basic data in Ali's info box. This is a disgrace to the memory of a revered historical figure of standard Islamic history. Please exercise the due respect this admired personage deserves. I have fixed a damaged text which visibly ruined the section of Ali's Acceptance of Islam. This was clear vandalism. I also would like to point out to SpidErxD that technically kunyas (teknonyms), nisbahs (occupational or geographic nomen), nasabs (patronymics), and laqabs (agnomens) are all classified as titles in the English language. And SpidErxD is correct in adding that Asadullah literally means Lion of God in Arabic. However, haydar (although found in most name dictionaries as meaning "lion"), actually means "braveheart", or an ideal characteristic of a lion. Other such Arabic names which are really defining characteristics of a lion are: hamzah = strong, steadfast; abbas = frowning; etc. Usayd is a young lion (diminutive of a lion). Another Arabic name that has been often mistranslated in English is Mu'awiyah. Various translations such as young dog, young fox, barking female dog, female dog, etc., have been listed. However, Mu'awiyah = Young Jackal. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 20:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The point is that yourself or SpidErxD should end this edit war and let this article page rest in peace, showing a little more respect to the memory of its subject. As for your good faith advice, please re-evaluate the view history as I have made the necessary reverts first before adding my contents. Also, all of my contributions to the article have already been cited, time and again. No offense, but immaturity has little place in an area where academic information is offered for everyone's education. I don't know how old either you or SpidErxD are, but with all due respect, maturity is what separates the men from the boys. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 14:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging words. Btw, have you by chance viewed the Shi'a View Of Ali WP page (?) It seems that SpidErxD has virtually replicated this very article page with only the infobox template being different in appearance. The original article page of the Shi'a View Of Ali was noticeably different in content. Hopefully this edit war will at least cease in this article page. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We discussed the image a number of times, and there was somewhat of a standstill. Then I started an RfC, and only one person supported the image, with no policy based rationale for including, so it was removed. A GA reviewer said that the picture is obviously flawed and its inclusion guarantees a GA fail, attempted to remove it, and one person reinserted. Finally, we went to mediation. The one person who attempted to support inclusion could not answer even the most basic policy questions about the image, and thus the mediator eventually dropped the case, because there's basically nothing to mediate: we cannot include a self-produced image in the infobox, per WP:IMAGE LEAD, as no other tertiary source would ever include such an image. Now, if you can find a free (non-copyrighted) image that has some sort of historical provenance or can be shown to be a widely used image for Ali, then it can be included. Until that time, reinserting the image is purely edit warring, and I will request protection or blocking as needed. This argument has been going on for a long time, and no one has ever come even close to justifying why we would use a random picture made by a random anonymous person with absolutely no evidence that it has any encyclopedic value, and I'm sick of it. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In reference to the third paragraph of the opening section of the article page of Ali ibn Abi Talib [without a cited source] there is a statement regarding Ali taking part in caravan raids from Mecca. Well, this statement is both confusing and confounding. The earliest historiographical sources indicate that the very first battle of the Muslim community (who migrated from Mecca to Madinah, the muhajirun or migrants) and the polytheist Meccans was Ghazwah Aab Al-Badr (Battle of the Wells of the Full Moon).This involved the alleged threat of the Muslim muhajirun seizing the Meccan trade caravans from Mecca to Syria, as the Meccans embargoed their own trade and commerce with their longtime allies, the Yathribites of Madinatul Yathrab (City of Yathrab). However, there seems to be a point of contradiction between ahadith (narrational) sources who upheld the tradition that it was the Muslims who seized the Meccan caravans as retaliation for their own property and possessions being seized by the anti-Muslim Meccans. However, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of the muhajirun (migrants) and the Muslim refugees sent to Christian Ethiopia, were working class people: Craftsmen such as potters, weavers, embroiderers, metalsmiths, etc. Excluding the first Muslim family clans, the Hashimi & Muttalibi, the rest of the Meccan oligarchy were polytheist and anti-Muslim. The Muslims threatened the very economic lifesource of Mecca with their call for the abolishment of all the idols within the shrine of the Kaaba. Obviously, the Meccan oligarchy would be the ones who would be affected the most by such eradication. Furthermore, the majority of the Muslims, being working class craftsmen, re-established their respective crafts when resettled in Madinah; one historical tradition has the Muslim refugees returning to the Hijaz from Ethiopia in 623 CE or four (4) years after their initial departure; while the other tradition has it that they returned seven (7) years later. Either way, there was enough of a substantial Muslim community within Madinah to revive their craftwork and gradually re-establish themselves. This lead to their very own sponsored trading goods caravan to Yemen, as Syria was blocked by the threat of the Yahudi (Judaic Arab) tribes of Khyber settlement, north of Madinah en route to Syria, who were bribed by the Meccans to seize any Muslim sponsored trading goods caravan from Madinah. The Meccans kept close tabs on the social & economic development of the nascent Muslim community of Madinah via Yathribite clans who were still supporters of the Meccans; not all of the City of Yathrab were pleased or supportive of this nascent Muslim community. That very first trading goods caravan of the Muslims in Madinah was to Yemen, avoiding Taif and Mecca. This caravan was pursued by the Meccans and then seized upon its return from Yemen at Aab Al-Badr (Badr Wells), 80 miles (130 km) southwest of Madinah. The objective of this seizure was to draw the Muslims of Madinah into a battle against the Meccans, who desired to prevent the rise of the nascent Muslim movement. Even the Quranic verses (from Surah Anfal, Verses 7-19 and 42-44) describe the following about the Battle of Badr: Verse 18 clearly identifies the infidel Meccans as the crafty planners who drew the Muslims into the Badr confrontation. While the following Verse 19 makes it further clear that it was indeed the Meccan infidels who orchestrated and initiated the attacks on the nascent Muslim community, and not vice versa which is what later narrators & chroniclers of the Caliphate falsely recorded. In Verses 42-44, further elucidation of the Battle of Badr has it that if the Muslims and Meccans were to have made a mutually appointed confrontation, the Muslims would not have showed for such an appointment. The Meccans held the Muslim caravan in between both of their encampments on lower ground to bait the Muslims. Otherwise, the Muslim muhajirun of Madinah would never have taken on the vastly superior Meccans in battle, much less seize any of the Meccan trade caravans which would automatically call for severe retaliation. The 8th Quranic Surah further describes how the force of only 313 Muslims appeared larger than their actual number, while the Meccan force (more than triple their size) appeared smaller in size to the Muslims. However, later narrators and chroniclers (muhaditheen & muarikheen) of the Caliphate propagated that it was the Muslims who initiated campaign raids of the Meccan caravans. This revision was to justify the Caliphate’s establishment following Muhammad’s death and their annexation of lands and peoples. The Caliphate-sponsored narrators & chroniclers always pointed to the caravan raids of the nascent Muslim community to justify their own military expansions and annexation of lands and peoples. It did not occur to these later narrators & chroniclers of the Caliphate that it made no logistical sense for the Muslims, who were a weaker force, to even seize Abu Sufyan’s Meccan caravan 80 miles past Madinah and that much closer to Mecca (!) No common sense or logic there. The earliest historiographical accounts make much more sense in that it was the Muslim caravan that was seized by the Meccans (led by the father-in-law of Abu Sufyan b. Harb, Utbah b. Rabiah, who was the elected Emir of Mecca after the death of the previous Meccan Emir, Shaykh Abu Talib b. Abdul Muttalib; then Abu Sufyan b. Harb became the elected Emir of Mecca after Badr, with nearly all the old Meccan shaykhs slain). Another micro-analytical point regarding the historiography about Ali and his taking part in the supposed raids of Meccan caravans is the following summarization:
In ancient and early medieval Arabian Peninsular culture, autonomous cities of its geographic regions (eg., Mecca, Madinatul Yathrab, Taif, etc., of the Hijaz region) upheld a civil alliance which was the perpetual protection of their mutual caravan & trade routes. The ever-present threat of raiding bedouin tribes and bands of brigands spread across the Arabian Peninsula always existed during ancient and early (pre-standard Islamic) medieval times. Consequently, civil alliances between the autonomous cities within the Arabian Peninsula which were not part of an established sovereign domain were customary. These alliances mutually upheld perpetual reinforcement of the safety of their caravan trade routes from raiding bedouin tribes and brigands. The bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were pastoral nomads who fought each other for territorial rights and raided each other's camps seizing pastoral possessions as booty. Furthermore, the opportunity to raid trade & commerce caravans of the autonomous cities of the region always proved to be an irresistible temptation to these bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. For this reason, the autonomous sedentary tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were perpetually policing their caravan trade routes. This required the ruling or governing families of the autonomous cities to organize and lead military expeditions to track down and punish the offending bedouin tribes and brigands that raided their trade caravans. The resultant military expeditions would track down the offending tribes (via expert trackers & guides) exacting retribution or punitive action. Such punitive action included the slaughter of all able-bodied men (of the offending tribe or subtribe) who offered armed resistance, reclaiming all looted goods (plus the pastoral possessions belonging to the offending tribes or subtribes), taking captive as slaves, the women and children, and leaving the elderly, sick, or debilitated to fend for themselves. Such retribution toward the offending bedouin tribes (or subtribes) effectively discouraged raids of the protected caravan trade routes of the autonomous cities of the Arabian Peninsula during ancient and medieval times. Nonetheless, there was always the occasional raid of the sedentary trade caravans by rogue bedouin tribes (or subtribes) of the Arabian Peninsula which warranted militaristic retaliation by the sedentary Arab tribal settlements. This was the way of life up until the establishment of standard Islam, from the early half of 7th Century CE or during Muhammad's Prophethood (610-632 CE), which established peace, mutual allegiance, and conformity between ALL the bedouin tribes and the autonomous sedentary tribal settlements of the Arabian Peninsula. This was before the establishment of the sovereignty which became the Arab Caliphate that was founded following Muhammad's death in 632 CE.
Summary points--
In ancient & (pre-Islamic) early medieval Arabian Peninsula, trade caravans of newly founded settlements were accompanied by an armed company of escorts to deter the threat of raiding bedouin tribes or brigands. Once the militaristic authority of such newly founded settlements were established, the threat of raids from bedouin tribes and brigands were effectively discouraged (although never eradicated). Such newly founded settlements were encouraged and supported by well-established or long-established neighbouring or surrounding sedentary tribal settlements. The reason for this was that in general, all such sedentary tribal settlements were mutually interdependent in trade and commerce, with the threat coming from raiding bedouin tribes or brigands.
The two (2) basic types of civic trade & commerce caravans of sedentary tribal settlements of the Arabian Peninsula were either private party caravans of an oligarchical family clan (to and from regional destinations), or long distance caravans carrying trading goods of several or all of the families of an oligarchy (to and from long distance or foreign destinations). Either type of caravan was accompanied by a voluntary or elected member (or members) of the oligarchy, who traveled with several hired hands who were all armed for protection.
In ancient & medieval Arabian Peninsula, there existed two (2) basic or distinct social classes: The sedentary Arab tribes of autonomous settlements (unless occupied by a sovereignty), and the bedouin Arab tribes (who were pastoral nomads). Militaristically, the bedouin Arab tribes were little or no match for any of the sedentary Arab tribes due to the superior quality or near state-of-the-art armaments possessed by the sedentary tribes. Not to mention the organized, more sophisticated combat training and discipline possessed by sedentary Arab tribes (who were generally merchant-traders and property owners). For example, bedouin tribal warriors possessed no body armour, battle helmets, or near cutting edge battle gear which the sedentary tribes possessed.
In ancient & medieval times, the fundamental rivalry and competitiveness among bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were for territorial rights. Since all the bedouin tribes were pastoral nomads, they competed for territory which offered good grazing for their livestock, as well as any fresh waterholes such as springs, wells, streams, oases, etc. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone has added a lot of Hadiths based on Original sources such as Hadith collection. While WP:ISLAMOR makes clear in which case and how we can use these sources. There should be a reliable secondary source which endorse the Hadith. Therefor I removed the Hadiths which did not supported by such sources. Seyyed( t- c) 16:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Much of the referenced material is from Wilferd Madelung from the Institute for Ismaili Studies in London who is on the pay roll of Aga Khan who thinks it is his god given right to rule because he is Alis descendent. Biased references. He twists the verses from the Quran like Verse 33:30 to 33:33 which referes to Muhamands wives. They even say "O wives of the Prophet..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL...Almost all of standard Islamic sources are BIASED reference materials, if analyzed from Western-Occidental academic criteria & methodologies. What are you talking about (?) Equally biased are the works of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's ministry of Islamic education who are the propagators of the most outrageous poorly referenced historiographical revisions in modern history (!) The Saudis have poured millions into these efforts. The entire Salafiyya movement is full of outrageous propaganda and total revision of established standard Islamic history. In the South Asian community (for example), Saudi brainwashed and programmed Salafi pimps or bhadwas like medical doctors Zakir Naik & Shabbir Ahmed have utterly disgraced standard academic scholarship to a level which could not have been conceived even a century earlier, sorry to say. The only genuine contemporary standard Islamic scholar from the South Asian community around today is arguably Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadiri. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to further add the following: What exactly is "biased" about Wilferd Madelung (?) You did not elaborate on what this "bias" is about (?) Is it about Ali himself (whether a favourable or unfavourable bias) (?) ... Or is it about Ali's opponents (?) Just stating that the references are biased is too vague and incomprehensible. Do you expect anyone in this Talk Page to have mental telepathy and read your mind (?) So...Please elucidate on what exactly is this "bias" you are referring to (?) The most incomprehensible surprise from the entire Islamic community worldwide is the shocking LACK of uniformity in the understanding of this faith. Muslim scholarship is as divided as Christian scholarship. However, I would like to remind Muslims that the Qur'anic doctrines have not minced words regarding Islamic unity. The main division in Islamic sects are based upon historical interpretations of Islamic figures: Whether some were honest & sincere or opportunistic hypocrites. Ali ibn Abi Talib is virtually unanimously respected by all the Muslim sects. However, there are those who have taken this respect to extreme, fanatical levels. Then there is a recent movement which is attempting to downplay his significance in Islamic history in favour of his traditional opponents. This is propagated not by genuine Sunnihs, but by pseudo-Sunnihs who are really Salafis (aka "Wahhabis"). Summarily, what is most shocking is how the Muslim community, even 1400 years later, is divided on the historicity of Islam. How can Muslims be united when they really don't know their factual history (?) Right here on WP, the sheer level of animosity and hostility of Muslims toward each other is sadly pathetic. The Shias & Salafis despise each other to an extent that is anti-Quranic, to say the least. The Shi'ite self-professed, self-righteous claimed ownership of the Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi (People of the House of Muhammad) is as much an obstacle to Islamic unity, as the Salafi/Wahhabi frenzy or witch-hunt to label anyone as Kuffar (Ingrates) and anything as Takfir (Attributing Ingratitude) which is even remotely perceived as Bidah (Innovation). Neither of these two polaric opposites have earned the right to impose such values upon Islam (as defined in the Qur'an). And btw, from most all the occurrences of the Arabic words Kufr and Kuffar stated in the Qur'an, their contextual definitions are more accurately Ingratitude (for Kufr) and Ingrates (for Kuffar), more so than Disbelief / Unbelief / Infidelity (for Kufr) and Disbelievers / Unbelievers / Infidels (for Kuffar). Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As Flagrantedelicto said earlier "Ali ibn Abi Talib is virtually unanimously respected by all the Muslim sects" There is a lot of material on Ali that is positive in all the books. Therefore rather than concentrating on conflicting accounts, for which no one knows the authenticity of the accounts, like arguing about land disputes like Fadak when there is already a page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadak is futile. Things like land disputes could be discussed on there. It will be best to put things about Ali that are agreed to by every one on the Ali page. He is regarded as a rightly guided Caliph by all the Muslims. He is regarded as one of the people guaranteed Jana by all the Muslims. He is highly regarded for his generosity, helping of the poor, honesty and righteousness by all the Muslims. He is highly regarded for his knowledge. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I have found (and in some cases uploaded) some historical images of Ali, which could be used to illustrate the article. Before adding them to the article, I'm starting this discussion to get the opinion of other editors on the matter of which ones, if any, could improve the article if included.
Here are some of the potentially encyclopedic images (mostly ancient miniatures):
More can be found in the commons category for Ali.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The Islamic and Western dates cited (at least twice in the current article) for the death of Ali, 21 Ramadhān 40 AH = 31 January 661 CE, are inconsistent with each other. According to online Islamic date converters (such as here), 21 Ramadhān 40 AH corresponds with 27 or 28 January 661 CE. AstroLynx ( talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no real inconsistency in the date of Ali's death. Please allow me to enlighten all of you in this regard:
Below are the links to three widely used Gregorian-Julian-Hijri-Persian-Mayan-Hebrew calendar cross-converters:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_tabcal.htm http://tarekmaani.com/old/calindex.htm [4]
21st Ramadhan 40 AH (Anno Hijri) converts to 31 January 661 CE / AD in GREGORIAN Chronology. 21st Ramadhan 40 AH (Anno Hijri) converts to either 27/28 January 661 CE / AD in JULIAN Chronology.
Some Western-Islamic calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING JULIAN CHRONOLOGY. Other Western/Christian-Islamic Lunar calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING GREGORIAN CHRONOLOGY. Some Western-Islamic calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING BOTH GREGORIAN & JULIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Since the Julian chronology is slightly inaccurate in comparison to the Gregorian chronology, it is only LOGICAL to convert Hijri Lunar dates to the GREGORIAN chronology. Hence, Ali ibn Abu Talib has been widely documented by most early Islamic mu'arikheen (chroniclers) as having been wounded on 19th Ramadhan and passing away on 21st Ramadhan. There have been a few (obscure) sources which have recorded that Ali was wounded on either 15th or 17th Ramadhan and passed away on either 17th or 19th Ramadhan. In Archive 6 of the Ali Talk Page, I have written a piece elucidating on Ali's Chronology. Anyone can visit it and read what I have explained. Ali Ibn Abi Talib's first three hagiographies written were by Abu Mikhnaf, Al-Hashami, and Al-Kalbi between 761-817 CE / AD. This trio have UNANIMOUSLY recorded 21st Ramadhan 40 Anno Hijri for the date of Ali's death (with him being wounded on 19th Ramadhan 40 Anno Hijri). The dates of 17th or 19th Ramadhan came about much later from HADITH sources, not TARIKH sources of the early Abbasid Caliphate (750-833 CE).
For the sake of verifiability & accessibility, Fourmilab Calendar Converter and Tarek's Hijri-Gregorian Calendar Converter are the most convenient and accurate ones to utilize. I have already provided URL links to both of them above. Please feel free to check them out and if anyone has any questions on them please don't hesitate to communicate with me right here on the Ali Talk Page. I will be more than glad to assist in any way I can. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 17:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you that Islamic events will seriously be complicated when correlating to Western dates. Islamic events were certainly not as diligently recorded in Western calendar by occidental historians during medieval times, if recorded at all. Muslim historians didn't even begin documenting their OWN historiography until over a hundred years after Prophet Muhammad's death. Besides, the Gregorian calendar wasn't even adopted by England and America until 1752. And subsequently, if anyone refers to any encyclopedia worldwide regarding the chronologies of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, etc., the GREGORIAN birthdates are listed, not the Julian birthdates. Washington's birthday is listed as 22 February [Gregorian] in the civil calendar, not 11 February [Julian]. Same thing with the Russian historical figures who were born before 1918 (when Russia finally switched to the Gregorian calendar). From Tzar Nicholas I to Lenin or Stalin. Nicholas I's 25 June Julian birthday has been revised to 6 July, as Lenin's 10 April birth has since been revised to 22 April. So stating that no historian revises to Gregorian dates from Julian dates is an incorrect statement, as just about every encyclopedia in the world that has listed birthdates and certain events in the lives of historical figures of the United States of America and Russia. Besides, just view all the countries of the Western world which DID NOT adopt the Gregorian reform in 1582. Sweden didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1753, while Denmark adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1700. Please refer to URL of a WP article on this subject below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
Summarily, if all the various encyclopedia's of the world have listed the Gregorian birth dates (and death dates) of Russians Tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I (as well as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky), along with Franklin, Washington, Adams, John Hancock, etc., then there should be no serious issue with listing any of the medieval Islamic dates in Gregorian chronology. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. There is one point to consider though: The Julian conversions have a much broader range of variation in their conversion from the Lunar Hijri calendar than the Gregorian conversion. For example, if you convert 21st Ramadhan 40 Hijri to the Julian date, you will get 24th / 25th / 26th / 27th / 28th January...All depending on which calendar converter one is using. In Gregorian conversion, the level of accuracy, consistency, and concurrence is far greater (barely being off by a day, at the most) when using different converters. This should be taken into consideration as well. Also, I am well aware of Islamic-Western conversion tables from back in the old days when only printed sources were available...I have been consulting them for over 50 years now. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What is your problem (?) Do you want to start an unnecessary argument here on the Ali Talk Page (?) Why don't you just edit in Gregorian date and that is that. The readers won't have their daily lives uprooted now that it has been determined that 21st Ramadhan converts to 27 or 28 Jan. (Julian) or 31 Jan. (Gregorian). You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The respected WP editor Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with all of this as you seem to. Did you access and try out the date converters (?) First of all, you are incorrect in stating that for each Julian date, there will be an equally unique matching Gregorian date, even though it makes logical sense that it should be so. However, surprisingly, it isn't the case. I have personally experimented with the various calendar converters in this regard to come to this determination. Why don't you use the URL links provided by me and see what you come up with in the Julian and Gregorian conversions, instead of engaging in an unproductive debate. Don't try and explain to me about "civil" and "astronomical", please. I know well enough about it. Besides, the Hijri calendar is based on terrestrial lunar sightings of the unaided human eye. Even today, around the globe, there is variance when any of the Eid or Hijri lunar months commence or end. The Earth's Moon (Luna) appears to move completely around the celestial sphere once in about 27.3 days as observed from the Earth. This is called a sidereal month, and reflects the corresponding orbital period of 27.3 days. However, Luna takes 29.5 days to return to the same point on the celestial sphere as referenced to the Sun because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun; this is called a synodic month (Lunar phases as observed from the Earth are correlated with the synodic month). Hence, the Hijri lunar month can only be either 29 or 30 days in length from terrestrial sighting.
Here are some more URLs to Islamic calendar converters:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hijri.htm
http://www.oriold.uzh.ch/static/hegira.html
http://www.islamicity.com/PrayerTimes/hijriconverter1aPartner.htm
http://www.rabiah.com/convert/
http://www.linktoislam.net/islamic_calendar/date_conversion.aspx
http://www.iranchamber.com/calendar/converter/iranian_calendar_converter.php
http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/Daysanddates/hijridate.htm
http://www.arabtranslators.org/atn_calendar/atn_calendar.htm
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_tabcal.htm
http://tarekmaani.com/old/calindex.htm [5]
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 13:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you be a person of your word and stick by what you stated earlier and not continue this discussion any further:
There is of course no problem if you insist in presenting the Gregorian date but then at least make this clear so that the reader knows - now the reader is left in the dark. AstroLynx (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You stated you had no problem if I insisted...Consequently, add an abbreviation of NS (New Style) or GRE (Gregorian) to no longer leave readers in the dark... Or if you like, I shall. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
lol I assume it is the one which has the triplicity of Habash al-Hasib, Fatimid, and the one other...After reading over two dozen different English-language bios on Ali ibn Abi Talib, I noticed that the Julian dates of the majority of them varied in their conversion from the Hijri chronology: One listed 24th Jan, another 25th Jan, yet others 26th Jan, 27th Jan, and 28th Jan. The Gregorian conversion to 31st Jan, I found, remained consistent in Fourmilab, Tarek Maani, etc., etc., so I opted for the N.S. conversions for this sake. If other WP editors unanimously insist upon any one particular Julian date, then I'll settle with either 27th or 28th Jan, I suppose. Take care. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Postscripted follow-up:
In reviewing the WP policy on Gregorian-Julian chronology usage, it does not specifically state that early Islamic dates MUST use Julian date conversion. It states that Julian dates MAY be given. The WP policy copy-pasted below further states that the dates prior to 1582 AD / CE should not be converted to Gregorian. However, it does not specifically state that this must be so for dates of other calendar systems which are converted to Julio-Gregorian dates. Especially, early Islamic dates prior to 1582 CE. It is then safe to assume that the WP guideline is referring to records and chronicles of Western/Occidental history. Not the Julio-Gregorian conversion of records and chronicles of Eastern/Oriental history. The WP guideline further states, for example, that the ancient Egyptian or Mesopotamian conversion to either Julian or Gregorian chronology is often debatable...To follow the consensus of RS (reliable sources), not specifically RSS (reliable secondary sources), or indicate their divergence.
Julian and Gregorian calendars
See also: Old Style and New Style dates
Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars. Where a calendar other than the Julian or Gregorian is used, this must be clear to readers.
Current events are given in the Gregorian calendar.
Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January (see below for more details).
Dates for Roman history before 45 BC are given in the Roman calendar, which was neither Julian nor Gregorian. When (rarely) the Julian equivalent is certain, it may be included.
The Julian or Gregorian equivalent of dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history is often debatable. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence.
Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see the Gregorian calendar article).
The dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote.
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ali's Chronology
Ali ibn Abi Talib's chronology underwent a major mutation from his first historical biographers. Before the socio-religious institution of ahadith (narrations) was firmly established (circa 820-825 CE), or during the Caliphate of 7th Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun Al-Rashid, the earliest standard Islamic historiographers and hagiographers were primarily the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). With the development of ahadith (narrations) in standard Islam, the muhaditheen (narrators) inexorably eclipsed the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). Since there is virtually no contemporaneous literature surviving from the Umayyad Caliphate (with the exception of Quranic calligraphy), all of the literature of standard Islam are the product of the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE-Iraq; 1261-1517 CE-Egypt). There remains only sparse references to literary sources from Umayyad times of which absolutely no surviving copies exist. Amidst all of this, the first three (3) biographies of Ali ibn Abi Talib were:
Kitab Maqtal Ali (144 AH/761 CE) by Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya bin Said bin Mikhnaf bin Salim al-Azdi al-Ghamidi al-Kufi (died 157 AH/773 CE),
Kitab Maqtal Amir Al-Muminin (183 AH/799 CE) by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sulayman Hashami al-Khazzaz al-Kufi (died 204 AH/819 CE),
and Maqtal Amir ul-Muminin (201 AH/817 CE) by Abu Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad bin Saib Al-Kalbi (died 206 AH/821 CE)
Both Hashami and Al-Kalbi adapted Abu Mikhnaf's very first known hagiography of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hence, they all recorded the same chronology for Ali ibn Abi Talib. The three (3) factors which determined Ali's timeline were his age during the Hijrah of Prophet Muhammad, his age when Prophet Muhammad passed away, and his age when he himself was martyred. The following is a summary:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 16 (during the Hijrah) - Age 27 (when Muhammad passed away) - Age 56 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 16 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
However, with the rise of the institution of ahadith (narrations), the muhaditheen (narrators) almost unanimously felt that Ali's acceptance of the Islamic faith as a cognitive and cognizant nine(9)-year-old preadolescent would appear far better for his historical reputation and image, than him being a three(3)-year-old small child when Muhammad was made aware of his prophethood. It was this primary reason that the muhaditheen (narrators) altered in their oral and written traditions, the date of Ali's birth to 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). Henceforth, Ali ibn Abi Talib was almost unanimously documented by historians, hagiographers, and narrators as having been born in 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). This led to the following:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 9 (when accepting Islam) - Age 22 (during the Hijrah) - Age 33 (when the Holy Prophet passed away) - Age 62 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
The original date of Ali ibn Abi Talib's birth remains almost exclusively recorded in the historiographical archives of his first three (3) biograhphies. As for the birth years of 24 B.H.(599 CE) & 23 B.H.(600 CE), these dates are the product of 19th & 20th Century historians. As with the literary evolution of ahadith (narrations) about Prophet Muhammad, who had over 600,000 ahadith (narrations) attributed to him alone by the time muhaditheen Al-Bukhari sorted out what he considered sahih (authentic), Caliph Ali similarly had countless ahadith (narrations) attributed to him, as well as about him. Amongst some of these, there emerged accounts reporting him to be ages 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and even 16 when he accepted Islam. However, each of these were only the single sources and generally cited as weak by the most renowned standard Islamic scholars. Summarily, there is also the question of Arabic semantics. When any of the Arabic scholars wrote (for example) that Muhammad received prophethood in his 40th year, that meant that he was actually thirty-nine (39) years old, but in his 40th year running. Subsequently, when Caliph Ali was recorded as accepting Islam in his 10th year, that meant that he was actually nine (9) years old, but in his 10th year running. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagrantedelicto ( talk • contribs)
Several years ago, in 2006, we reached consensus on this section. (see: Talk:Ali/Ghadir Khumm). However, one of the new wikipedians added some new information:
" 46.3 Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have left two things with you. As long as you hold fast to them, you will not go astray. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet." [7]
"I leave for you the Quran alone you shall uphold it. Muslim 15/19, nu 1218; ibn Majah 25/84, Abu dawud 11/56..
Unfortunately, he used primary sources which can not be used based on WP:ISLAMOR unless there is another reliable secondary source verifies the issue. This approach is based on WP:OR and WP:V policies. However, when I studies the sources, I found new facts which help to improve this section. As Encyclopedia of Islam clarifies [9] Hadith of the pond of Khumm is not just narrated by Shias but some reliable Sunni works such as Musnad Ibn Hanbal contains the Hadith. For further information please refer to "The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam" p:34-38. [10]-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is very western bias. I find it as lacking credibility. And there are historical error (might be caused by wester bias/misinterpretation). Some one needs to clean it up and add more info from islamic sources not western sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos ( talk • contribs)
Should we mention his naming. The fact he was the first person called Ali, and that his name is the root of Allai? Or that his mother want to call him Asad, but his father wanted to call him Zayd-- 88.111.113.104 ( talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It was Abu Bakr, who dispatched Ali to participate during the Ridda wars against the forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet in July 632.
This discredits some Shea sources that claim, Ali did not give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until some time after the death of his wife, Fatimah in the year 633. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimughal69 ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In the third week of July 632, Abu Bakr scraped together an army mainly from the Banu Hashim (the clan of the prophet Muhammad). The army had stalwarts like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talha ibn Ubaidullah and Zubair ibn al-Awam, each of them was appointed as commander of one-third of the newly organised force. Together they fought during the Battle of Zhu Qissa against the forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet and his apostates as they prepared to launch an attack on Medina during the Ridda wars. The apostates were defeated during their advancements and were driven back to Zhu Hussa. [2] [3] [4] Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 ( talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
In the third week of July 632, Abu Bakr scraped together an army mainly from the Banu Hashim (the clan of the prophet Muhammad) to defend Medina from an eminent invasion by the apostate forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet. The army had stalwarts like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talha ibn Ubaidullah and Zubair ibn al-Awam each of them was appointed as commander of one-third of the newly organised force, they had their roles during the Ridda Wars but however did not face any combat scenarios. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Muhammad was a self-proclaimed prophet aswell, it was just HIS followers that won and got to write history. Muhammad is not greater than Tulayha in this non-Muslims eyes, both are self-proclaimed prophets. The term is definitely not neutral. 107.222.205.242 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The correction made prior to the re-correction by Edward321 concerning the caliphate of Muwaiyah, is valid. Muwaiyah's caliphate was not recognised by a majority of the Sunni population as a whole and completely rejected by the Shi'tes. Therefore, the Muwaian "Regime" was the first Umayyad Caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed.ahsan3 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It is historically more accurate to consider Muwaiyah's reign as being the first Umayyad caliphate rather than the fifth Sunni. A substantial proportion of the Sunni community rejected Muwaiyah's caliphate and he completely rejected by the Shi'tes. Therefore, it would be suitable to revert the change made by Edward321 concerning the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed.ahsan3 ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ali did not try to create a dynasty, he had many sons and treated them all equally any image that ignores the importance of his other sons is offensive to Muslim historians and devout Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.84.155 ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
S.M.A.A.R ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the image from this article's infobox. The image in question is the calligraphic representation of Ali's name. SMAAR claims that the image violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, but he has not stated why. I invite him to explain his rationale before removing the image again. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is, for the most part, well-written and referenced though it is quite long. There are already multiple articles for perspectives on Ali, including Shia view of Ali, Non-Muslim view of Ali and Sunni view of Ali. Those topics are definitely notable though the content of the second one needs work as it is basically a quote farm. Some of the information here is not contained in those articles; is there a way to merge some content from here into those articles while retaining the links here in this article to those main articles? That could ease up on length and redundancy. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section Ali and the Rashidun Caliphs
"The order of this mus'haf differed from that which was gathered later during the Uthmanic era. This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them"
"This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them"
This is not true as all the people at that time memorized the Quran in the order of revelation so to reject the Quran arranged in the Order Of Revelation will go against basic logic!
202.153.47.60 ( talk) 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Johnleeds1 has made an edition in the article which had several problems and I reverted most of it due to the following reasons:
I am ready to discuss on the issue here.-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Mehdi ghaed added something about orientalists' approach towards Ghadir Khom: also some scholars such as Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi believes that orientalists explain the Ghadir Khum event regerardless to shiitte views rather that they interpret the event according to Sunni attitudes.
Let's suppose this claim is correct. There are some criteria in wikipedia for adding information to the article.
Finally, I think this claim can not be added to the article unless the above criteria are satisfied.-- Seyyed( t- c) 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Muhammad Rizvi's viewpoint as as famous scholar shiite concerned with second criteria , namely:
Since that Shiite could be thought of as a significant minority . Sayyed mummad Rizvi is the Imam of Shiah community of British Columbia. According to common sense, the shia community of British Colombia are prominent adherents.
Secondly, though I refer to a website as reliable source but must be mentioned that the source is both as a book compiled in that site and also is a part of book as below: Shī‘ism Imāmate & Wilāyat. Canada: Al-Ma‘ārif Books. 1999. ISBN 0-920675-11-5 Therefore according to the rule: 1. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. There is no problem about source. I think that the editor misinterprets the above law. Mehdi ghaed ( talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Sayyid serves as a crucial figure in the building of bridges with other faiths and surrounding communities. These accomplishments have been due to, firstly, his numerous written works promoting peace and understanding, and, secondly, his continued active participation in inter-faith and inter-community dialogues". because of this I dint think it is needed to mention further sources. Mehdi ghaed ( talk) 16:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
i cant believe what i read ! , the article mostly displays the Shi'e view only using Shi'e sources as Muslims sources , although Shia is only 10% of Muslims ! , this is NOT acceptable . the responsible of this Sabotage is Sa.vakilian ( talk · contribs) . i hope somebody can fix this problem , because this article in recent case is historically not acceptable , it only Reflects the Shie's view although it is Different from neutral sources and the majority Muslems (Sunni) sources . محمد الباحوث ( talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Category:Assassinated religious leaders
84.255.151.48 ( talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I am slightly concerned about this page. There seems to be an element of bias in the article. It has a strong leaning towards shia opinions, in fact it reads like a sectarian opinion piece. I shall give my reason at the end. I was under the impression that articles must be neutral and meet consensus. Therefore would it not be more appropriate to have a an articles on Ali that is agreed upon by concensus and then have seperate articles for Shia, Sunni, Alawi and Sufi views on him. Would it also be possible for someone to specifically look at the references. There are a lot of references to 2 canonical hadith books; Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. These are primary textbooks which seem to have been used maliciously to put a particular point of view across. I apologise beforehand if I am mistaken in my observation. I do not mean to be rude but this is an obvious strategy used on debating forums using sources in such a way. Since this is not a discussion forum, could I suggest that, like the limits on use of Quran as reference, the same criteria apply to these texts as well. Surely it would be more useful to use the most authoritative commentaries on the hadith books like the two Fath Al Bari's or any other that you can find.
Regarding the other reason for the inherent bias, there is no mention of the role of Abu Bakr and Aisha in making Ali's marriage to Fatimah successful. I guess this would make the 'opinion piece' further down the article less favourable. If sources are needed they are: Jila ul Ayun Bihar al Anwar Manaqib Kashaful Ghumma Ibn Maja Amali by Atusi
I am not asking for removal of the content but just that it be moved into another side article (I don't know what the correct terms for this is yet) and the general tone of the article should be more neutral.
I am hoping to learn so welcome any constructive criticism, especially any grave errors I have made. Mbcap ( talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I just edited the introduction but forgot to put in an edit summary. I changed the line about his birth in the Kaaba to make it more neutral. Mbcap ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC) @ Mbcap, Thank for your attention and suggestions. I review your points one by one.
Thank for your polite and positive approach to make the article more neutral. Let's know your suggestions in details. -- Seyyed( t- c) 05:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Should we make the introduction shorter?-- 88.111.129.157 ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The current title "Ali" has been stable for a long time. Please do not make undiscussed moves. Khestwol ( talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Musa Raza ( talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@
Musa Raza:, Excuse me, I have confused. I can not find the reviewer's comments! There is a
process for the promotion which may not be done correctly!--
Seyyed(
t-
c)
21:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Delisted: This article was not properly reviewed for GA. See discussion at Wikipedia:Good article help#Questionable review. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I was reading the article, and as a person not very knowledgeable in Islamic history, I can say that the part on the First Fitna is totally confusing. It first says that "They [the rebels] wanted Ali to arrest Uthman ibn Affan's killer and not to fight Muawiyah I", and four lines below it says that "the rebels maintained that Uthman had been justly killed, for not governing according to Quran and Sunnah, hence no vengeance was to be invoked". Could you please clarify? Thanks. -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This about great caliph of Muslimeen and you know islam make up mostly people of Haq from the ahlul sunnah. Why have Rafida hijack page. I tell to you to make fair the page and not propaganda. Shukran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.138.76 ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am Sunni, a Maliki, and let's be truthful. Both Sunnis and Shia engage in propaganda. Each side says their side is "Haq" and they are the "people of Haq" - the Shia could just as easily say "Why have Nasibis hijack page" because to them, we Sunnis are "Nawasib". Just as to some Sunnis they are "Rawafid" - so while each of you two bicker and blindly follow your Shuyukh or Marjas or whatever, what happens is that for integrity since we Muslims are too stupid to have any intellectual honesty over our history, other people who are more responsible end up having to lock and edit sensitive Wikipedia pages. The irony is that many of the contentious things the rank and file Sunnis call lies, are things some of our own Ahl ul-Sunnah Ulama have authenticated. The few rank and file Sunnis savvy or erudite enough to actually know our own histories, as opposed to the khurafat some khateeb or Molvi tells us, then find contorted explanations to make them fit into our received version of history. The Shia are just as bad, actually. But that's the thing: just as bad, not worse. The only half sane ones are the Zaydis, and it's probably the same with the Sunnis, a few half sane (or half honest) ones. All lies will be exposed with time, let's hope our own hearts are not too complicit in them when that time comes.. 208.65.192.1 ( talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Shia believe Ghadire Khumm is an important and accurate document about caliphate of Ali. In the lead of the article, just describe about Sunni view in this subject. It is better that maintain both Shia and Sunni's view about caliphate of Ali. Saff V. ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Saff V.: Thank you; Please write your prosal here to discuss about it?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: The Verse of Wilayah is a new article about the giving of alms (zakat) to the poor by Ali while he was bowing (in rukūʿ) during prayer (salat). The article had DYK on 13 October in the main page. For this reason, I added the hook of DYK in the lead of Ali article. Saff V. ( talk) 09:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A user keeps insisting we should have a long section of quotes about Ali. The entire section looks very much WP:UNDUE. What criteria were used to pick these quotes in particular? Are these individuals experts on Ali? Unfortunately, the impression is that apart from one single token critical view, the entire section is just cherrypicked to find positive quotes about Ali. As such, it seems to violate WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. As the user insists on reverting, I'm tagging the article until this issue is settled. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations")? That is a policy. LjL ( talk) 14:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @ HyperGaruda:, Please discuss before making major changes in the article. Thanks.-- Seyyed( t- c) 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In Muslim culture,
Ali is respected for his courage, knowledge, belief, honesty, unbending devotion to Islam, deep loyalty to Muhammad, equal treatment of all Muslims and generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies, and therefore is central to mystical traditions in Islam such as Sufism. Ali retains his stature as an authority on Quranic exegesis, Islamic jurisprudence and religious thought.[6] Ali holds a high position in almost all Sufi orders which trace their lineage through him to Muhammad. Ali's influence has been important throughout Islamic history. [7] Sunni and Shia scholars agree that the verse of Wilayah was narrated in honour of Ali, but there are differing interpretations of wilayah and the Imamate. [8] The Sunni scholars believe that the verse is about Ali but does not recognise him as an Imam while, in the Shia Muslim view, Ali had been chosen by God as successor of Muhammad. [9]
References
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ali is revered among various Sunni and Shi'a denominations on a political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic level.<ref>Brill.....</ref>to the beginning of part 3 of the lead. Not sure if mentioning Kharijites here is a good idea; they do not exist anymore. Besides, they are already mentioned as having assassinated Ali in the second part of the lead. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Due to the fact that this is a long discussion, I make a new section and ask all of these guys to help us to reach consensus about the lead.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a brief of the former discussion for those who want to participate in it including User:HyperGaruda, Jeppiz, Tivanir2, DeCausa, Human10.0, Amatulić, Toddy1, user:MezzoMezzo and user:Mhhossein:
Following an edit [18] by User:HyperGaruda on the lead of the article and removing the last paragraph, we discussed to find something to replace it. I suggested to use several encyclopedia:
User:HyperGaruda told: I like that final (Brill) formulation: it's concise, factual, not very POV and it nicely sums up how the various denominations view Ali. Britannica's text seems more like a warning about the sources and Iranica's text is rather tedious (=not concise) to read. Perhaps we can add something like Ali is revered among various Sunni and Shi'a denominations on a political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic level.<ref>Brill.....</ref>
to the beginning of part 3 of the lead. Not sure if mentioning Kharijites here is a good idea; they do not exist anymore. Besides, they are already mentioned as having assassinated Ali in the second part of the lead.
My suggestion is: "Ali fulfils a number of political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic roles within the various expressions of both Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam. The sources have been described him more than any other Muslim except Muhammad. Although, he is the issue of polemical sectarian historiography, however, the sources agree that he was a profoundly religious man, devoted to the cause of Islam and the rule of justice in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna."
Thank for your participation to reach consensus. -- Seyyed( t- c) 08:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically.<ref>Brill.....</ref> The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim and a just ruler.<ref>Iranica.....</ref>- HyperGaruda ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically.<ref>Brill.....</ref> The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna.<ref>Iranica.....</ref>-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically. The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna. While Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), Shi'as regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad due to Muhammad's statements in Ghadir Khumm. Shi'as also view Ali and his descendants (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This disagreement split the Ummah (Muslim community) into the Sunni and Shi'i branches.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 18:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@
HyperGaruda Can I make a slight change to your text to put some NPOV? @
Human10.0 and
Sa.vakilian: can also give their input about my change. Ty
Toddy1 for pinging me, my watchlist seems to have gone on the fritz, maybe I purged it by accident. Anyway here is my version Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically. The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah. While Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided) Caliphs, Shi'as regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad due to their interpretation of Muhammad's statements in Ghadir Khumm. Shi'as also hold the view that the rightful successors to Muhammad were from Ali's descendants(all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt). This disagreement split the Ummah (Muslim community) into the Sunni and Shi'i branches.
My reasons for this change are
Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali and his descendants (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This gives the subtle impression that "All" of Ali's descendants are the successors, which of course is not right according to Shiites or Sunnis. Take for example the sentences. "Ahmad and his friends are Superheroes". The meaning will be that "Ahmad" and "All of his friends" are "Superheroes". Same analogy here. I changed it to say "were from Ali's descendants". which means that every Imam MUST be from Ali's line. Consider the same example I gave and when we change it to. "All Superheroes are Ahmad's friends". This will mean that Ahmad has many friends, some of them are superheroes, and some of them are not, however to be a super hero you must be Ahmad's friend. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Shias also believe that Ali and the other Shia Imams (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) are the rightful successors to Muhammad.I prefer his wording because it mentions how Ali too is a member of the Ahl al-Bayt, which I feel is important because only specific family members of Muhammad are part of the Ahl al-Bayt, and because it also avoids giving the incorrect impression that Shias consider all of Ali's descendants as rightful successors to Muhammad rather than just certain male descendants of Muhammad through Ali and Fatima. — Human10.0 ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: User:HyperGaruda's suggestion is giving proper weight to your sources and thank you both for this solution. Is it going to replace the third paragraph? Btw, how can we clarify the point that "not all of Ali's descendants were Imams"? Mhhossein ( talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Shias also believe that Ali and the other Shia Imams (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) are the rightful successors to Muhammad.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 17:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: I'd like mention WP:INFOBOXREF. Since an infobox is essentially a summary, all information there should be in the main text too. The references should thus be positioned at the counterpart sections in the main text and preferably not in the infobox. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This IP recently made this edit (among others) to the article. As you can see he listed Muhammad as a predecessor of Ali in Shiism. I think the IP has a point: Shias do believe that Muhammad was the source of divine guidance for humanity and that after Muhammad's death, Ali became the source of divine guidance (in other words, that Muhammad was a predecessor to Ali in giving people divine guidance). However, an important distinction needs to be made i.e., Shias believe Muhammad was the final prophet of Allah (who acted as the source of divine guidance) and that Ali was not a prophet, but an Imam (who became the source of divine guidance after Muhammad's death). This is important info as a prophet has higher status in Islam than an Imam, and believing Muhammad was the final prophet of Allah is an integral belief in Shiism and Sunnism. I feel the IP's edit (if it is allowed to stay in its current form) may give the incorrect impression to lay readers that Shias believe Muhammad and Ali were both prophets, with one being succeeded by the other. I feel the infobox needs to be edited in a way that clarifies how Ali is not seen as a prophet who succeeded Muhammad, but as an Imam in Shiism.
I know the body of the article will make Ali's actual role in Shia teaching quite clear but I feel the info in the infobox needs to be as clear and "unable to be misunderstood" as possible so that readers who do not care to read the entire article do not misunderstand anything. Thoughts?
(Clarification: When I say "the source of divine guidance", I do not mean to say that Muhammad or Ali are divine in Islam. I mean to say that they are considered channels through which the guidance of Allah, the sole divinity in Islam, was delivered to people). — Human10.0 ( talk) 23:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For a long time birth place of Ali has been edited and reverted. Cannot the matter be resolved at talk page? Nannadeem ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for interruption, you say Ali was born in Kabba, others say he was born in Mecca. Actually Kabba is in Mecca. What is the problem between Mecca and Kabba for mentioning his place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.34.232 ( talk) 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Edward321. All extra information in the page are referred to valid sources. If there is any problem with this comprehensive editing, let's discuss to improve this page. I wrote this message in your page too. But until now there is no feedback from you, just reverting the article! Mahda133 ( talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you have a misgiving in my edits. According to the goal of Wikipedia, I really try to improve the pages by studying about them. I don’t copy any text from other pages of Wikipedia. I read all sources which I referred. Moreover, I use the templates because these are standard forms of Wikipedia for adding complete information for a reference. If there is another way for importing the features of the references, please guide me. In addition, I listed my references and the authors from Arabic to English:
النيسابوري, أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله الحاكم .معرفة علوم الحديث Abu Abd-Allah Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah al-Hakim al-Nishapuri, Ma`rifat Anwâ` `Ulûm al-Hadîth ("Knowledge of the Different Types of the Hadîth Sciences")
السيوطي, جلال الدين أبو الفضل عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر. تاریخ الخلفاء Abū al-Faḍl ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn al-Khuḍayrī al-Suyūṭī, History of the Caliphs (Arabic: , translit. Tarikh al-khulafa)
الهيثمي, ابوالعباس أحمد بن محمد بن علي ابن حجر.الصواعق المحرقة علي أهل الرفض والضلال
Shibab al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Hajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī al-Ansārī, al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah
ابن عبد البر. الدرر Yusuf ibn Abdallah ibn Mohammed ibn Abd al-Barr, Abu Umar al-Namari al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maliki, Al-Maghâzî ("The Battles")
ابن أثير الجزري, عز الدين بن الأثير أبي الحسن علي بن محمد. أسد الغابة في معرفة الصحابة
Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ash-Shaybani, Usd al-ghābah fi ma‘rifat al-ṣaḥābah: "The Lions of the Forest and the knowledge about the Companions"
إبن أبيالحديد المدائني المعتزلي, ابوحامد عز الدين بن هبة الله بن محمد بن محمد. شرح نهج البلاغة
‘Izz al-Dīn ‘Abu Hamīd ‘Abd al-Hamīd bin Hībat-Allah ibn Abi al-Hadīd al Mutazilī al-Mada'ini, Comments on the Peak of Eloquence
أبو الفداء عماد الدين إسماعيل بن علي. المختصر في أخبار البشر
Abu al-Fida, The Concise History of Humanity or Chronicles
عسقلانی, ابن حجر. الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة Al-Haafidh Shihabuddin Abu'l-Fadl Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad, al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba
الصنعاني, محمد بن إسماعيل الأمير. سبل السلام شرح بلوغ المرام من أدلة الأحكام Sanani, Muhammad ibn Ismail, Subul al-salam sharh Bulugh al-maram min jam ' adillat al-ahkam
ملا علي القاري, نور الدين أبو الحسن علي بن سلطان محمد الهروي. مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح
Mulla Ali al-Qari, MirghatAlmafatih
العكري الحنبلي, عبد الحي بن أحمد بن محمد.شذرات الذهب في أخبار من ذهب
IBN ALIMAD ALHANBALI, SHAZARAT ALTHAHAB FI AKHBAR MAN THAHAB MAA ALFAHARIS
الدولابي, الإمام الحافظ ابوبشر محمد بن أحمد بن حماد. الذرية الطاهرة النبوية Al Dulabi, Al’ zorriato Taherah
(السيوطي, جلال الدين أبو الفضل عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر. جامع الاحاديث (الجامع الصغير وزوائده والجامع الكبير
Abū al-Faḍl ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn al-Khuḍayrī al-Suyūṭī, Al-Jaami' al-Saghir
ابن عساكر الدمشقي الشافعي, أبي القاسم علي بن الحسن إبن هبة الله بن عبد الله،.تاريخ مدينة دمشق وذكر فضلها وتسمية من حلها من الأماثل Ibn Asakir, History of Damascus
الطبراني, ابوالقاسم سليمان بن أحمد بن أيوب.المعجم الكبير Abu al-Qasim Sulaiman ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr
ابن أبي شيبة الكوفي, ابوبكر عبد الله بن محمد.الكتاب المصنف في الأحاديث والآثار Ibn Abi Shaybah al-Kufi, Abu Bakr, Kitab al-Musannaf
الدارقطني البغدادي, ابوالحسن علي بن عمر. العلل الواردة في الأحاديث النبوية
Dāraquṭnī, ‘Alī ibn ‘Umar, Ilal al-wāridah fī al-aḥādīth al-Nabawīyah
الشيباني, ابوعبد الله أحمد بن حنبل. فضائل الصحابة
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥanbal Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shaybānī, al-Fada'il Sahaba
الطبری، ذخائر العقبى في مناقب ذوي القربى Abi Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, zakhayeol oghba fi managhebe zavel ghorba
أبي بكر أحمد بن موسى ابن مردويه الأصفهاني ،مناقب علي بن أبي طالب (ع) وما نزل من القرآن في علي (ع) Ibn Marduyeh, Managhebe Ali ibn abi taleb va ma nazala menal ghoran fi Ali
الحاكم الحسكاني، شواهد التنزيل لقواعد التفضيل Al-hakim Al-haskani, Shavahedo tanzil le ghavaedo tafzil
جوزی، تذکره خواص بذکر خصائص الائمه Jouzi, Tazkeratol khavas be zekre khasaesol aemeh
حرانی، ابن تیمیه، مِنهاجُ السّنّة النَبَویّة فی نَقضِ الشّیعة و القَدَریّة
Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah
According to your point of view, if there is no problem, I will add the references in English to the article. Mahda133 ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This information is presented to editors(@ Toddy1, @ Jeppiz, @ Edward321 and any other) for general acceptance. If there is no disagreement, I will edit the page. According to the different sources [1] all early Sunni scholars agree on Ali being the first person converting into Islam. Some Sunni scholars have even emphasized that this theory is agreed upon by the majority of all scholars.[2]
[1] al-Suyūṭī, "History of the Caliphs" (Arabic: , translit. Tarikh al-khulafa)
Book description: One of Syuti's most important works regarding book history is called the History of the Caliphs. In this book, the author describes the Islamic society's incidents during Rashedun, Abbasid, and Omavid caliphs periods. This book can be divided into three parts. The first part consists of the events during the kingdom of Rashedun Caliphs and the short period of Imam Hasan's rule. The second part is devoted to the omavid's governing period, and the third part mainly focuses on the Abassid period. In terms of geography, Syuti divides this kingdom into Egyptian and Iraqi Abbasid kingdom.
[2] Ibn Abi al-Hadid al Mutazili, "Comments on the Peak of Eloquence" Nahjolbalagha's Account by Ibn abi Al-Hadid is gathered in Arabic language by Abdol Hamid Ibn Habbatollah Ibn Abi Al-Hadid Moatazeli. It is considered to be the most detailed exposition to Nahjolbalagha and the most accepted one among all Muslims.
Book description: Ibn Abi al-Hadid began writing his exposition in 1246 and finished it by 1251. Among more than 50 descriptions that has been written on Nahjolbalagha, this one is the most detailed account. The order of the account matches the original book's hierarchy, in which first are the speeches, then come the letters, and finally the quotes. Ibn Abl Al-Hadid divides each speech to a number of chapters. In each chapter, he organizes the arguments as follows:
1- discussing words' structures, meanings, and formal tense.
2- similarities between those lines to existing Arabic poetry and prose.
3- the surrounding incidents about that speech
4- arguments on unity, justice, and etc.
5- delicate points and examples.
6- Imam Ali's wisdom, advice, and etiquette.
Since Ibn Abl Hadid's Nahjolbalagha Account attracts the most attention to itself, there are many translations, descriptions, exegesis, and summaries written regarding it.
This book's publisher, Maktab Ayatollah Al-Marashi Al-Najafi, printed in ten volumes in 1404 (Lunar Calender) for the first time in Ghom city. In addition, this book's researcher is Mohammad Abolfazl Ibrahim. The following is from this book (volume 4, page:116) :
قال أبو عمر و قال ابن إسحاق أول من آمن بالله و بمحمد رسول الله ص علي بن أبي طالب ع و هو قول ابن شهاب إلا أنه قال من الرجال بعد خديجة
means: Abu Omar is recited saying that Ibn Ishagh said that the first person to accept Islam as his religion was Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Also, Ibn Shahab said, after Khadijah, Ali was the first man to believe in Islam.
Mahda133 (
talk)
12:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two in the context of this article? Is it that one of them contains named references, whereas the other does not? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk)
I will change the image in the Ail's article so, you said before I change the image I should first thing to do is to go the talk page so, I did it why I want to change the image because as my self I see that image should be changed so, if I change it please respect my changes on the article last thing I want to add is if you want to make any change you also respect the rules and come here to the talk page and negotiate the changes. 6 March,2017 anyoumrus user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.31.118 ( talk) 10:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Emir of Wikipedia: Why did you remove the list of children of Ali? -- Mhhossein talk 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note Muhsin ibn Ali has been tagged for speedy deletion with a WP:A7 tag. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@ DA1: Can you please explain your expectation from this section. I find it clear and do not know how it can be expanded. -- Seyyed( t- c) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Their marriage lasted until Fatimah's death ten years later. Although polygamy was permitted, Ali did not marry another woman while Fatimah was alive, and his marriage to her possesses a special spiritual significance for all Muslims because it is seen as the marriage between two great figures surrounding Muhammad. After Fatimah's death, Ali married other wives and fathered many children.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Recently, some sort of "tree" was added, but it is unclear what Ali's role is supposed to be in said tree. It looks as if he is the father of religious denominations, which is not logical of course. Not everyone who follows Shi'ism is a descendant of Ali. Additionally, the Fatimids may be descendants, but they are not a religion. If this is supposed to show the grouping of Shi'a denominations, it would make more sense to start with plain Shi'a Islam like so (in which case it does not belong in Ali, but in Shia Islam#Branches):
Shi'ism | Fiver | |||
Twelver | ||||
Fathite | ||||
Sevener (Isma'ili) |
Nizari | |||
Musta'li | Tayyibi | |||
Hafizi |
For now I have (again) removed this illogical mess. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.theismaili.org/festival/yawm-e-aliWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed that a portrait of Ali (pbuh) has been removed from the page. First to muslims: the injunction against depiction of Muslim holy figures is just a scholarly ijtihad, it's not a pillar of faith! Second, Wikipedia is not an Islamic Wikipedia, it is secular! Third: dignified artistic depictions of holy figure are important in showing their place within their community. So I'm going to restore the removed image. I also added a contemporary realistic depiction of Ali to the page. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note here that the hadith attributed to Muhammad al-Baqir (who is regarded as an Imam by both Twelvers and Isma'ilis, as I mentioned) about there being 12 Imams is a Twelver hadith which is not acceptable to Isma'ilis, so caution should be taken regarding which branch of Shi'ism to which these ahadith belong. In other words, Ali#Muslim views needs a clean-up to make it clear which of the Shi'ite views are Twelver, Isma'ili or specific to neither. Leo1pard ( talk) 15:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 15:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Salam GorgeCustersSabre, I have had to revert your reversion for the following reasons:
1) Ahl al-Bayt ( Arabic: أَهْل ٱلْبَيْت) means "People of the House(hold)", so "members of the Ahl al-Bayt" means "members of the People of the Household", which is grammatically unnecessary. "Members of the Household" is more correct.
2) There is no need for so many Arabic insertions that are not unique to this page, which I was told earlier.
3) "Fourth year of Islam" is WP:controversial" because the orthodox Islamic position is that Islam did not begin with Muhammad, but that it represents even previous Prophets, such as Abraham.
4) Laylat al-Mabit is a related article, check the link.
5) As mentioned above, Muhammad al-Baqir is not just regarded as an Imam by Twelvers, but also Isma'ilis, so to say that he said that there are " Twelve Imams" would not be acceptable to Ismai'li Shi'ites, ask Md iet.
6) There is no need for so many links to the same page, like Fatima Zahra redirecting to Fatimah.
7) Space, like in headings, is an issue. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC); edited 13:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The date of the death listed in this article is 29 January 661. That conflicts with the Assassination of Ali article, which says it was 28 January. Adding to the confusion, the source given for the date ( Encyclopaedia Iranica) says that he died on 27 January. Could someone please clear this up? — howcheng { chat} 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Seriously why did you move this article? Lovely108hh-- SharabSalam ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Alivardi I asked you to explain your reason for revert. Unsourced is not a reason. It is a literal translation from the Arabic and you know it. So you want me to play the game well then Ali means Exalted, ibn is a Arabic name#Nasab meaning son, Abi means my father and Talib means student all of this is a little much to be cited in the lead, (four citations), but you already know all of this, so what is your real objection? Please self revert. Oldperson ( talk) 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ Infobox saint}} added to this article in 11 February 2017 but neither Ali was a " Saint", nor "Sainthood" was determined in Islam. Benyamin-ln ( talk) 23:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose this form:
{{Infobox officeholder
| honorific-prefix =
| name = Ali ibn Abi Talib
| image = Imam-ali-2.png
| image_size = 150px
| office = 4th [[Rashidun|Rashidun Caliph]]
| term_start = {{OldStyleDate|21 June|656|18 June}}
| term_end = <br>{{OldStyleDate|1 February|661|29 January}}
| predecessor = [[Uthman|Uthman ibn Affan]]
| successor = [[Hasan ibn Ali]]
| birth_name = 'Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib
| birth_date = 15 September 601 (13 [[Rajab]] [[Islamic calendar#Numbering the years|21 BH]])<ref name="Britannica"/><ref name="Iranica"/><ref name="Al-Islam"/>
| birth_place = [[Mecca]], [[Hijaz]], Arabia<ref name="Britannica"/><ref name="Guidance">{{cite book|last1=Rahim|first1=Husein A.|last2=Sheriff|first2=Ali Mohamedjaffer|title=Guidance From Qur'an|publisher=Khoja Shia Ithna-asheri Supreme Council|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9v2qAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=ali+was+born+in+kaaba|accessdate=11 April 2017|language=en|year=1993}}</ref> <br/>{{smaller|(present-day [[Saudi Arabia]])}}
| death_date = 29 January 661 (21 [[Ramadan]] AH 40)<br /> (aged {{age|601|9|15|661|1|29}})<ref name="Iranica"/><ref name="Al-Islam"/><ref>Shad, Abdur Rahman. ''Ali Al-Murtaza''. Kazi Publications; 1978 1st Edition. Mohiyuddin, Dr. Ata. ''Ali The Superman''. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers; 1980 1st Edition. Lalljee, Yousuf N. ''Ali The Magnificent''. Ansariyan Publications; January 1981 1st Edition.</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/aliIbnAbiTalibr2Vol.Set|last=Sallaabee|first=Ali Muhammad|title=Ali ibn Abi Talib (volume 2)|page=621|accessdate=15 December 2015}}</ref>
| death_place = [[Kufa]], [[Rashidun Caliphate]] <br/>{{smaller|(present-day [[Iraq]])}}
| death_cause = [[Assassination]]
| resting_place = [[Imam Ali Mosque]], [[Najaf]], [[Iraq]]
| spouse = {{unbulleted list|[[Fatimah]]|[[Umamah bint Zainab]]|[[Umm ul-Banin]]|Leila bint Masoud|[[Asma bint Umays]]|[[Khawlah bint Ja'far]]|Al Sahba' bint Rabi'ah}}
| relations = [[Muhammad]] (father in law)
| children = {{unbulleted list | '''[[Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib|Descendants of Ali]]''' |[[Hasan ibn Ali|Al-Hasan]]|[[Husayn ibn Ali|Al-Husayn]]|[[Zaynab bint Ali|Zaynab]]|[[Umm Kulthum bint Ali|Umm Kulthum]]|[[Muhsin ibn Ali|Muhsin]]|[[Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah ibn Ali|Muhammad]]|[[Abbas ibn Ali|Abbas]]|[[Sayyida Ruqayya bint Ali|Ruqayya]]|[[Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib|Abdullah]]|[[Hilal ibn Ali|Hilal]]|[[Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr]] (stepson)}}
| mother = [[Fatimah bint Asad]]
| father = [[Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib]]
| blank1 = [[Kunya (Arabic)|Kunya]]
| data1 = [[Abu Turab]]
| allegiance = [[Muhammad in Medina|Muhammad's Government]]{{-}}[[Rashidun Caliphate]]
| commands = [[Rashidun army]]
| battles =
}}
Benyamin-ln ( talk) 16:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Benyamin-ln: Your viewpoint about Political history of Islam is completely modern. Separation of religion and politics is not meaningful in traditional Muslim society particularly in the first century. Imam is a political as well as religious term for Shia while Rightly Guided Caliph is a religious as well as political one for Sunnis. I suggest you to read the relevant articles in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought [22] as well as works' of Patricia Crone and Wilfred Madelung-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
According to any proper Muslim, Hazrat Ali RA is not a Prophet. Why does it say on the second line that Ali RA is the last Prophet of Islam? - When the very definition of Muslim is to believe in Allah, and that Hazrat Muhammad (SallahuAleyhi-WalihiWasalim) is the last Prophet. And the majority (80–85% apparently) of people who claim to be Muslim believe he is not a Prophet - but that he is related to the Prophet, and a honoured person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.85.3 ( talk) 15:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This term is understood generally to refer to the New Age-ish religious teachings developed in the 19th Century by Madame Blavatsky; at any rate, the term is not a correct term to refer to an arbitrary combination of theology and philosophy (or theology and numerological woo, for that matter). In the section on "Theosophy", there is a quote that uses this term, that appears to be a translation from some Arabic text. What word in Arabic is being translated as "theosophy", and what support is there for translating it that way?
I plan to remove the term "theosophy" from the article, and replace it with something less misleading - e.g. "theology and philosophy". However the section on "Theosophy" doesn't actually refer to any ideas that I recognise as philosophy; so I'll try to come up with a better substitution - perhaps "theology" on its own is sufficient. But perhaps other editors can suggest a better substitution. MrDemeanour ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ali has also received recognition from a variety of non-Muslim organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Organization for Human Rights, for his governance and social justice.[18][19][20][21]"
The sources given do not amount to an official endorsement of Ali only individual recognition alongside general principles of the UN where the logic seems to be.
1) The UN supports righteous leadership 2) Ali was a righteous leaders 3) Ali is endorsed by the UN
This is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm04926412 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
We can instead include the line, and have the proper descriptors labelled. I.e If a current or former member of a standing international body makes a statement, it should be worthy to note but obviously not account for organization-wide endorsement. JasonMoore ( talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Fatima bint Muhammed was the first wife of Ali ra Madihaamberan ( talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
An external link to the following page may be useful for providing more historical and theological context to the kharijite group to which Ali's assassin belonged (mentioned in the section on the "Assassination in Kufa"): http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Articles/Hermeneutics%20of%20takfir.html Hima14 ( talk) 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that I included the following lines without discussing it on a talk page first.
The lines were " Ali's descendants through his son Abbas ibn Ali are known as Awans or Alvis. Today, most of them reside in modern-day Pakistan. Awan are descendants of Qutb Shah who is a direct descendant of Ali ibn Abu Talib. Awans are descendants of Qutb Shah (Aawn) ibn Yaala ibn Hamza ibn Qasim ibn Tayyar ibn Qasim ibn Ali ibn Jaffar ibn Humza ibn al-Hassan ibn Ubaidullah ibn Abbas ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] "
At first someone pointed out that the citation refers it as a "Legend" so I researched and found some other references, so I included them and published these lines again. Then someone pointed out that there is citekill (Problems in reading due to excessive citation), but I dont think that was the case, it also pointed out that that Primary Source is non-reputable but I think Kihalastah al-Nisab by Al-Hill is a reputable enough source as per wikipedia's standards, it also pointed out that there were duplink (repeated links) but this is not that big of an issue because they could be removed ofc, it also pointed out that The details like page numbers are not given in citations, So I read the article about WP:CITEHOW, and found out that its not necessary to put the page number, It is recommended to put the authors name and the chapter number, but this is a negligible thing and could be easily amended.
The reason for this section is to take your input regarding the descendants of Mola Ali (A.S) from his son Mola Abbas (A.S), like if you know of any book or any article discussing about this or any other thing which could be helpful or used as a source then please point it out here and let me know. And I know one thing for sure that Awans are descendants of Mola Ali (A.S) as I being an Awan, was gifted with an old cloth by my grandmother and the cloth had our "Shajrah" / Lineage which goes back to Mola Abbas ibn Ali (A.S), this cloth was handed down from one generation to the other for the past 1400 years. Moreover, Awans / Alvis are called "Olad-e-Ali" (Children of Ali), unlike Syeds / Sadaats who are called "Olad-e-Nabi(S.A.W.W)" (Children of Prophet (S.A.W.W)), in Pakistan.
References
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ali was 1 caliph/emperor of rashiuddin caliphate
He was the defender of Islam the great man who fought many wars never loss 103.41.91.248 ( talk) 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I think "(Sunni View)" following "4th Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate" in the infobox should be removed, because the Caliph was a official state political position not subject to a view, an opinion or faith. Maudslayer ( talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.41.91.251 ( talk) 15:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ali was the only successor of Rashiduddin caliphate after Muhammed Ali was the most powerful and supreme he don’t want to merge a war if he Wars there were no enemies left
@ CaptainEek and Howcheng: Following the discussion you had two years ago in Talk:Ali/Archive_6#Date_of_death, I am in agreement with CaptainEek saying we should go by the Gregorian equivalent of 21st of Ramadan 40 AH. The tools suggested in the older discussion, i.e. [23] and [24] are saying this day falls on 28 Jan. 661. Also, there's a similar conversion here. How about going with 28 January which is supported by a credible source and the fact that it falls on 21st of Ramadan 40 AH? -- Mhhossein talk 13:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.160.68.75 ( talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A.S) is the Bravest and most powerful Man in the world ever.
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Calligraphy in this article seems not to be right and there is a better source available for this Moriz101 ( talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This Calligraphy image is incorrect according to many Islamic sources , https://www.google.com/search?q=Aliyun+Waliullah+calligraphy&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi6jeeplcbvAhXOw4UKHT5xDAwQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Aliyun+Waliullah+calligraphy&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyBggAEAUQHjoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoECAAQHjoECAAQGFDtrAJY-8MCYJrGAmgAcAB4AIABxAKIAd0UkgEHMC42LjUuMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=mL1ZYLrhBM6HlwS-4rFg&bih=625&biw=1349&safe=strict&hl=en#imgrc=qeb3TrzocOCToM
So The request is for changing this image of the calligraphy to the ones provided in the above first link. The second and third link explain the exact reasons in formal text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriz101 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The information about Ali marrying granddaughter of Prophet Muhammad is a lie and fabricated for secterian fued. Bonemender ( talk) 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As he was a ecclesiastical figure in islam His name was not written with respect that we often perform. His full name is Ali bin Abi Talib (R.A). it should be highly demanded that change His name from Ali to Ali bin abi Talib (R.A) Second edit Suggestion is about Hazrat Muhammed (S.A.W.W) His name was also not written with accuracy Please Make sure of His name is Edit From Muhammed To Hazrat Muhammed (PBUH). He PBUH is the most respected figure in Islam and for all World. thanks please make these changes because respect to great personalities are highly important to avoid any kind of offence. its my pleasure to collaboration in this article you are always welcom Majiidhussain ( talk) 06:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
In personal life it says Ali had 9 wives, but the side panel only has 7 names. Additionally, no explanation is given for this. The source also mentions concubines, implying extra marital relations which is the kind of accusation that needs proper source. The Family life article it links to makes no such mention. In short, either edit down or remove entirely. Any narrative about family should include Shia, Sunni, and non muslim sources. The only source right now is an encylopedia which if you click through does not provide any information.
My suggestion: Remove the term concubines and any exact number of wives. Leave the other information about family intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmirza ( talk • contribs)
(He is) "the wife of Fatemeh Zahra" doesn't look right. Laugh Tough ( talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
At the moment, the birth-death dating has an underscore where I believe it should have a hyphen: "13 September 601 _ 28 January 661". Please fix, thank you. 2600:8800:2396:4600:25E8:1F01:85BD:691B ( talk) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand why the citation was deleted here [25] - and I do not understand why it was mislabelled as a minor edit. The statement was:
The citation was:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Toddy1. It is fixed now. Ghazaalch ( talk) 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The reference "Al-Islam" is define as part of the ref list in the Reference section, however it is not used in the article. The reference should be commented out or deleted. Thanks 92.5.2.97 ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the two Omar’s A.S? And 1 Uthman A.S? Guloy61 ( talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
can someone rearrange the bibliography section author's name in alphabetical? it's more easier to anyone who want to search and find certain sources of this article which we want to read. thx Ahendra ( talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there is a lot of room for improvement in this section of the article. As just one instance, the first pragraph of this section contains the full sentence: "circumstances, led to this civil war in Muslim history, wived differently by different Muslims." I'm hoping to work on this section in the coming weeks. I'll discuss any major changes here. At the moment, it looks like that no one is actively working on this section. Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes... Albertatiran ( talk) 17:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering that these have their own main articles, I think the sections Battle of the Camel, Battle of Siffin, Advent of Kharijites, Arbitration, and Battle of Nahrawan can and possibly should be substantially shorter. This issue might have also come up in earlier discussions. I'd like to just keep the highlights of each event and, for additional details, the reader can refer to the main articles. Albertatiran ( talk) 07:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Advent of the Kharijites containts the full sentence "They agreed to the agreement because it was an invitation to Qur'an and peace; but the terms of the agreement had not yet been determined; there was no term according which Ali would no longer be considered the commander of the faithful; however, the expansion of the arbitrators' authority from the Qur'an to sunnah, which was ambiguous, jeopardized the credibility of the Qur'an, Qurra argued." I think this section could be edited and shortened, and then merged with Battle of Nahrawan. There is already a pointer on this page to the well-written Kharijites article. Albertatiran ( talk) 18:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Overall it's in a good shape but there are a couple of places that Arbitration can perhaps be improved: 1) Too much emphasis on the 2nd meeting (a long paragraph), which can probably be shortened quite a bit. 2) The aftermath of the arbitration (e.g., the 2nd Syria campaign) can probably be moved to Battle of Nahrawan or the last section, which might be renamed accordingly. I think that implementing these two changes will summarize and focus this section a bit more. Albertatiran ( talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The last year of the caliphate does not meet the Wiki's standards of writing in some places, e.g.,
Some other claims are innaccurate or exaggerated, e.g.,
I think parts of this section can be rewitten more carefully and without inflamation or exaggeration. (FYI, proposed changes for the last year of caliphate, Ghazaalch.) Albertatiran ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma, Mhhossein, Al Ameer son, HistoryofIran, Ghazaalch, Toddy1, AhmadLX, Vice regent, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, and M.Nadian: Hi, at the risk of spamming you all, I'd appreciate your feedback here: I've listed above a number of aspects that can be improved in The last year of the caliphate. Here is my attempt to do so, which I think is more accurate and balanced, and has more depth. Before I can hopefully introduce these changes to the article, I wonder if you have any feedback or objections. Thanks! (Note that I didn't mention the arbitration in my text below since Ali's reaction to the arbitration is already covered earlier in the article. I also plan to add additional pointers to other sources soon.) Albertatiran ( talk) 18:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
PROPOSED: The final years of Ali's caliphate
Following the Battle of Nahrawan, Ali's support weakened and he was compelled to abandon his second Syria campaign and return to Kufa. [1] According to Madelung, in addition to the demoralizing effect of the Battle of Nahrawan, another contributing factor might have been Ali's refusal to grant financial favors to the tribal chiefs, which left them vulnerable to bribery; Muawiya wrote to many of them, offering money and promises, in return for undermining Ali's war efforts. [2] With the collapse of Ali's broad military coalition, Egypt fell in 658 to Muawiya, who killed Ali's governor and installed Amr ibn al-As. [3] Muawiya also began to dispatch military detachments to terrorize the civilian population, killing those who did not recognize Muawiya as caliph, looting and ravaging. [4] These units, which were ordered to evade Ali's forces, targeted the areas along the Euphrates, the vicinity of Kufa, and most successfully, Hejaz and Yemen. [5] Ali could not mount a timely response to these assaults. [6] In the case of the infamous raid of Busr ibn Abi Artat in 661, the Kufans eventually responded to Ali's calls for jihad and routed Muawiya's forces only after the latter had reached Yemen. [7] Ali was also faced with armed uprisings by the remnants of the Kharijites, as well as opposition in eastern provinces. [8] However, as the extent of killing and looting by Muawiya's forces became known to the public, it appears that Ali finally found sufficient support for a renewed offensive against Muawiya, set to commence in late winter 661. [9] These plans were abandoned after Ali's assassination. [10]
CURRENT: The last year of the caliphate
After the arbitration, although Ali did not accept the dismissal order and still called himself the caliph of the Muslims, his loyalists decreased every day. While he was fighting the Kharijite revolt, [11] Mu'awiya defeated Ali's troops in Egypt at the end of 39 AH, and made Amr ibn al-As the ruler there. At the same time, Ali lost control of the Hejaz. Also the Iranian uprising took place in the last year of caliphate of Ali, which was suppressed by the caliph's troops. [11] Among them were rebels in eastern Iran who did not pay their taxes to the Kufi and Basri tribes. [12] In 40 AH, Ali did not even have control over the cities of Mecca and Medina. He was practically confined to the city of Kufa and in a defensive position, so that he took no action against Mu'awiya's campaigns in the heart of Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. [11] Arab public opinion tended to Mu'awiya's succession, because he was supported by regular forces. He could maintain power among the Arab elite and control the Islamic caliphate. [12] In the last year of Ali's caliphate, the mood in Kufa and Basra changed in Ali's favour as the people became disillusioned with Mu'awiya's reign and policies. However, the people's attitude toward Ali differed deeply. Just a small minority of them believed that Ali was the best Muslim after Muhammad and the only one entitled to rule them, while the majority supported him due to their distrust and opposition to Mu'awiya. [13]
References
This page 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. |
Long time after discussion on biased materials in last year, nobody has put forward any idea to improve the article. Thus I moved the tag to the related section.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please verify the authencity of the photograph attached to the article, as no known photgrapher was able to create an image of Hazrat Ali, based on true factual informations, the artist rendering is not correct, hence the picture attributed to Hazat Ali is incorrect, please remove it Factualislam ( talk) 09:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just request the editor of this page to kindly remove the photograph of Hazart Ali R. A
Ahmar Hussain Khan 04:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Introduction: "leading parties of warriors on battles" shouldn't "on" be "in"? 131.174.90.25 ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has 3 core content policies: First, that all information be presented in a 'neutral' way; second, that all major information lead to a reliable source; third, the 'no original research' policy.
The picture defies all 3 core content policies. Putting up a picture of a historical person of Ali's importance is sacrilegious in Sunni Islam. Add to that the fact that the artist who drew him has no way of knowing what Ali would look like. It is an amateur portrait. There is no way of knowing whether or not the facial features were really Ali's or simply what the artist imagines them to have been.
That said, it seems to me that the person putting this picture up (and insisting on keeping it up, despite numerous requests to take it down) is doing so in an attempt to deliberately aggravate certain people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomeyeahyou000 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.)" In short, wikipedia will not and by that matter, SHOULD NOT remove any images just because they are offensive to one group particular group. Doing so would be censorship, not presenting information in a neutral way. If you have a problem with these images being present you can hide the pictures by creating an account and following these instructions: Wikipedia:How_to_set_your_browser_to_not_see_images#Specific_pages. > My suggestion (Not linked to wikipedia at all): Grow a thicker skin. Brough87 ( talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It could very easily be based on evidence, it is quite impossible to say. And anyway what makes a 'historical' piece of art more useful to Wikipedia and Wikipedians than ones that have been created more recently? If that had been created 100 years ago would that make a relevant image for use with this article? Note that we have pictures of Muhammad (on his article) that are artistic depictions and not necessarily based on fact. As well as this, there is artistic calligraphy of various figures in Islam that are not necessarily historic but remain central to Wikipedia's articles and yet there is no problem with that. So long as we make sure that people know that it is not meant to offend and is only a artistic representation of Ali then there should be no problem. But we must not simply remove images because a certain group of people get (needlessly (as far as I'm concerned)) hurt by these pictures. We would not being doing any good if we did so. Brough87 ( talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I have opened a mediation request regarding the use of the current picture in the infobox. If you are interested in participating in the mediation, please sign as a party at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ali. Qwyrxian ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tomcat7 ( talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Before I do a full review the following points need to be exhamined:
My Edits have been reverted by a number of editors for replacing the infobox with a new one. The reason for my change is that it will synchronize the appearance of the infobox of Rashidun Caliphate : Abu Bakr, umar, uthman and ali to look the same. And the new one possesses the same info of the previous infobox with some addition. Please help a way out of this situation. Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
To wit:
Your efforts are an attempt to remove the image of Ali which the above-mentioned citation is extracted from - that is, objections to depictions of Ali. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The date of death for the historian al-Tabari is given here as 932, a simple error for '923' (26 or 27 Shawwal 310/16 or 17 February 923). Somebody with editing privileges should change it as a minor correction.
Chmelchert ( talk) 11:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the picture currently used in the article's infobox appropriate, per WP:IMAGE LEAD? Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In what way is it not appropriate? Brough87 ( talk) 23:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please remove the image of Hazrat Ali (Alehe Salaam). It is highly disrespectful to associate an image of the great caliphs and the companions of the Holy Prophet (Sallala ho ale he Wasalam) to any sort of image. Eabdul ( talk) 21:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the points raised at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ali, the fact that image clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:IMAGE LEAD (that is, no other high-quality reference work would use a user-made image without historical provenance in its work), the fact that there has been no policy compliant defense of the image, and the fact that multiple, good-faith editors have recommended its removal, I have removed the image. Should Brough87 attempt to reinsert, I shall seek further remedy. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ali ibn Abi Talib's chronology underwent a major mutation from his first historical biographers. Before the socio-religious institution of ahadith (narrations) was firmly established (circa 820-825 CE), or during the Caliphate of 7th Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun Al-Rashid, the earliest standard Islamic historiographers and hagiographers were primarily the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). With the development of ahadith (narrations) in standard Islam, the muhaditheen (narrators) inexorably eclipsed the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). Since there is virtually no contemporaneous literature surviving from the Umayyad Caliphate (with the exception of Quranic calligraphy), all of the literature of standard Islam are the product of the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE-Iraq; 1261-1517 CE-Egypt). There remains only sparse references to literary sources from Umayyad times of which absolutely no surviving copies exist. Amidst all of this, the first three (3) biographies of Ali ibn Abi Talib were:
Kitab Maqtal Ali (144 AH/761 CE) by Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya bin Said bin Mikhnaf bin Salim al-Azdi al-Ghamidi al-Kufi (died 157 AH/773 CE),
Kitab Maqtal Amir Al-Muminin (183 AH/799 CE) by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sulayman Hashami al-Khazzaz al-Kufi (died 204 AH/819 CE),
and Maqtal Amir ul-Muminin (201 AH/817 CE) by Abu Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad bin Saib Al-Kalbi (died 206 AH/821 CE)
Both Hashami and Al-Kalbi adapted Abu Mikhnaf's very first known hagiography of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hence, they all recorded the same chronology for Ali ibn Abi Talib. The three (3) factors which determined Ali's timeline were his age during the Hijrah of Prophet Muhammad, his age when Prophet Muhammad passed away, and his age when he himself was martyred. The following is a summary:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 16 (during the Hijrah) - Age 27 (when Muhammad passed away) - Age 56 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 16 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
However, with the rise of the institution of ahadith (narrations), the muhaditheen (narrators) almost unanimously felt that Ali's acceptance of the Islamic faith as a cognitive and cognizant nine(9)-year-old preadolescent would appear far better for his historical reputation and image, than him being a three(3)-year-old small child when Muhammad was made aware of his prophethood. It was this primary reason that the muhaditheen (narrators) altered in their oral and written traditions, the date of Ali's birth to 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). Henceforth, Ali ibn Abi Talib was almost unanimously documented by historians, hagiographers, and narrators as having been born in 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). This led to the following:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 9 (when accepting Islam) - Age 22 (during the Hijrah) - Age 33 (when the Holy Prophet passed away) - Age 62 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
The original date of Ali ibn Abi Talib's birth remains almost exclusively recorded in the historiographical archives of his first three (3) biograhphies. As for the birth years of 24 B.H.(599 CE) & 23 B.H.(600 CE), these dates are the product of 19th & 20th Century historians. As with the literary evolution of ahadith (narrations) about Prophet Muhammad, who had over 600,000 ahadith (narrations) attributed to him alone by the time muhaditheen Al-Bukhari sorted out what he considered sahih (authentic), Caliph Ali similarly had countless ahadith (narrations) attributed to him, as well as about him. Amongst some of these, there emerged accounts reporting him to be ages 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and even 16 when he accepted Islam. However, each of these were only the single sources and generally cited as weak by the most renowned standard Islamic scholars. Summarily, there is also the question of Arabic semantics. When any of the Arabic scholars wrote (for example) that Muhammad received prophethood in his 40th year, that meant that he was actually thirty-nine (39) years old, but in his 40th year running. Subsequently, when Caliph Ali was recorded as accepting Islam in his 10th year, that meant that he was actually nine (9) years old, but in his 10th year running. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 05:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | ||
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
I don't know what is going on in the Ali WP page, but there seems to be an info box edit war being engaged. Whatever issues SpidErxD or Ibrahim ebi have regarding how the info box of Ali ibn Abi Talib should appear, I would like to request that both the ORIGINAL Sunnih and Shia birthdates be included. I am tired of repeatedly re-editing all the coding info back in. A formal requisition to a WP Administrator to mediate between all these pro-Shia or pro-Sunni editors who cannot agree on just the basic data in Ali's info box. This is a disgrace to the memory of a revered historical figure of standard Islamic history. Please exercise the due respect this admired personage deserves. I have fixed a damaged text which visibly ruined the section of Ali's Acceptance of Islam. This was clear vandalism. I also would like to point out to SpidErxD that technically kunyas (teknonyms), nisbahs (occupational or geographic nomen), nasabs (patronymics), and laqabs (agnomens) are all classified as titles in the English language. And SpidErxD is correct in adding that Asadullah literally means Lion of God in Arabic. However, haydar (although found in most name dictionaries as meaning "lion"), actually means "braveheart", or an ideal characteristic of a lion. Other such Arabic names which are really defining characteristics of a lion are: hamzah = strong, steadfast; abbas = frowning; etc. Usayd is a young lion (diminutive of a lion). Another Arabic name that has been often mistranslated in English is Mu'awiyah. Various translations such as young dog, young fox, barking female dog, female dog, etc., have been listed. However, Mu'awiyah = Young Jackal. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 20:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The point is that yourself or SpidErxD should end this edit war and let this article page rest in peace, showing a little more respect to the memory of its subject. As for your good faith advice, please re-evaluate the view history as I have made the necessary reverts first before adding my contents. Also, all of my contributions to the article have already been cited, time and again. No offense, but immaturity has little place in an area where academic information is offered for everyone's education. I don't know how old either you or SpidErxD are, but with all due respect, maturity is what separates the men from the boys. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 14:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging words. Btw, have you by chance viewed the Shi'a View Of Ali WP page (?) It seems that SpidErxD has virtually replicated this very article page with only the infobox template being different in appearance. The original article page of the Shi'a View Of Ali was noticeably different in content. Hopefully this edit war will at least cease in this article page. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We discussed the image a number of times, and there was somewhat of a standstill. Then I started an RfC, and only one person supported the image, with no policy based rationale for including, so it was removed. A GA reviewer said that the picture is obviously flawed and its inclusion guarantees a GA fail, attempted to remove it, and one person reinserted. Finally, we went to mediation. The one person who attempted to support inclusion could not answer even the most basic policy questions about the image, and thus the mediator eventually dropped the case, because there's basically nothing to mediate: we cannot include a self-produced image in the infobox, per WP:IMAGE LEAD, as no other tertiary source would ever include such an image. Now, if you can find a free (non-copyrighted) image that has some sort of historical provenance or can be shown to be a widely used image for Ali, then it can be included. Until that time, reinserting the image is purely edit warring, and I will request protection or blocking as needed. This argument has been going on for a long time, and no one has ever come even close to justifying why we would use a random picture made by a random anonymous person with absolutely no evidence that it has any encyclopedic value, and I'm sick of it. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In reference to the third paragraph of the opening section of the article page of Ali ibn Abi Talib [without a cited source] there is a statement regarding Ali taking part in caravan raids from Mecca. Well, this statement is both confusing and confounding. The earliest historiographical sources indicate that the very first battle of the Muslim community (who migrated from Mecca to Madinah, the muhajirun or migrants) and the polytheist Meccans was Ghazwah Aab Al-Badr (Battle of the Wells of the Full Moon).This involved the alleged threat of the Muslim muhajirun seizing the Meccan trade caravans from Mecca to Syria, as the Meccans embargoed their own trade and commerce with their longtime allies, the Yathribites of Madinatul Yathrab (City of Yathrab). However, there seems to be a point of contradiction between ahadith (narrational) sources who upheld the tradition that it was the Muslims who seized the Meccan caravans as retaliation for their own property and possessions being seized by the anti-Muslim Meccans. However, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of the muhajirun (migrants) and the Muslim refugees sent to Christian Ethiopia, were working class people: Craftsmen such as potters, weavers, embroiderers, metalsmiths, etc. Excluding the first Muslim family clans, the Hashimi & Muttalibi, the rest of the Meccan oligarchy were polytheist and anti-Muslim. The Muslims threatened the very economic lifesource of Mecca with their call for the abolishment of all the idols within the shrine of the Kaaba. Obviously, the Meccan oligarchy would be the ones who would be affected the most by such eradication. Furthermore, the majority of the Muslims, being working class craftsmen, re-established their respective crafts when resettled in Madinah; one historical tradition has the Muslim refugees returning to the Hijaz from Ethiopia in 623 CE or four (4) years after their initial departure; while the other tradition has it that they returned seven (7) years later. Either way, there was enough of a substantial Muslim community within Madinah to revive their craftwork and gradually re-establish themselves. This lead to their very own sponsored trading goods caravan to Yemen, as Syria was blocked by the threat of the Yahudi (Judaic Arab) tribes of Khyber settlement, north of Madinah en route to Syria, who were bribed by the Meccans to seize any Muslim sponsored trading goods caravan from Madinah. The Meccans kept close tabs on the social & economic development of the nascent Muslim community of Madinah via Yathribite clans who were still supporters of the Meccans; not all of the City of Yathrab were pleased or supportive of this nascent Muslim community. That very first trading goods caravan of the Muslims in Madinah was to Yemen, avoiding Taif and Mecca. This caravan was pursued by the Meccans and then seized upon its return from Yemen at Aab Al-Badr (Badr Wells), 80 miles (130 km) southwest of Madinah. The objective of this seizure was to draw the Muslims of Madinah into a battle against the Meccans, who desired to prevent the rise of the nascent Muslim movement. Even the Quranic verses (from Surah Anfal, Verses 7-19 and 42-44) describe the following about the Battle of Badr: Verse 18 clearly identifies the infidel Meccans as the crafty planners who drew the Muslims into the Badr confrontation. While the following Verse 19 makes it further clear that it was indeed the Meccan infidels who orchestrated and initiated the attacks on the nascent Muslim community, and not vice versa which is what later narrators & chroniclers of the Caliphate falsely recorded. In Verses 42-44, further elucidation of the Battle of Badr has it that if the Muslims and Meccans were to have made a mutually appointed confrontation, the Muslims would not have showed for such an appointment. The Meccans held the Muslim caravan in between both of their encampments on lower ground to bait the Muslims. Otherwise, the Muslim muhajirun of Madinah would never have taken on the vastly superior Meccans in battle, much less seize any of the Meccan trade caravans which would automatically call for severe retaliation. The 8th Quranic Surah further describes how the force of only 313 Muslims appeared larger than their actual number, while the Meccan force (more than triple their size) appeared smaller in size to the Muslims. However, later narrators and chroniclers (muhaditheen & muarikheen) of the Caliphate propagated that it was the Muslims who initiated campaign raids of the Meccan caravans. This revision was to justify the Caliphate’s establishment following Muhammad’s death and their annexation of lands and peoples. The Caliphate-sponsored narrators & chroniclers always pointed to the caravan raids of the nascent Muslim community to justify their own military expansions and annexation of lands and peoples. It did not occur to these later narrators & chroniclers of the Caliphate that it made no logistical sense for the Muslims, who were a weaker force, to even seize Abu Sufyan’s Meccan caravan 80 miles past Madinah and that much closer to Mecca (!) No common sense or logic there. The earliest historiographical accounts make much more sense in that it was the Muslim caravan that was seized by the Meccans (led by the father-in-law of Abu Sufyan b. Harb, Utbah b. Rabiah, who was the elected Emir of Mecca after the death of the previous Meccan Emir, Shaykh Abu Talib b. Abdul Muttalib; then Abu Sufyan b. Harb became the elected Emir of Mecca after Badr, with nearly all the old Meccan shaykhs slain). Another micro-analytical point regarding the historiography about Ali and his taking part in the supposed raids of Meccan caravans is the following summarization:
In ancient and early medieval Arabian Peninsular culture, autonomous cities of its geographic regions (eg., Mecca, Madinatul Yathrab, Taif, etc., of the Hijaz region) upheld a civil alliance which was the perpetual protection of their mutual caravan & trade routes. The ever-present threat of raiding bedouin tribes and bands of brigands spread across the Arabian Peninsula always existed during ancient and early (pre-standard Islamic) medieval times. Consequently, civil alliances between the autonomous cities within the Arabian Peninsula which were not part of an established sovereign domain were customary. These alliances mutually upheld perpetual reinforcement of the safety of their caravan trade routes from raiding bedouin tribes and brigands. The bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were pastoral nomads who fought each other for territorial rights and raided each other's camps seizing pastoral possessions as booty. Furthermore, the opportunity to raid trade & commerce caravans of the autonomous cities of the region always proved to be an irresistible temptation to these bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. For this reason, the autonomous sedentary tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were perpetually policing their caravan trade routes. This required the ruling or governing families of the autonomous cities to organize and lead military expeditions to track down and punish the offending bedouin tribes and brigands that raided their trade caravans. The resultant military expeditions would track down the offending tribes (via expert trackers & guides) exacting retribution or punitive action. Such punitive action included the slaughter of all able-bodied men (of the offending tribe or subtribe) who offered armed resistance, reclaiming all looted goods (plus the pastoral possessions belonging to the offending tribes or subtribes), taking captive as slaves, the women and children, and leaving the elderly, sick, or debilitated to fend for themselves. Such retribution toward the offending bedouin tribes (or subtribes) effectively discouraged raids of the protected caravan trade routes of the autonomous cities of the Arabian Peninsula during ancient and medieval times. Nonetheless, there was always the occasional raid of the sedentary trade caravans by rogue bedouin tribes (or subtribes) of the Arabian Peninsula which warranted militaristic retaliation by the sedentary Arab tribal settlements. This was the way of life up until the establishment of standard Islam, from the early half of 7th Century CE or during Muhammad's Prophethood (610-632 CE), which established peace, mutual allegiance, and conformity between ALL the bedouin tribes and the autonomous sedentary tribal settlements of the Arabian Peninsula. This was before the establishment of the sovereignty which became the Arab Caliphate that was founded following Muhammad's death in 632 CE.
Summary points--
In ancient & (pre-Islamic) early medieval Arabian Peninsula, trade caravans of newly founded settlements were accompanied by an armed company of escorts to deter the threat of raiding bedouin tribes or brigands. Once the militaristic authority of such newly founded settlements were established, the threat of raids from bedouin tribes and brigands were effectively discouraged (although never eradicated). Such newly founded settlements were encouraged and supported by well-established or long-established neighbouring or surrounding sedentary tribal settlements. The reason for this was that in general, all such sedentary tribal settlements were mutually interdependent in trade and commerce, with the threat coming from raiding bedouin tribes or brigands.
The two (2) basic types of civic trade & commerce caravans of sedentary tribal settlements of the Arabian Peninsula were either private party caravans of an oligarchical family clan (to and from regional destinations), or long distance caravans carrying trading goods of several or all of the families of an oligarchy (to and from long distance or foreign destinations). Either type of caravan was accompanied by a voluntary or elected member (or members) of the oligarchy, who traveled with several hired hands who were all armed for protection.
In ancient & medieval Arabian Peninsula, there existed two (2) basic or distinct social classes: The sedentary Arab tribes of autonomous settlements (unless occupied by a sovereignty), and the bedouin Arab tribes (who were pastoral nomads). Militaristically, the bedouin Arab tribes were little or no match for any of the sedentary Arab tribes due to the superior quality or near state-of-the-art armaments possessed by the sedentary tribes. Not to mention the organized, more sophisticated combat training and discipline possessed by sedentary Arab tribes (who were generally merchant-traders and property owners). For example, bedouin tribal warriors possessed no body armour, battle helmets, or near cutting edge battle gear which the sedentary tribes possessed.
In ancient & medieval times, the fundamental rivalry and competitiveness among bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula were for territorial rights. Since all the bedouin tribes were pastoral nomads, they competed for territory which offered good grazing for their livestock, as well as any fresh waterholes such as springs, wells, streams, oases, etc. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone has added a lot of Hadiths based on Original sources such as Hadith collection. While WP:ISLAMOR makes clear in which case and how we can use these sources. There should be a reliable secondary source which endorse the Hadith. Therefor I removed the Hadiths which did not supported by such sources. Seyyed( t- c) 16:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Much of the referenced material is from Wilferd Madelung from the Institute for Ismaili Studies in London who is on the pay roll of Aga Khan who thinks it is his god given right to rule because he is Alis descendent. Biased references. He twists the verses from the Quran like Verse 33:30 to 33:33 which referes to Muhamands wives. They even say "O wives of the Prophet..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL...Almost all of standard Islamic sources are BIASED reference materials, if analyzed from Western-Occidental academic criteria & methodologies. What are you talking about (?) Equally biased are the works of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's ministry of Islamic education who are the propagators of the most outrageous poorly referenced historiographical revisions in modern history (!) The Saudis have poured millions into these efforts. The entire Salafiyya movement is full of outrageous propaganda and total revision of established standard Islamic history. In the South Asian community (for example), Saudi brainwashed and programmed Salafi pimps or bhadwas like medical doctors Zakir Naik & Shabbir Ahmed have utterly disgraced standard academic scholarship to a level which could not have been conceived even a century earlier, sorry to say. The only genuine contemporary standard Islamic scholar from the South Asian community around today is arguably Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadiri. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to further add the following: What exactly is "biased" about Wilferd Madelung (?) You did not elaborate on what this "bias" is about (?) Is it about Ali himself (whether a favourable or unfavourable bias) (?) ... Or is it about Ali's opponents (?) Just stating that the references are biased is too vague and incomprehensible. Do you expect anyone in this Talk Page to have mental telepathy and read your mind (?) So...Please elucidate on what exactly is this "bias" you are referring to (?) The most incomprehensible surprise from the entire Islamic community worldwide is the shocking LACK of uniformity in the understanding of this faith. Muslim scholarship is as divided as Christian scholarship. However, I would like to remind Muslims that the Qur'anic doctrines have not minced words regarding Islamic unity. The main division in Islamic sects are based upon historical interpretations of Islamic figures: Whether some were honest & sincere or opportunistic hypocrites. Ali ibn Abi Talib is virtually unanimously respected by all the Muslim sects. However, there are those who have taken this respect to extreme, fanatical levels. Then there is a recent movement which is attempting to downplay his significance in Islamic history in favour of his traditional opponents. This is propagated not by genuine Sunnihs, but by pseudo-Sunnihs who are really Salafis (aka "Wahhabis"). Summarily, what is most shocking is how the Muslim community, even 1400 years later, is divided on the historicity of Islam. How can Muslims be united when they really don't know their factual history (?) Right here on WP, the sheer level of animosity and hostility of Muslims toward each other is sadly pathetic. The Shias & Salafis despise each other to an extent that is anti-Quranic, to say the least. The Shi'ite self-professed, self-righteous claimed ownership of the Ahl Al Bayt Muhammadi (People of the House of Muhammad) is as much an obstacle to Islamic unity, as the Salafi/Wahhabi frenzy or witch-hunt to label anyone as Kuffar (Ingrates) and anything as Takfir (Attributing Ingratitude) which is even remotely perceived as Bidah (Innovation). Neither of these two polaric opposites have earned the right to impose such values upon Islam (as defined in the Qur'an). And btw, from most all the occurrences of the Arabic words Kufr and Kuffar stated in the Qur'an, their contextual definitions are more accurately Ingratitude (for Kufr) and Ingrates (for Kuffar), more so than Disbelief / Unbelief / Infidelity (for Kufr) and Disbelievers / Unbelievers / Infidels (for Kuffar). Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As Flagrantedelicto said earlier "Ali ibn Abi Talib is virtually unanimously respected by all the Muslim sects" There is a lot of material on Ali that is positive in all the books. Therefore rather than concentrating on conflicting accounts, for which no one knows the authenticity of the accounts, like arguing about land disputes like Fadak when there is already a page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadak is futile. Things like land disputes could be discussed on there. It will be best to put things about Ali that are agreed to by every one on the Ali page. He is regarded as a rightly guided Caliph by all the Muslims. He is regarded as one of the people guaranteed Jana by all the Muslims. He is highly regarded for his generosity, helping of the poor, honesty and righteousness by all the Muslims. He is highly regarded for his knowledge. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I have found (and in some cases uploaded) some historical images of Ali, which could be used to illustrate the article. Before adding them to the article, I'm starting this discussion to get the opinion of other editors on the matter of which ones, if any, could improve the article if included.
Here are some of the potentially encyclopedic images (mostly ancient miniatures):
More can be found in the commons category for Ali.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
-- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The Islamic and Western dates cited (at least twice in the current article) for the death of Ali, 21 Ramadhān 40 AH = 31 January 661 CE, are inconsistent with each other. According to online Islamic date converters (such as here), 21 Ramadhān 40 AH corresponds with 27 or 28 January 661 CE. AstroLynx ( talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no real inconsistency in the date of Ali's death. Please allow me to enlighten all of you in this regard:
Below are the links to three widely used Gregorian-Julian-Hijri-Persian-Mayan-Hebrew calendar cross-converters:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_tabcal.htm http://tarekmaani.com/old/calindex.htm [4]
21st Ramadhan 40 AH (Anno Hijri) converts to 31 January 661 CE / AD in GREGORIAN Chronology. 21st Ramadhan 40 AH (Anno Hijri) converts to either 27/28 January 661 CE / AD in JULIAN Chronology.
Some Western-Islamic calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING JULIAN CHRONOLOGY. Other Western/Christian-Islamic Lunar calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING GREGORIAN CHRONOLOGY. Some Western-Islamic calendar converters accessed online CONVERT USING BOTH GREGORIAN & JULIAN CHRONOLOGY.
Since the Julian chronology is slightly inaccurate in comparison to the Gregorian chronology, it is only LOGICAL to convert Hijri Lunar dates to the GREGORIAN chronology. Hence, Ali ibn Abu Talib has been widely documented by most early Islamic mu'arikheen (chroniclers) as having been wounded on 19th Ramadhan and passing away on 21st Ramadhan. There have been a few (obscure) sources which have recorded that Ali was wounded on either 15th or 17th Ramadhan and passed away on either 17th or 19th Ramadhan. In Archive 6 of the Ali Talk Page, I have written a piece elucidating on Ali's Chronology. Anyone can visit it and read what I have explained. Ali Ibn Abi Talib's first three hagiographies written were by Abu Mikhnaf, Al-Hashami, and Al-Kalbi between 761-817 CE / AD. This trio have UNANIMOUSLY recorded 21st Ramadhan 40 Anno Hijri for the date of Ali's death (with him being wounded on 19th Ramadhan 40 Anno Hijri). The dates of 17th or 19th Ramadhan came about much later from HADITH sources, not TARIKH sources of the early Abbasid Caliphate (750-833 CE).
For the sake of verifiability & accessibility, Fourmilab Calendar Converter and Tarek's Hijri-Gregorian Calendar Converter are the most convenient and accurate ones to utilize. I have already provided URL links to both of them above. Please feel free to check them out and if anyone has any questions on them please don't hesitate to communicate with me right here on the Ali Talk Page. I will be more than glad to assist in any way I can. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 17:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you that Islamic events will seriously be complicated when correlating to Western dates. Islamic events were certainly not as diligently recorded in Western calendar by occidental historians during medieval times, if recorded at all. Muslim historians didn't even begin documenting their OWN historiography until over a hundred years after Prophet Muhammad's death. Besides, the Gregorian calendar wasn't even adopted by England and America until 1752. And subsequently, if anyone refers to any encyclopedia worldwide regarding the chronologies of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, etc., the GREGORIAN birthdates are listed, not the Julian birthdates. Washington's birthday is listed as 22 February [Gregorian] in the civil calendar, not 11 February [Julian]. Same thing with the Russian historical figures who were born before 1918 (when Russia finally switched to the Gregorian calendar). From Tzar Nicholas I to Lenin or Stalin. Nicholas I's 25 June Julian birthday has been revised to 6 July, as Lenin's 10 April birth has since been revised to 22 April. So stating that no historian revises to Gregorian dates from Julian dates is an incorrect statement, as just about every encyclopedia in the world that has listed birthdates and certain events in the lives of historical figures of the United States of America and Russia. Besides, just view all the countries of the Western world which DID NOT adopt the Gregorian reform in 1582. Sweden didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1753, while Denmark adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1700. Please refer to URL of a WP article on this subject below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
Summarily, if all the various encyclopedia's of the world have listed the Gregorian birth dates (and death dates) of Russians Tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I (as well as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky), along with Franklin, Washington, Adams, John Hancock, etc., then there should be no serious issue with listing any of the medieval Islamic dates in Gregorian chronology. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. There is one point to consider though: The Julian conversions have a much broader range of variation in their conversion from the Lunar Hijri calendar than the Gregorian conversion. For example, if you convert 21st Ramadhan 40 Hijri to the Julian date, you will get 24th / 25th / 26th / 27th / 28th January...All depending on which calendar converter one is using. In Gregorian conversion, the level of accuracy, consistency, and concurrence is far greater (barely being off by a day, at the most) when using different converters. This should be taken into consideration as well. Also, I am well aware of Islamic-Western conversion tables from back in the old days when only printed sources were available...I have been consulting them for over 50 years now. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What is your problem (?) Do you want to start an unnecessary argument here on the Ali Talk Page (?) Why don't you just edit in Gregorian date and that is that. The readers won't have their daily lives uprooted now that it has been determined that 21st Ramadhan converts to 27 or 28 Jan. (Julian) or 31 Jan. (Gregorian). You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The respected WP editor Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with all of this as you seem to. Did you access and try out the date converters (?) First of all, you are incorrect in stating that for each Julian date, there will be an equally unique matching Gregorian date, even though it makes logical sense that it should be so. However, surprisingly, it isn't the case. I have personally experimented with the various calendar converters in this regard to come to this determination. Why don't you use the URL links provided by me and see what you come up with in the Julian and Gregorian conversions, instead of engaging in an unproductive debate. Don't try and explain to me about "civil" and "astronomical", please. I know well enough about it. Besides, the Hijri calendar is based on terrestrial lunar sightings of the unaided human eye. Even today, around the globe, there is variance when any of the Eid or Hijri lunar months commence or end. The Earth's Moon (Luna) appears to move completely around the celestial sphere once in about 27.3 days as observed from the Earth. This is called a sidereal month, and reflects the corresponding orbital period of 27.3 days. However, Luna takes 29.5 days to return to the same point on the celestial sphere as referenced to the Sun because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun; this is called a synodic month (Lunar phases as observed from the Earth are correlated with the synodic month). Hence, the Hijri lunar month can only be either 29 or 30 days in length from terrestrial sighting.
Here are some more URLs to Islamic calendar converters:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hijri.htm
http://www.oriold.uzh.ch/static/hegira.html
http://www.islamicity.com/PrayerTimes/hijriconverter1aPartner.htm
http://www.rabiah.com/convert/
http://www.linktoislam.net/islamic_calendar/date_conversion.aspx
http://www.iranchamber.com/calendar/converter/iranian_calendar_converter.php
http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/Daysanddates/hijridate.htm
http://www.arabtranslators.org/atn_calendar/atn_calendar.htm
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_tabcal.htm
http://tarekmaani.com/old/calindex.htm [5]
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 13:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you be a person of your word and stick by what you stated earlier and not continue this discussion any further:
There is of course no problem if you insist in presenting the Gregorian date but then at least make this clear so that the reader knows - now the reader is left in the dark. AstroLynx (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You stated you had no problem if I insisted...Consequently, add an abbreviation of NS (New Style) or GRE (Gregorian) to no longer leave readers in the dark... Or if you like, I shall. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
lol I assume it is the one which has the triplicity of Habash al-Hasib, Fatimid, and the one other...After reading over two dozen different English-language bios on Ali ibn Abi Talib, I noticed that the Julian dates of the majority of them varied in their conversion from the Hijri chronology: One listed 24th Jan, another 25th Jan, yet others 26th Jan, 27th Jan, and 28th Jan. The Gregorian conversion to 31st Jan, I found, remained consistent in Fourmilab, Tarek Maani, etc., etc., so I opted for the N.S. conversions for this sake. If other WP editors unanimously insist upon any one particular Julian date, then I'll settle with either 27th or 28th Jan, I suppose. Take care. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Postscripted follow-up:
In reviewing the WP policy on Gregorian-Julian chronology usage, it does not specifically state that early Islamic dates MUST use Julian date conversion. It states that Julian dates MAY be given. The WP policy copy-pasted below further states that the dates prior to 1582 AD / CE should not be converted to Gregorian. However, it does not specifically state that this must be so for dates of other calendar systems which are converted to Julio-Gregorian dates. Especially, early Islamic dates prior to 1582 CE. It is then safe to assume that the WP guideline is referring to records and chronicles of Western/Occidental history. Not the Julio-Gregorian conversion of records and chronicles of Eastern/Oriental history. The WP guideline further states, for example, that the ancient Egyptian or Mesopotamian conversion to either Julian or Gregorian chronology is often debatable...To follow the consensus of RS (reliable sources), not specifically RSS (reliable secondary sources), or indicate their divergence.
Julian and Gregorian calendars
See also: Old Style and New Style dates
Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars. Where a calendar other than the Julian or Gregorian is used, this must be clear to readers.
Current events are given in the Gregorian calendar.
Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January (see below for more details).
Dates for Roman history before 45 BC are given in the Roman calendar, which was neither Julian nor Gregorian. When (rarely) the Julian equivalent is certain, it may be included.
The Julian or Gregorian equivalent of dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history is often debatable. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence.
Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918 (see the Gregorian calendar article).
The dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote.
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ali's Chronology
Ali ibn Abi Talib's chronology underwent a major mutation from his first historical biographers. Before the socio-religious institution of ahadith (narrations) was firmly established (circa 820-825 CE), or during the Caliphate of 7th Abbasid caliph, Al-Mamun Al-Rashid, the earliest standard Islamic historiographers and hagiographers were primarily the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). With the development of ahadith (narrations) in standard Islam, the muhaditheen (narrators) inexorably eclipsed the mu'arikheen (chroniclers). Since there is virtually no contemporaneous literature surviving from the Umayyad Caliphate (with the exception of Quranic calligraphy), all of the literature of standard Islam are the product of the Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE-Iraq; 1261-1517 CE-Egypt). There remains only sparse references to literary sources from Umayyad times of which absolutely no surviving copies exist. Amidst all of this, the first three (3) biographies of Ali ibn Abi Talib were:
Kitab Maqtal Ali (144 AH/761 CE) by Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya bin Said bin Mikhnaf bin Salim al-Azdi al-Ghamidi al-Kufi (died 157 AH/773 CE),
Kitab Maqtal Amir Al-Muminin (183 AH/799 CE) by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim bin Sulayman Hashami al-Khazzaz al-Kufi (died 204 AH/819 CE),
and Maqtal Amir ul-Muminin (201 AH/817 CE) by Abu Mundhir Hisham ibn Muhammad bin Saib Al-Kalbi (died 206 AH/821 CE)
Both Hashami and Al-Kalbi adapted Abu Mikhnaf's very first known hagiography of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hence, they all recorded the same chronology for Ali ibn Abi Talib. The three (3) factors which determined Ali's timeline were his age during the Hijrah of Prophet Muhammad, his age when Prophet Muhammad passed away, and his age when he himself was martyred. The following is a summary:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 16 (during the Hijrah) - Age 27 (when Muhammad passed away) - Age 56 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 16 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
However, with the rise of the institution of ahadith (narrations), the muhaditheen (narrators) almost unanimously felt that Ali's acceptance of the Islamic faith as a cognitive and cognizant nine(9)-year-old preadolescent would appear far better for his historical reputation and image, than him being a three(3)-year-old small child when Muhammad was made aware of his prophethood. It was this primary reason that the muhaditheen (narrators) altered in their oral and written traditions, the date of Ali's birth to 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). Henceforth, Ali ibn Abi Talib was almost unanimously documented by historians, hagiographers, and narrators as having been born in 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah). This led to the following:
[Hijri-Lunar chronology]
Ali ibn Abi Talib - Age 9 (when accepting Islam) - Age 22 (during the Hijrah) - Age 33 (when the Holy Prophet passed away) - Age 62 (when martyred or assassinated)
Translates to:
Ali ibn Abi Talib=Born 13 Rajab 22 B.H.(Before Hijrah); Died 21 Ramadhan 40 A.H.(Anno Hijri)
The original date of Ali ibn Abi Talib's birth remains almost exclusively recorded in the historiographical archives of his first three (3) biograhphies. As for the birth years of 24 B.H.(599 CE) & 23 B.H.(600 CE), these dates are the product of 19th & 20th Century historians. As with the literary evolution of ahadith (narrations) about Prophet Muhammad, who had over 600,000 ahadith (narrations) attributed to him alone by the time muhaditheen Al-Bukhari sorted out what he considered sahih (authentic), Caliph Ali similarly had countless ahadith (narrations) attributed to him, as well as about him. Amongst some of these, there emerged accounts reporting him to be ages 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and even 16 when he accepted Islam. However, each of these were only the single sources and generally cited as weak by the most renowned standard Islamic scholars. Summarily, there is also the question of Arabic semantics. When any of the Arabic scholars wrote (for example) that Muhammad received prophethood in his 40th year, that meant that he was actually thirty-nine (39) years old, but in his 40th year running. Subsequently, when Caliph Ali was recorded as accepting Islam in his 10th year, that meant that he was actually nine (9) years old, but in his 10th year running. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagrantedelicto ( talk • contribs)
Several years ago, in 2006, we reached consensus on this section. (see: Talk:Ali/Ghadir Khumm). However, one of the new wikipedians added some new information:
" 46.3 Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have left two things with you. As long as you hold fast to them, you will not go astray. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet." [7]
"I leave for you the Quran alone you shall uphold it. Muslim 15/19, nu 1218; ibn Majah 25/84, Abu dawud 11/56..
Unfortunately, he used primary sources which can not be used based on WP:ISLAMOR unless there is another reliable secondary source verifies the issue. This approach is based on WP:OR and WP:V policies. However, when I studies the sources, I found new facts which help to improve this section. As Encyclopedia of Islam clarifies [9] Hadith of the pond of Khumm is not just narrated by Shias but some reliable Sunni works such as Musnad Ibn Hanbal contains the Hadith. For further information please refer to "The Charismatic Community: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam" p:34-38. [10]-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is very western bias. I find it as lacking credibility. And there are historical error (might be caused by wester bias/misinterpretation). Some one needs to clean it up and add more info from islamic sources not western sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos ( talk • contribs)
Should we mention his naming. The fact he was the first person called Ali, and that his name is the root of Allai? Or that his mother want to call him Asad, but his father wanted to call him Zayd-- 88.111.113.104 ( talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It was Abu Bakr, who dispatched Ali to participate during the Ridda wars against the forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet in July 632.
This discredits some Shea sources that claim, Ali did not give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr until some time after the death of his wife, Fatimah in the year 633. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimughal69 ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In the third week of July 632, Abu Bakr scraped together an army mainly from the Banu Hashim (the clan of the prophet Muhammad). The army had stalwarts like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talha ibn Ubaidullah and Zubair ibn al-Awam, each of them was appointed as commander of one-third of the newly organised force. Together they fought during the Battle of Zhu Qissa against the forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet and his apostates as they prepared to launch an attack on Medina during the Ridda wars. The apostates were defeated during their advancements and were driven back to Zhu Hussa. [2] [3] [4] Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 ( talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
In the third week of July 632, Abu Bakr scraped together an army mainly from the Banu Hashim (the clan of the prophet Muhammad) to defend Medina from an eminent invasion by the apostate forces of Tulayha, a self-proclaimed prophet. The army had stalwarts like Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talha ibn Ubaidullah and Zubair ibn al-Awam each of them was appointed as commander of one-third of the newly organised force, they had their roles during the Ridda Wars but however did not face any combat scenarios. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Muhammad was a self-proclaimed prophet aswell, it was just HIS followers that won and got to write history. Muhammad is not greater than Tulayha in this non-Muslims eyes, both are self-proclaimed prophets. The term is definitely not neutral. 107.222.205.242 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The correction made prior to the re-correction by Edward321 concerning the caliphate of Muwaiyah, is valid. Muwaiyah's caliphate was not recognised by a majority of the Sunni population as a whole and completely rejected by the Shi'tes. Therefore, the Muwaian "Regime" was the first Umayyad Caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed.ahsan3 ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It is historically more accurate to consider Muwaiyah's reign as being the first Umayyad caliphate rather than the fifth Sunni. A substantial proportion of the Sunni community rejected Muwaiyah's caliphate and he completely rejected by the Shi'tes. Therefore, it would be suitable to revert the change made by Edward321 concerning the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed.ahsan3 ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ali did not try to create a dynasty, he had many sons and treated them all equally any image that ignores the importance of his other sons is offensive to Muslim historians and devout Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.84.155 ( talk) 13:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
S.M.A.A.R ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the image from this article's infobox. The image in question is the calligraphic representation of Ali's name. SMAAR claims that the image violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, but he has not stated why. I invite him to explain his rationale before removing the image again. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is, for the most part, well-written and referenced though it is quite long. There are already multiple articles for perspectives on Ali, including Shia view of Ali, Non-Muslim view of Ali and Sunni view of Ali. Those topics are definitely notable though the content of the second one needs work as it is basically a quote farm. Some of the information here is not contained in those articles; is there a way to merge some content from here into those articles while retaining the links here in this article to those main articles? That could ease up on length and redundancy. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section Ali and the Rashidun Caliphs
"The order of this mus'haf differed from that which was gathered later during the Uthmanic era. This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them"
"This book was rejected by several people when he showed it to them"
This is not true as all the people at that time memorized the Quran in the order of revelation so to reject the Quran arranged in the Order Of Revelation will go against basic logic!
202.153.47.60 ( talk) 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Johnleeds1 has made an edition in the article which had several problems and I reverted most of it due to the following reasons:
I am ready to discuss on the issue here.-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Mehdi ghaed added something about orientalists' approach towards Ghadir Khom: also some scholars such as Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi believes that orientalists explain the Ghadir Khum event regerardless to shiitte views rather that they interpret the event according to Sunni attitudes.
Let's suppose this claim is correct. There are some criteria in wikipedia for adding information to the article.
Finally, I think this claim can not be added to the article unless the above criteria are satisfied.-- Seyyed( t- c) 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Muhammad Rizvi's viewpoint as as famous scholar shiite concerned with second criteria , namely:
Since that Shiite could be thought of as a significant minority . Sayyed mummad Rizvi is the Imam of Shiah community of British Columbia. According to common sense, the shia community of British Colombia are prominent adherents.
Secondly, though I refer to a website as reliable source but must be mentioned that the source is both as a book compiled in that site and also is a part of book as below: Shī‘ism Imāmate & Wilāyat. Canada: Al-Ma‘ārif Books. 1999. ISBN 0-920675-11-5 Therefore according to the rule: 1. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. There is no problem about source. I think that the editor misinterprets the above law. Mehdi ghaed ( talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Sayyid serves as a crucial figure in the building of bridges with other faiths and surrounding communities. These accomplishments have been due to, firstly, his numerous written works promoting peace and understanding, and, secondly, his continued active participation in inter-faith and inter-community dialogues". because of this I dint think it is needed to mention further sources. Mehdi ghaed ( talk) 16:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
i cant believe what i read ! , the article mostly displays the Shi'e view only using Shi'e sources as Muslims sources , although Shia is only 10% of Muslims ! , this is NOT acceptable . the responsible of this Sabotage is Sa.vakilian ( talk · contribs) . i hope somebody can fix this problem , because this article in recent case is historically not acceptable , it only Reflects the Shie's view although it is Different from neutral sources and the majority Muslems (Sunni) sources . محمد الباحوث ( talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Category:Assassinated religious leaders
84.255.151.48 ( talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I am slightly concerned about this page. There seems to be an element of bias in the article. It has a strong leaning towards shia opinions, in fact it reads like a sectarian opinion piece. I shall give my reason at the end. I was under the impression that articles must be neutral and meet consensus. Therefore would it not be more appropriate to have a an articles on Ali that is agreed upon by concensus and then have seperate articles for Shia, Sunni, Alawi and Sufi views on him. Would it also be possible for someone to specifically look at the references. There are a lot of references to 2 canonical hadith books; Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. These are primary textbooks which seem to have been used maliciously to put a particular point of view across. I apologise beforehand if I am mistaken in my observation. I do not mean to be rude but this is an obvious strategy used on debating forums using sources in such a way. Since this is not a discussion forum, could I suggest that, like the limits on use of Quran as reference, the same criteria apply to these texts as well. Surely it would be more useful to use the most authoritative commentaries on the hadith books like the two Fath Al Bari's or any other that you can find.
Regarding the other reason for the inherent bias, there is no mention of the role of Abu Bakr and Aisha in making Ali's marriage to Fatimah successful. I guess this would make the 'opinion piece' further down the article less favourable. If sources are needed they are: Jila ul Ayun Bihar al Anwar Manaqib Kashaful Ghumma Ibn Maja Amali by Atusi
I am not asking for removal of the content but just that it be moved into another side article (I don't know what the correct terms for this is yet) and the general tone of the article should be more neutral.
I am hoping to learn so welcome any constructive criticism, especially any grave errors I have made. Mbcap ( talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I just edited the introduction but forgot to put in an edit summary. I changed the line about his birth in the Kaaba to make it more neutral. Mbcap ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC) @ Mbcap, Thank for your attention and suggestions. I review your points one by one.
Thank for your polite and positive approach to make the article more neutral. Let's know your suggestions in details. -- Seyyed( t- c) 05:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Should we make the introduction shorter?-- 88.111.129.157 ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The current title "Ali" has been stable for a long time. Please do not make undiscussed moves. Khestwol ( talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Musa Raza ( talk · contribs) 12:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@
Musa Raza:, Excuse me, I have confused. I can not find the reviewer's comments! There is a
process for the promotion which may not be done correctly!--
Seyyed(
t-
c)
21:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Delisted: This article was not properly reviewed for GA. See discussion at Wikipedia:Good article help#Questionable review. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I was reading the article, and as a person not very knowledgeable in Islamic history, I can say that the part on the First Fitna is totally confusing. It first says that "They [the rebels] wanted Ali to arrest Uthman ibn Affan's killer and not to fight Muawiyah I", and four lines below it says that "the rebels maintained that Uthman had been justly killed, for not governing according to Quran and Sunnah, hence no vengeance was to be invoked". Could you please clarify? Thanks. -- ExperiencedArticleFixer ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This about great caliph of Muslimeen and you know islam make up mostly people of Haq from the ahlul sunnah. Why have Rafida hijack page. I tell to you to make fair the page and not propaganda. Shukran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.138.76 ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am Sunni, a Maliki, and let's be truthful. Both Sunnis and Shia engage in propaganda. Each side says their side is "Haq" and they are the "people of Haq" - the Shia could just as easily say "Why have Nasibis hijack page" because to them, we Sunnis are "Nawasib". Just as to some Sunnis they are "Rawafid" - so while each of you two bicker and blindly follow your Shuyukh or Marjas or whatever, what happens is that for integrity since we Muslims are too stupid to have any intellectual honesty over our history, other people who are more responsible end up having to lock and edit sensitive Wikipedia pages. The irony is that many of the contentious things the rank and file Sunnis call lies, are things some of our own Ahl ul-Sunnah Ulama have authenticated. The few rank and file Sunnis savvy or erudite enough to actually know our own histories, as opposed to the khurafat some khateeb or Molvi tells us, then find contorted explanations to make them fit into our received version of history. The Shia are just as bad, actually. But that's the thing: just as bad, not worse. The only half sane ones are the Zaydis, and it's probably the same with the Sunnis, a few half sane (or half honest) ones. All lies will be exposed with time, let's hope our own hearts are not too complicit in them when that time comes.. 208.65.192.1 ( talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Shia believe Ghadire Khumm is an important and accurate document about caliphate of Ali. In the lead of the article, just describe about Sunni view in this subject. It is better that maintain both Shia and Sunni's view about caliphate of Ali. Saff V. ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Saff V.: Thank you; Please write your prosal here to discuss about it?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: The Verse of Wilayah is a new article about the giving of alms (zakat) to the poor by Ali while he was bowing (in rukūʿ) during prayer (salat). The article had DYK on 13 October in the main page. For this reason, I added the hook of DYK in the lead of Ali article. Saff V. ( talk) 09:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A user keeps insisting we should have a long section of quotes about Ali. The entire section looks very much WP:UNDUE. What criteria were used to pick these quotes in particular? Are these individuals experts on Ali? Unfortunately, the impression is that apart from one single token critical view, the entire section is just cherrypicked to find positive quotes about Ali. As such, it seems to violate WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. As the user insists on reverting, I'm tagging the article until this issue is settled. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations")? That is a policy. LjL ( talk) 14:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @ HyperGaruda:, Please discuss before making major changes in the article. Thanks.-- Seyyed( t- c) 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In Muslim culture,
Ali is respected for his courage, knowledge, belief, honesty, unbending devotion to Islam, deep loyalty to Muhammad, equal treatment of all Muslims and generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies, and therefore is central to mystical traditions in Islam such as Sufism. Ali retains his stature as an authority on Quranic exegesis, Islamic jurisprudence and religious thought.[6] Ali holds a high position in almost all Sufi orders which trace their lineage through him to Muhammad. Ali's influence has been important throughout Islamic history. [7] Sunni and Shia scholars agree that the verse of Wilayah was narrated in honour of Ali, but there are differing interpretations of wilayah and the Imamate. [8] The Sunni scholars believe that the verse is about Ali but does not recognise him as an Imam while, in the Shia Muslim view, Ali had been chosen by God as successor of Muhammad. [9]
References
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ali is revered among various Sunni and Shi'a denominations on a political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic level.<ref>Brill.....</ref>to the beginning of part 3 of the lead. Not sure if mentioning Kharijites here is a good idea; they do not exist anymore. Besides, they are already mentioned as having assassinated Ali in the second part of the lead. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Due to the fact that this is a long discussion, I make a new section and ask all of these guys to help us to reach consensus about the lead.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a brief of the former discussion for those who want to participate in it including User:HyperGaruda, Jeppiz, Tivanir2, DeCausa, Human10.0, Amatulić, Toddy1, user:MezzoMezzo and user:Mhhossein:
Following an edit [18] by User:HyperGaruda on the lead of the article and removing the last paragraph, we discussed to find something to replace it. I suggested to use several encyclopedia:
User:HyperGaruda told: I like that final (Brill) formulation: it's concise, factual, not very POV and it nicely sums up how the various denominations view Ali. Britannica's text seems more like a warning about the sources and Iranica's text is rather tedious (=not concise) to read. Perhaps we can add something like Ali is revered among various Sunni and Shi'a denominations on a political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic level.<ref>Brill.....</ref>
to the beginning of part 3 of the lead. Not sure if mentioning Kharijites here is a good idea; they do not exist anymore. Besides, they are already mentioned as having assassinated Ali in the second part of the lead.
My suggestion is: "Ali fulfils a number of political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic roles within the various expressions of both Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam. The sources have been described him more than any other Muslim except Muhammad. Although, he is the issue of polemical sectarian historiography, however, the sources agree that he was a profoundly religious man, devoted to the cause of Islam and the rule of justice in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna."
Thank for your participation to reach consensus. -- Seyyed( t- c) 08:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically.<ref>Brill.....</ref> The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim and a just ruler.<ref>Iranica.....</ref>- HyperGaruda ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically.<ref>Brill.....</ref> The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna.<ref>Iranica.....</ref>-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically. The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna. While Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), Shi'as regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad due to Muhammad's statements in Ghadir Khumm. Shi'as also view Ali and his descendants (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This disagreement split the Ummah (Muslim community) into the Sunni and Shi'i branches.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 18:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@
HyperGaruda Can I make a slight change to your text to put some NPOV? @
Human10.0 and
Sa.vakilian: can also give their input about my change. Ty
Toddy1 for pinging me, my watchlist seems to have gone on the fritz, maybe I purged it by accident. Anyway here is my version Ali is important to various Sunni and Shi'a denominations politically, legislatively, spiritually, and even cosmically. The numerous biographical sources about Ali are often biased due to sectarianism, but they agree that he was a pious Muslim, devoted to the cause of Islam and a just ruler in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah. While Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided) Caliphs, Shi'as regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad due to their interpretation of Muhammad's statements in Ghadir Khumm. Shi'as also hold the view that the rightful successors to Muhammad were from Ali's descendants(all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt). This disagreement split the Ummah (Muslim community) into the Sunni and Shi'i branches.
My reasons for this change are
Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ali and his descendants (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) as the rightful successors to Muhammad. This gives the subtle impression that "All" of Ali's descendants are the successors, which of course is not right according to Shiites or Sunnis. Take for example the sentences. "Ahmad and his friends are Superheroes". The meaning will be that "Ahmad" and "All of his friends" are "Superheroes". Same analogy here. I changed it to say "were from Ali's descendants". which means that every Imam MUST be from Ali's line. Consider the same example I gave and when we change it to. "All Superheroes are Ahmad's friends". This will mean that Ahmad has many friends, some of them are superheroes, and some of them are not, however to be a super hero you must be Ahmad's friend. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Shias also believe that Ali and the other Shia Imams (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) are the rightful successors to Muhammad.I prefer his wording because it mentions how Ali too is a member of the Ahl al-Bayt, which I feel is important because only specific family members of Muhammad are part of the Ahl al-Bayt, and because it also avoids giving the incorrect impression that Shias consider all of Ali's descendants as rightful successors to Muhammad rather than just certain male descendants of Muhammad through Ali and Fatima. — Human10.0 ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: User:HyperGaruda's suggestion is giving proper weight to your sources and thank you both for this solution. Is it going to replace the third paragraph? Btw, how can we clarify the point that "not all of Ali's descendants were Imams"? Mhhossein ( talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Shias also believe that Ali and the other Shia Imams (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) are the rightful successors to Muhammad.- HyperGaruda ( talk) 17:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian: I'd like mention WP:INFOBOXREF. Since an infobox is essentially a summary, all information there should be in the main text too. The references should thus be positioned at the counterpart sections in the main text and preferably not in the infobox. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This IP recently made this edit (among others) to the article. As you can see he listed Muhammad as a predecessor of Ali in Shiism. I think the IP has a point: Shias do believe that Muhammad was the source of divine guidance for humanity and that after Muhammad's death, Ali became the source of divine guidance (in other words, that Muhammad was a predecessor to Ali in giving people divine guidance). However, an important distinction needs to be made i.e., Shias believe Muhammad was the final prophet of Allah (who acted as the source of divine guidance) and that Ali was not a prophet, but an Imam (who became the source of divine guidance after Muhammad's death). This is important info as a prophet has higher status in Islam than an Imam, and believing Muhammad was the final prophet of Allah is an integral belief in Shiism and Sunnism. I feel the IP's edit (if it is allowed to stay in its current form) may give the incorrect impression to lay readers that Shias believe Muhammad and Ali were both prophets, with one being succeeded by the other. I feel the infobox needs to be edited in a way that clarifies how Ali is not seen as a prophet who succeeded Muhammad, but as an Imam in Shiism.
I know the body of the article will make Ali's actual role in Shia teaching quite clear but I feel the info in the infobox needs to be as clear and "unable to be misunderstood" as possible so that readers who do not care to read the entire article do not misunderstand anything. Thoughts?
(Clarification: When I say "the source of divine guidance", I do not mean to say that Muhammad or Ali are divine in Islam. I mean to say that they are considered channels through which the guidance of Allah, the sole divinity in Islam, was delivered to people). — Human10.0 ( talk) 23:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For a long time birth place of Ali has been edited and reverted. Cannot the matter be resolved at talk page? Nannadeem ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for interruption, you say Ali was born in Kabba, others say he was born in Mecca. Actually Kabba is in Mecca. What is the problem between Mecca and Kabba for mentioning his place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.34.232 ( talk) 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Edward321. All extra information in the page are referred to valid sources. If there is any problem with this comprehensive editing, let's discuss to improve this page. I wrote this message in your page too. But until now there is no feedback from you, just reverting the article! Mahda133 ( talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you have a misgiving in my edits. According to the goal of Wikipedia, I really try to improve the pages by studying about them. I don’t copy any text from other pages of Wikipedia. I read all sources which I referred. Moreover, I use the templates because these are standard forms of Wikipedia for adding complete information for a reference. If there is another way for importing the features of the references, please guide me. In addition, I listed my references and the authors from Arabic to English:
النيسابوري, أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله الحاكم .معرفة علوم الحديث Abu Abd-Allah Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah al-Hakim al-Nishapuri, Ma`rifat Anwâ` `Ulûm al-Hadîth ("Knowledge of the Different Types of the Hadîth Sciences")
السيوطي, جلال الدين أبو الفضل عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر. تاریخ الخلفاء Abū al-Faḍl ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn al-Khuḍayrī al-Suyūṭī, History of the Caliphs (Arabic: , translit. Tarikh al-khulafa)
الهيثمي, ابوالعباس أحمد بن محمد بن علي ابن حجر.الصواعق المحرقة علي أهل الرفض والضلال
Shibab al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Hajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī al-Ansārī, al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah
ابن عبد البر. الدرر Yusuf ibn Abdallah ibn Mohammed ibn Abd al-Barr, Abu Umar al-Namari al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maliki, Al-Maghâzî ("The Battles")
ابن أثير الجزري, عز الدين بن الأثير أبي الحسن علي بن محمد. أسد الغابة في معرفة الصحابة
Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ash-Shaybani, Usd al-ghābah fi ma‘rifat al-ṣaḥābah: "The Lions of the Forest and the knowledge about the Companions"
إبن أبيالحديد المدائني المعتزلي, ابوحامد عز الدين بن هبة الله بن محمد بن محمد. شرح نهج البلاغة
‘Izz al-Dīn ‘Abu Hamīd ‘Abd al-Hamīd bin Hībat-Allah ibn Abi al-Hadīd al Mutazilī al-Mada'ini, Comments on the Peak of Eloquence
أبو الفداء عماد الدين إسماعيل بن علي. المختصر في أخبار البشر
Abu al-Fida, The Concise History of Humanity or Chronicles
عسقلانی, ابن حجر. الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة Al-Haafidh Shihabuddin Abu'l-Fadl Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad, al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba
الصنعاني, محمد بن إسماعيل الأمير. سبل السلام شرح بلوغ المرام من أدلة الأحكام Sanani, Muhammad ibn Ismail, Subul al-salam sharh Bulugh al-maram min jam ' adillat al-ahkam
ملا علي القاري, نور الدين أبو الحسن علي بن سلطان محمد الهروي. مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح
Mulla Ali al-Qari, MirghatAlmafatih
العكري الحنبلي, عبد الحي بن أحمد بن محمد.شذرات الذهب في أخبار من ذهب
IBN ALIMAD ALHANBALI, SHAZARAT ALTHAHAB FI AKHBAR MAN THAHAB MAA ALFAHARIS
الدولابي, الإمام الحافظ ابوبشر محمد بن أحمد بن حماد. الذرية الطاهرة النبوية Al Dulabi, Al’ zorriato Taherah
(السيوطي, جلال الدين أبو الفضل عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر. جامع الاحاديث (الجامع الصغير وزوائده والجامع الكبير
Abū al-Faḍl ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn al-Khuḍayrī al-Suyūṭī, Al-Jaami' al-Saghir
ابن عساكر الدمشقي الشافعي, أبي القاسم علي بن الحسن إبن هبة الله بن عبد الله،.تاريخ مدينة دمشق وذكر فضلها وتسمية من حلها من الأماثل Ibn Asakir, History of Damascus
الطبراني, ابوالقاسم سليمان بن أحمد بن أيوب.المعجم الكبير Abu al-Qasim Sulaiman ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr
ابن أبي شيبة الكوفي, ابوبكر عبد الله بن محمد.الكتاب المصنف في الأحاديث والآثار Ibn Abi Shaybah al-Kufi, Abu Bakr, Kitab al-Musannaf
الدارقطني البغدادي, ابوالحسن علي بن عمر. العلل الواردة في الأحاديث النبوية
Dāraquṭnī, ‘Alī ibn ‘Umar, Ilal al-wāridah fī al-aḥādīth al-Nabawīyah
الشيباني, ابوعبد الله أحمد بن حنبل. فضائل الصحابة
Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥanbal Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shaybānī, al-Fada'il Sahaba
الطبری، ذخائر العقبى في مناقب ذوي القربى Abi Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, zakhayeol oghba fi managhebe zavel ghorba
أبي بكر أحمد بن موسى ابن مردويه الأصفهاني ،مناقب علي بن أبي طالب (ع) وما نزل من القرآن في علي (ع) Ibn Marduyeh, Managhebe Ali ibn abi taleb va ma nazala menal ghoran fi Ali
الحاكم الحسكاني، شواهد التنزيل لقواعد التفضيل Al-hakim Al-haskani, Shavahedo tanzil le ghavaedo tafzil
جوزی، تذکره خواص بذکر خصائص الائمه Jouzi, Tazkeratol khavas be zekre khasaesol aemeh
حرانی، ابن تیمیه، مِنهاجُ السّنّة النَبَویّة فی نَقضِ الشّیعة و القَدَریّة
Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah
According to your point of view, if there is no problem, I will add the references in English to the article. Mahda133 ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This information is presented to editors(@ Toddy1, @ Jeppiz, @ Edward321 and any other) for general acceptance. If there is no disagreement, I will edit the page. According to the different sources [1] all early Sunni scholars agree on Ali being the first person converting into Islam. Some Sunni scholars have even emphasized that this theory is agreed upon by the majority of all scholars.[2]
[1] al-Suyūṭī, "History of the Caliphs" (Arabic: , translit. Tarikh al-khulafa)
Book description: One of Syuti's most important works regarding book history is called the History of the Caliphs. In this book, the author describes the Islamic society's incidents during Rashedun, Abbasid, and Omavid caliphs periods. This book can be divided into three parts. The first part consists of the events during the kingdom of Rashedun Caliphs and the short period of Imam Hasan's rule. The second part is devoted to the omavid's governing period, and the third part mainly focuses on the Abassid period. In terms of geography, Syuti divides this kingdom into Egyptian and Iraqi Abbasid kingdom.
[2] Ibn Abi al-Hadid al Mutazili, "Comments on the Peak of Eloquence" Nahjolbalagha's Account by Ibn abi Al-Hadid is gathered in Arabic language by Abdol Hamid Ibn Habbatollah Ibn Abi Al-Hadid Moatazeli. It is considered to be the most detailed exposition to Nahjolbalagha and the most accepted one among all Muslims.
Book description: Ibn Abi al-Hadid began writing his exposition in 1246 and finished it by 1251. Among more than 50 descriptions that has been written on Nahjolbalagha, this one is the most detailed account. The order of the account matches the original book's hierarchy, in which first are the speeches, then come the letters, and finally the quotes. Ibn Abl Al-Hadid divides each speech to a number of chapters. In each chapter, he organizes the arguments as follows:
1- discussing words' structures, meanings, and formal tense.
2- similarities between those lines to existing Arabic poetry and prose.
3- the surrounding incidents about that speech
4- arguments on unity, justice, and etc.
5- delicate points and examples.
6- Imam Ali's wisdom, advice, and etiquette.
Since Ibn Abl Hadid's Nahjolbalagha Account attracts the most attention to itself, there are many translations, descriptions, exegesis, and summaries written regarding it.
This book's publisher, Maktab Ayatollah Al-Marashi Al-Najafi, printed in ten volumes in 1404 (Lunar Calender) for the first time in Ghom city. In addition, this book's researcher is Mohammad Abolfazl Ibrahim. The following is from this book (volume 4, page:116) :
قال أبو عمر و قال ابن إسحاق أول من آمن بالله و بمحمد رسول الله ص علي بن أبي طالب ع و هو قول ابن شهاب إلا أنه قال من الرجال بعد خديجة
means: Abu Omar is recited saying that Ibn Ishagh said that the first person to accept Islam as his religion was Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Also, Ibn Shahab said, after Khadijah, Ali was the first man to believe in Islam.
Mahda133 (
talk)
12:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two in the context of this article? Is it that one of them contains named references, whereas the other does not? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk)
I will change the image in the Ail's article so, you said before I change the image I should first thing to do is to go the talk page so, I did it why I want to change the image because as my self I see that image should be changed so, if I change it please respect my changes on the article last thing I want to add is if you want to make any change you also respect the rules and come here to the talk page and negotiate the changes. 6 March,2017 anyoumrus user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.31.118 ( talk) 10:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Emir of Wikipedia: Why did you remove the list of children of Ali? -- Mhhossein talk 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Note Muhsin ibn Ali has been tagged for speedy deletion with a WP:A7 tag. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@ DA1: Can you please explain your expectation from this section. I find it clear and do not know how it can be expanded. -- Seyyed( t- c) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Their marriage lasted until Fatimah's death ten years later. Although polygamy was permitted, Ali did not marry another woman while Fatimah was alive, and his marriage to her possesses a special spiritual significance for all Muslims because it is seen as the marriage between two great figures surrounding Muhammad. After Fatimah's death, Ali married other wives and fathered many children.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Recently, some sort of "tree" was added, but it is unclear what Ali's role is supposed to be in said tree. It looks as if he is the father of religious denominations, which is not logical of course. Not everyone who follows Shi'ism is a descendant of Ali. Additionally, the Fatimids may be descendants, but they are not a religion. If this is supposed to show the grouping of Shi'a denominations, it would make more sense to start with plain Shi'a Islam like so (in which case it does not belong in Ali, but in Shia Islam#Branches):
Shi'ism | Fiver | |||
Twelver | ||||
Fathite | ||||
Sevener (Isma'ili) |
Nizari | |||
Musta'li | Tayyibi | |||
Hafizi |
For now I have (again) removed this illogical mess. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.theismaili.org/festival/yawm-e-aliWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed that a portrait of Ali (pbuh) has been removed from the page. First to muslims: the injunction against depiction of Muslim holy figures is just a scholarly ijtihad, it's not a pillar of faith! Second, Wikipedia is not an Islamic Wikipedia, it is secular! Third: dignified artistic depictions of holy figure are important in showing their place within their community. So I'm going to restore the removed image. I also added a contemporary realistic depiction of Ali to the page. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note here that the hadith attributed to Muhammad al-Baqir (who is regarded as an Imam by both Twelvers and Isma'ilis, as I mentioned) about there being 12 Imams is a Twelver hadith which is not acceptable to Isma'ilis, so caution should be taken regarding which branch of Shi'ism to which these ahadith belong. In other words, Ali#Muslim views needs a clean-up to make it clear which of the Shi'ite views are Twelver, Isma'ili or specific to neither. Leo1pard ( talk) 15:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 15:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Salam GorgeCustersSabre, I have had to revert your reversion for the following reasons:
1) Ahl al-Bayt ( Arabic: أَهْل ٱلْبَيْت) means "People of the House(hold)", so "members of the Ahl al-Bayt" means "members of the People of the Household", which is grammatically unnecessary. "Members of the Household" is more correct.
2) There is no need for so many Arabic insertions that are not unique to this page, which I was told earlier.
3) "Fourth year of Islam" is WP:controversial" because the orthodox Islamic position is that Islam did not begin with Muhammad, but that it represents even previous Prophets, such as Abraham.
4) Laylat al-Mabit is a related article, check the link.
5) As mentioned above, Muhammad al-Baqir is not just regarded as an Imam by Twelvers, but also Isma'ilis, so to say that he said that there are " Twelve Imams" would not be acceptable to Ismai'li Shi'ites, ask Md iet.
6) There is no need for so many links to the same page, like Fatima Zahra redirecting to Fatimah.
7) Space, like in headings, is an issue. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC); edited 13:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The date of the death listed in this article is 29 January 661. That conflicts with the Assassination of Ali article, which says it was 28 January. Adding to the confusion, the source given for the date ( Encyclopaedia Iranica) says that he died on 27 January. Could someone please clear this up? — howcheng { chat} 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Seriously why did you move this article? Lovely108hh-- SharabSalam ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Alivardi I asked you to explain your reason for revert. Unsourced is not a reason. It is a literal translation from the Arabic and you know it. So you want me to play the game well then Ali means Exalted, ibn is a Arabic name#Nasab meaning son, Abi means my father and Talib means student all of this is a little much to be cited in the lead, (four citations), but you already know all of this, so what is your real objection? Please self revert. Oldperson ( talk) 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ Infobox saint}} added to this article in 11 February 2017 but neither Ali was a " Saint", nor "Sainthood" was determined in Islam. Benyamin-ln ( talk) 23:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose this form:
{{Infobox officeholder
| honorific-prefix =
| name = Ali ibn Abi Talib
| image = Imam-ali-2.png
| image_size = 150px
| office = 4th [[Rashidun|Rashidun Caliph]]
| term_start = {{OldStyleDate|21 June|656|18 June}}
| term_end = <br>{{OldStyleDate|1 February|661|29 January}}
| predecessor = [[Uthman|Uthman ibn Affan]]
| successor = [[Hasan ibn Ali]]
| birth_name = 'Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib
| birth_date = 15 September 601 (13 [[Rajab]] [[Islamic calendar#Numbering the years|21 BH]])<ref name="Britannica"/><ref name="Iranica"/><ref name="Al-Islam"/>
| birth_place = [[Mecca]], [[Hijaz]], Arabia<ref name="Britannica"/><ref name="Guidance">{{cite book|last1=Rahim|first1=Husein A.|last2=Sheriff|first2=Ali Mohamedjaffer|title=Guidance From Qur'an|publisher=Khoja Shia Ithna-asheri Supreme Council|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9v2qAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=ali+was+born+in+kaaba|accessdate=11 April 2017|language=en|year=1993}}</ref> <br/>{{smaller|(present-day [[Saudi Arabia]])}}
| death_date = 29 January 661 (21 [[Ramadan]] AH 40)<br /> (aged {{age|601|9|15|661|1|29}})<ref name="Iranica"/><ref name="Al-Islam"/><ref>Shad, Abdur Rahman. ''Ali Al-Murtaza''. Kazi Publications; 1978 1st Edition. Mohiyuddin, Dr. Ata. ''Ali The Superman''. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers; 1980 1st Edition. Lalljee, Yousuf N. ''Ali The Magnificent''. Ansariyan Publications; January 1981 1st Edition.</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/aliIbnAbiTalibr2Vol.Set|last=Sallaabee|first=Ali Muhammad|title=Ali ibn Abi Talib (volume 2)|page=621|accessdate=15 December 2015}}</ref>
| death_place = [[Kufa]], [[Rashidun Caliphate]] <br/>{{smaller|(present-day [[Iraq]])}}
| death_cause = [[Assassination]]
| resting_place = [[Imam Ali Mosque]], [[Najaf]], [[Iraq]]
| spouse = {{unbulleted list|[[Fatimah]]|[[Umamah bint Zainab]]|[[Umm ul-Banin]]|Leila bint Masoud|[[Asma bint Umays]]|[[Khawlah bint Ja'far]]|Al Sahba' bint Rabi'ah}}
| relations = [[Muhammad]] (father in law)
| children = {{unbulleted list | '''[[Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib|Descendants of Ali]]''' |[[Hasan ibn Ali|Al-Hasan]]|[[Husayn ibn Ali|Al-Husayn]]|[[Zaynab bint Ali|Zaynab]]|[[Umm Kulthum bint Ali|Umm Kulthum]]|[[Muhsin ibn Ali|Muhsin]]|[[Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah ibn Ali|Muhammad]]|[[Abbas ibn Ali|Abbas]]|[[Sayyida Ruqayya bint Ali|Ruqayya]]|[[Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib|Abdullah]]|[[Hilal ibn Ali|Hilal]]|[[Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr]] (stepson)}}
| mother = [[Fatimah bint Asad]]
| father = [[Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib]]
| blank1 = [[Kunya (Arabic)|Kunya]]
| data1 = [[Abu Turab]]
| allegiance = [[Muhammad in Medina|Muhammad's Government]]{{-}}[[Rashidun Caliphate]]
| commands = [[Rashidun army]]
| battles =
}}
Benyamin-ln ( talk) 16:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Benyamin-ln: Your viewpoint about Political history of Islam is completely modern. Separation of religion and politics is not meaningful in traditional Muslim society particularly in the first century. Imam is a political as well as religious term for Shia while Rightly Guided Caliph is a religious as well as political one for Sunnis. I suggest you to read the relevant articles in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought [22] as well as works' of Patricia Crone and Wilfred Madelung-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
According to any proper Muslim, Hazrat Ali RA is not a Prophet. Why does it say on the second line that Ali RA is the last Prophet of Islam? - When the very definition of Muslim is to believe in Allah, and that Hazrat Muhammad (SallahuAleyhi-WalihiWasalim) is the last Prophet. And the majority (80–85% apparently) of people who claim to be Muslim believe he is not a Prophet - but that he is related to the Prophet, and a honoured person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.85.3 ( talk) 15:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This term is understood generally to refer to the New Age-ish religious teachings developed in the 19th Century by Madame Blavatsky; at any rate, the term is not a correct term to refer to an arbitrary combination of theology and philosophy (or theology and numerological woo, for that matter). In the section on "Theosophy", there is a quote that uses this term, that appears to be a translation from some Arabic text. What word in Arabic is being translated as "theosophy", and what support is there for translating it that way?
I plan to remove the term "theosophy" from the article, and replace it with something less misleading - e.g. "theology and philosophy". However the section on "Theosophy" doesn't actually refer to any ideas that I recognise as philosophy; so I'll try to come up with a better substitution - perhaps "theology" on its own is sufficient. But perhaps other editors can suggest a better substitution. MrDemeanour ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
"Ali has also received recognition from a variety of non-Muslim organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Organization for Human Rights, for his governance and social justice.[18][19][20][21]"
The sources given do not amount to an official endorsement of Ali only individual recognition alongside general principles of the UN where the logic seems to be.
1) The UN supports righteous leadership 2) Ali was a righteous leaders 3) Ali is endorsed by the UN
This is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm04926412 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
We can instead include the line, and have the proper descriptors labelled. I.e If a current or former member of a standing international body makes a statement, it should be worthy to note but obviously not account for organization-wide endorsement. JasonMoore ( talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Fatima bint Muhammed was the first wife of Ali ra Madihaamberan ( talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
An external link to the following page may be useful for providing more historical and theological context to the kharijite group to which Ali's assassin belonged (mentioned in the section on the "Assassination in Kufa"): http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Articles/Hermeneutics%20of%20takfir.html Hima14 ( talk) 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that I included the following lines without discussing it on a talk page first.
The lines were " Ali's descendants through his son Abbas ibn Ali are known as Awans or Alvis. Today, most of them reside in modern-day Pakistan. Awan are descendants of Qutb Shah who is a direct descendant of Ali ibn Abu Talib. Awans are descendants of Qutb Shah (Aawn) ibn Yaala ibn Hamza ibn Qasim ibn Tayyar ibn Qasim ibn Ali ibn Jaffar ibn Humza ibn al-Hassan ibn Ubaidullah ibn Abbas ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] "
At first someone pointed out that the citation refers it as a "Legend" so I researched and found some other references, so I included them and published these lines again. Then someone pointed out that there is citekill (Problems in reading due to excessive citation), but I dont think that was the case, it also pointed out that that Primary Source is non-reputable but I think Kihalastah al-Nisab by Al-Hill is a reputable enough source as per wikipedia's standards, it also pointed out that there were duplink (repeated links) but this is not that big of an issue because they could be removed ofc, it also pointed out that The details like page numbers are not given in citations, So I read the article about WP:CITEHOW, and found out that its not necessary to put the page number, It is recommended to put the authors name and the chapter number, but this is a negligible thing and could be easily amended.
The reason for this section is to take your input regarding the descendants of Mola Ali (A.S) from his son Mola Abbas (A.S), like if you know of any book or any article discussing about this or any other thing which could be helpful or used as a source then please point it out here and let me know. And I know one thing for sure that Awans are descendants of Mola Ali (A.S) as I being an Awan, was gifted with an old cloth by my grandmother and the cloth had our "Shajrah" / Lineage which goes back to Mola Abbas ibn Ali (A.S), this cloth was handed down from one generation to the other for the past 1400 years. Moreover, Awans / Alvis are called "Olad-e-Ali" (Children of Ali), unlike Syeds / Sadaats who are called "Olad-e-Nabi(S.A.W.W)" (Children of Prophet (S.A.W.W)), in Pakistan.
References
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ali was 1 caliph/emperor of rashiuddin caliphate
He was the defender of Islam the great man who fought many wars never loss 103.41.91.248 ( talk) 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I think "(Sunni View)" following "4th Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate" in the infobox should be removed, because the Caliph was a official state political position not subject to a view, an opinion or faith. Maudslayer ( talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.41.91.251 ( talk) 15:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ali was the only successor of Rashiduddin caliphate after Muhammed Ali was the most powerful and supreme he don’t want to merge a war if he Wars there were no enemies left
@ CaptainEek and Howcheng: Following the discussion you had two years ago in Talk:Ali/Archive_6#Date_of_death, I am in agreement with CaptainEek saying we should go by the Gregorian equivalent of 21st of Ramadan 40 AH. The tools suggested in the older discussion, i.e. [23] and [24] are saying this day falls on 28 Jan. 661. Also, there's a similar conversion here. How about going with 28 January which is supported by a credible source and the fact that it falls on 21st of Ramadan 40 AH? -- Mhhossein talk 13:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.160.68.75 ( talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A.S) is the Bravest and most powerful Man in the world ever.
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Calligraphy in this article seems not to be right and there is a better source available for this Moriz101 ( talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This Calligraphy image is incorrect according to many Islamic sources , https://www.google.com/search?q=Aliyun+Waliullah+calligraphy&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi6jeeplcbvAhXOw4UKHT5xDAwQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Aliyun+Waliullah+calligraphy&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyBggAEAUQHjoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoECAAQHjoECAAQGFDtrAJY-8MCYJrGAmgAcAB4AIABxAKIAd0UkgEHMC42LjUuMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=mL1ZYLrhBM6HlwS-4rFg&bih=625&biw=1349&safe=strict&hl=en#imgrc=qeb3TrzocOCToM
So The request is for changing this image of the calligraphy to the ones provided in the above first link. The second and third link explain the exact reasons in formal text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriz101 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The information about Ali marrying granddaughter of Prophet Muhammad is a lie and fabricated for secterian fued. Bonemender ( talk) 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As he was a ecclesiastical figure in islam His name was not written with respect that we often perform. His full name is Ali bin Abi Talib (R.A). it should be highly demanded that change His name from Ali to Ali bin abi Talib (R.A) Second edit Suggestion is about Hazrat Muhammed (S.A.W.W) His name was also not written with accuracy Please Make sure of His name is Edit From Muhammed To Hazrat Muhammed (PBUH). He PBUH is the most respected figure in Islam and for all World. thanks please make these changes because respect to great personalities are highly important to avoid any kind of offence. its my pleasure to collaboration in this article you are always welcom Majiidhussain ( talk) 06:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
In personal life it says Ali had 9 wives, but the side panel only has 7 names. Additionally, no explanation is given for this. The source also mentions concubines, implying extra marital relations which is the kind of accusation that needs proper source. The Family life article it links to makes no such mention. In short, either edit down or remove entirely. Any narrative about family should include Shia, Sunni, and non muslim sources. The only source right now is an encylopedia which if you click through does not provide any information.
My suggestion: Remove the term concubines and any exact number of wives. Leave the other information about family intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmirza ( talk • contribs)
(He is) "the wife of Fatemeh Zahra" doesn't look right. Laugh Tough ( talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
At the moment, the birth-death dating has an underscore where I believe it should have a hyphen: "13 September 601 _ 28 January 661". Please fix, thank you. 2600:8800:2396:4600:25E8:1F01:85BD:691B ( talk) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand why the citation was deleted here [25] - and I do not understand why it was mislabelled as a minor edit. The statement was:
The citation was:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Toddy1. It is fixed now. Ghazaalch ( talk) 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The reference "Al-Islam" is define as part of the ref list in the Reference section, however it is not used in the article. The reference should be commented out or deleted. Thanks 92.5.2.97 ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the two Omar’s A.S? And 1 Uthman A.S? Guloy61 ( talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
can someone rearrange the bibliography section author's name in alphabetical? it's more easier to anyone who want to search and find certain sources of this article which we want to read. thx Ahendra ( talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there is a lot of room for improvement in this section of the article. As just one instance, the first pragraph of this section contains the full sentence: "circumstances, led to this civil war in Muslim history, wived differently by different Muslims." I'm hoping to work on this section in the coming weeks. I'll discuss any major changes here. At the moment, it looks like that no one is actively working on this section. Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes... Albertatiran ( talk) 17:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering that these have their own main articles, I think the sections Battle of the Camel, Battle of Siffin, Advent of Kharijites, Arbitration, and Battle of Nahrawan can and possibly should be substantially shorter. This issue might have also come up in earlier discussions. I'd like to just keep the highlights of each event and, for additional details, the reader can refer to the main articles. Albertatiran ( talk) 07:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Advent of the Kharijites containts the full sentence "They agreed to the agreement because it was an invitation to Qur'an and peace; but the terms of the agreement had not yet been determined; there was no term according which Ali would no longer be considered the commander of the faithful; however, the expansion of the arbitrators' authority from the Qur'an to sunnah, which was ambiguous, jeopardized the credibility of the Qur'an, Qurra argued." I think this section could be edited and shortened, and then merged with Battle of Nahrawan. There is already a pointer on this page to the well-written Kharijites article. Albertatiran ( talk) 18:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Overall it's in a good shape but there are a couple of places that Arbitration can perhaps be improved: 1) Too much emphasis on the 2nd meeting (a long paragraph), which can probably be shortened quite a bit. 2) The aftermath of the arbitration (e.g., the 2nd Syria campaign) can probably be moved to Battle of Nahrawan or the last section, which might be renamed accordingly. I think that implementing these two changes will summarize and focus this section a bit more. Albertatiran ( talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The last year of the caliphate does not meet the Wiki's standards of writing in some places, e.g.,
Some other claims are innaccurate or exaggerated, e.g.,
I think parts of this section can be rewitten more carefully and without inflamation or exaggeration. (FYI, proposed changes for the last year of caliphate, Ghazaalch.) Albertatiran ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma, Mhhossein, Al Ameer son, HistoryofIran, Ghazaalch, Toddy1, AhmadLX, Vice regent, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, and M.Nadian: Hi, at the risk of spamming you all, I'd appreciate your feedback here: I've listed above a number of aspects that can be improved in The last year of the caliphate. Here is my attempt to do so, which I think is more accurate and balanced, and has more depth. Before I can hopefully introduce these changes to the article, I wonder if you have any feedback or objections. Thanks! (Note that I didn't mention the arbitration in my text below since Ali's reaction to the arbitration is already covered earlier in the article. I also plan to add additional pointers to other sources soon.) Albertatiran ( talk) 18:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
PROPOSED: The final years of Ali's caliphate
Following the Battle of Nahrawan, Ali's support weakened and he was compelled to abandon his second Syria campaign and return to Kufa. [1] According to Madelung, in addition to the demoralizing effect of the Battle of Nahrawan, another contributing factor might have been Ali's refusal to grant financial favors to the tribal chiefs, which left them vulnerable to bribery; Muawiya wrote to many of them, offering money and promises, in return for undermining Ali's war efforts. [2] With the collapse of Ali's broad military coalition, Egypt fell in 658 to Muawiya, who killed Ali's governor and installed Amr ibn al-As. [3] Muawiya also began to dispatch military detachments to terrorize the civilian population, killing those who did not recognize Muawiya as caliph, looting and ravaging. [4] These units, which were ordered to evade Ali's forces, targeted the areas along the Euphrates, the vicinity of Kufa, and most successfully, Hejaz and Yemen. [5] Ali could not mount a timely response to these assaults. [6] In the case of the infamous raid of Busr ibn Abi Artat in 661, the Kufans eventually responded to Ali's calls for jihad and routed Muawiya's forces only after the latter had reached Yemen. [7] Ali was also faced with armed uprisings by the remnants of the Kharijites, as well as opposition in eastern provinces. [8] However, as the extent of killing and looting by Muawiya's forces became known to the public, it appears that Ali finally found sufficient support for a renewed offensive against Muawiya, set to commence in late winter 661. [9] These plans were abandoned after Ali's assassination. [10]
CURRENT: The last year of the caliphate
After the arbitration, although Ali did not accept the dismissal order and still called himself the caliph of the Muslims, his loyalists decreased every day. While he was fighting the Kharijite revolt, [11] Mu'awiya defeated Ali's troops in Egypt at the end of 39 AH, and made Amr ibn al-As the ruler there. At the same time, Ali lost control of the Hejaz. Also the Iranian uprising took place in the last year of caliphate of Ali, which was suppressed by the caliph's troops. [11] Among them were rebels in eastern Iran who did not pay their taxes to the Kufi and Basri tribes. [12] In 40 AH, Ali did not even have control over the cities of Mecca and Medina. He was practically confined to the city of Kufa and in a defensive position, so that he took no action against Mu'awiya's campaigns in the heart of Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. [11] Arab public opinion tended to Mu'awiya's succession, because he was supported by regular forces. He could maintain power among the Arab elite and control the Islamic caliphate. [12] In the last year of Ali's caliphate, the mood in Kufa and Basra changed in Ali's favour as the people became disillusioned with Mu'awiya's reign and policies. However, the people's attitude toward Ali differed deeply. Just a small minority of them believed that Ali was the best Muslim after Muhammad and the only one entitled to rule them, while the majority supported him due to their distrust and opposition to Mu'awiya. [13]
References