Talk:Ali/Archive 6

Moving POV tag

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)

I think one year after adding the tag and discussion about it, it is accepted by the editors that the article is NPOV. Therefor I removed it. Please write your idea here.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012

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)

Not done: Why remove it? Better to have an artist's rendering than nothing at all. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see here. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2012 Please Remove the Photograph of Hazarat Ali R.A

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)

Not done: See the section above this. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Typo

Introduction: "leading parties of warriors on battles" shouldn't "on" be "in"? 131.174.90.25 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. I've changed it. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'Artistic depiction of Ali'.

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)

Ah, but Whomyeayou000 does make one good point: this particular image is, well, useless. It is not a historical work of art, not a conception based on any particular evidence, not something with a long pedigree. Rather, it is a piece of art created by a Wikipedian. I could draw my own image of Ali, and it would be equally as valid. Praytell, how does this article illustrate anything other than the idiosyncratic opinion of one single Wikipedian artist? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 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)

You're not understanding, I think. Let's say I made a picture similar to File:Stick Figure.svg, and I uploaded it, and I said it's an image of Ali. Similarly, I could take File:George H. W. Bush - portrait by Herbert Abrams (1994).jpg, re-upload it with a different name (perfectly acceptable under CC-BY-SA), and say that's my analysis of what Ali looked like. Those pictures have absolutely, exactly the same validity as the picture currently in the article. None of them have any evidence of connection to historical descriptions, all are "artistic depictions" of Ali, and they all mean absolutely nothing. The Muhammad pictures have encyclopedic merit because they demonstrate ways that Muhammad has been represented throughout history. This painting has no pedigree, no history--nothing except attribution to an anonymous Wikipedia editor. I've argued this with Tarc before, and I think it's time I brought this up in an RfC. The more I type this out the more absolutely ludicrous it is that we are decorating any Wikipedia article on a historical figure with a painting made by a Wikimedia user without any historical value whatsoever. I'm too busy today, but I'll get to it within a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation opened

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ali/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}fai} b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Before I do a full review the following points need to be exhamined:

• I feel that the infobox picture does not represent the person Ali, so I propose to replace it with a calligraphic representation, or something similar, like in Muhammed.
• Ref 31, 37, 112, 133, 134, 137 do not point to any citation. Also I see several dead links
• I really like the formating of the footnotes etc--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, I don't recall who opened this up for review, but could you kindly decline it? We're about to enter mediation on the infobox picture, and are just awaiting a mediator to be assigned. I believe this means the article automatically fails criteria 5; plus, the question at hand is the infobox image, and I very strongly feel that the current image is so completely wrong that not only does the article fail criteria 6, but that it's actually damaging the article. Of course, I could be wrong, but we need the mediation to sort this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fail. Because I got reverted for removing the amateurish picture. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox reverting...

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)

• Not supported After examining the history of Ali, I see that two editors have reverted your attempts to use infoboxes such as those on Abu Bakr, umar, uthman. The editors are correct in directing that you use standard caliph infoboxes and not one off infoboxes. I also note that your RFC is about a censorship matter highlighted earlier on this page:

To wit:

"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.)"

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)

Agreed that the editors are correct in directing that one should use standard caliph infoboxes and not one off infoboxes.My efforts are not an attempt to remove the image of Ali and you can see it through examining the history of Ali the artistic depiction of Ali was first moved in the family section and then the infobox was replaced. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali&oldid=514017900 therefore its not censorship. The only purpose of it was to synchronize the appearance of the infobox of Rashidun Caliphate and adding other fields in the infobox.--Ibrahim ebi (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Well, it would appear that someone went out of their way to make a caliph infobox, and so I can easily side with editors who insist on using such an infobox for caliphs. However, if you look at the list of pages that actually use that template, it would appear that most caliph pages are currently using "one-off" infoboxes. One is simply using Template:Infobox royalty. In fact, pretty much every caliph you can link to from the Caliph wikipedia page does not use the caliph infobox. I agree that they probably should, and using this page as a good example is certainly the way to go.

Also, from looking at the history, I could agree that Ibrahim ebi was not ultimately trying to get rid of the image of Ali, although removal of the image was indeed a consequence of him trying to make the infobox here conform to those that you see on the other Rashidun Caliph pages.

Ibrahim ebi, I strongly believe the best solution here would be for you to offer edits to the caliph infobox, and try to come to a consensus as far as which information you believe should be in infoboxes for caliphs. So, as I observe your template, if, for example, you really thought that caliph infoboxes should have "View" and "Perspective" sections, and that they should be collapsible, then contributing to Template:Infobox caliph is probably a better way to go here. Ender and Peter 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Tanks for your elaborative feedback, You definitely have a point that one should use caliph infobox and the solution here is to customize the caliph infobox template. Its now in my pipeline will surely work on it. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that infobox does not cover all aspects of what we have here in Ali's infobox. We need a more complete infobox which covers the ProphetMuhammad(PBUH) as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The current pictures should be removed as it is presumably made by an amateur. I never saw this picture anywhere outside Wikipedia. Also the file's description is poor and, frankly, it could be any person. I think it is the painter's own interpretation of Ali, although the other depictions of the person are very different. It seems like that the author does not have a sufficient knowledge in Islam. Therefore the picture should be definitely deleted or moved to a section discussing the depiction of Ali. I would replace it with a calligraphic representation as in Muhammed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat, Exactly the fact is that it is only the perception of the artist and those who are so keen to keep this picture in the infobox.

If its a calligraphic representation of Ali, no one having a bit knowledge of Islam and Arabic can deny the fact that Ali is written in Arabic as (على). So as far as having the picture in the infobox is concerned only the facts should be placed in it. The picture should be definitely moved to a section discussing the depiction of Ali as there is no historical evidence that Ali might have looked as depicted in the picture. I myself have tried to replace the infobox making it consistent with other Rashidun Caliphate but was reverted. Hope to see the neutrality of the article back. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can begin right now and paint Ali. This is silly, and don't post talkback templates on my talk page, as clearly explained. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please (both of you, and Doc Tropics), see the mediation below, where I would welcome more input. It's not formally opened yet...but the fact that those trying to keep the picture have so far declined to make any statement makes me wonder if it's going to be decision by default. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian I would be glad to be a part of the meditation but as Tomcat said everything has been explained here. So if you still need any help on this issue feel free to ask. As not only the special contributors but also the editors and the reviewers have problem with the lead image. By the way when is the result of this meditation? -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Tabari's death date.

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)

Hi Chmelchert! Thanks for pointing out the anamoly, it has been fixed now. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

Request for comment on infobox image

Is the picture currently used in the article's infobox appropriate, per WP:IMAGE LEAD? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My answer, for those that don't follow this page, is definitely, No. This is because the image is a relatively recently created image with no provenance, claim to fame, or, in fact, any evidence of importance outside of Wikipedia itself. Per the image's description page, it was created by Ahmad Reza Haraji, born in 1969. He has no Wikipedia article; what I can find online is that he is a graphic artist living in Iran (see, for example, [3]--not a reliable source, but useful enough for our purposes). Please note that I am well aware of the issues surrounding image on Muhammad, and I hold that for exactly the reasons that the last RfC found that we should keep those images, we should rightly reject this one. This picture has no historical value. It does not show how Ali has commonly been depicted over time. It is, for all intents and purposes, simply one individual artist's interpretation of Ali, and it is not an artistic interpretation that is widely known, historically important, or with any indication of accuracy. It is literally as useful, accurate, and encyclopedic as if I myself painted a picture of Ali and uploaded it to Commons. Heck, for that matter, I could take a public domain image, alter it, and then upload it, and it would have exactly equal value. Now, if someone could point me to this image being widely used in reliable sources, especially reference works or academic works about Ali, then I would agree that it has value. But, as far as I can tell, it has not. As such, the image in no way informs the reader of anything, any more than me uploading a stick figure and calling it Ali. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it not appropriate? Brough87 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not appropriate because it is a modern drawing representing just the opinions of one editor, with no historical background. As I said above, it has exactly as much usefulness as me drawing a stick figure, or as me taking some public domain photo of George Washington and renaming it to claim it's Ali's picture. Please tell me any other article where we simply put a picture created by a Wikipedia editor of a person, with no evidence of historical provenance. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 4 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)

We are currently discussing the image in question. However, we are not considering removal for religious reasons. While I am arguing that this specific image should be removed, if we should find a suitable image that meets WP's standards, I would argue to include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-removal of image

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'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)

Request for comment

		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)

INFO BOX EDIT WAR (?)

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 there is a separate article Shia view of Ali which depicts the way Ali is viewed by Shias and obviously user:SpidErxD was removing contents like templates from the page that is undesirable.The existing infobox is place after Consensus see above. My advice to you is that when you see such vandalism first revert it and then add your content. One thing more that when you add anything to the article cite it as you can challenge if they are reverted. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:20, 14 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)

Here is where you made the mistake unintentionally if you made edits after someone remove contents from the page it become hard as it requires manual edits to restore the content so i am sorry if your edits were reverted unintentionally. Removing content is extremely undesirable without justification and consensus on the talk page see Vandalism.I have warned User:SpidErxD not to remove content. Keep up with the good work. Thanks -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:54, 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)

See i told you the user is making disruptive edits. I have complained his attempts and soon there is going to be an action taken against him.-- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have said sorry about This on RHaworth (talk) talk page at 13:08, 15 December 2012. At that time i did not know that there is a page with Shia view of Ali SpidErxD (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Image...again

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)

Ali and the Meccan raids

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)

Removing Hadiths based on Wikipedia Manual of Style

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)

Seems like a reasonable plan to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased referenced material

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)

Flagrantedelicto I agree with what you say. It's sad that its got to this stage and the Twelver Shia and the Salafi the polar opposites have been pushing their views to such an extent. This started during Alis time and Ali according to both the Sunni and the Shia books was against sectarianism. The following sermon of Ali exists in both the Sunni and the Shia books.

"Ali says: With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course of sectarianism, even though he may be under this headband of mine."

I put a diagram of the early scholars at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh

And added the text in the "Diagram of early scholars" section and one sees that these early scholars had very similar views. But later the different sects twisted everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Some nations in the Middle East like Egypt, Iran, Syria and Iraq are very old. The populations are very nationalistic. They have had conflict between each other, for thousands of years. In many cases the front lines are also at the same location during different wars.

During the last few months, I had some time off, I looked into the area and the early history of Islam. I went through hundreds of books in the London School of Oriental and African Studies library and on the internet. Looked through Sunni, Shia and the Roman books from that period.

You only get a complete picture once you read through all the books from the period. Just before the Muslims went into Syria and Iraq, there had just been another Byzantine-Sassanid War. Following the Roman-Persian Wars and the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars there were deep rooted differences between Iraq, formally under the Persian Sassanid Empire and Syria formally under the Byzantine Empire. Each wanted the capital of the newly established Islamic State to be in their area. Umar had kept the Arabs in encampments away from cities so that they do not start behaving like the Roman and Persian elite. But as Uthman got old, Marwan his secretary took more control behind his back and relaxed the conditions. Later the Arabs from the desert started getting tempted by money and wealth in Syria and Iraq. What started as a small thing of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr the son of Abu Bark raised by Ali showing the Egyptians the house of Authman ended up with Authman being killed by the egyptians and Marwan and some people in Iraq who later became the Kawarij manipulating every one which resulted in a huge loss of life. It looks almost like Ali and Muawiyah got sucked in a continuation of the Roman-Persian Wars and it continues to this day. The front lines were at the same location. Again it was the Syrians and the Iraqis fighting. Ali had a very difficult situation on his hand. Its a lesson to all of us, a choice between Money or God. Money corrupts. The real trouble causer was Marwan. Later when Marwan became the governor of Madina you could see the tensions between Aisha and Marwan. After making every one else fight, Marwan later became an umayyad ruler. Aishas brother Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and then her nephew Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr were both killed by the umayyads. Aisha then raised and taught Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr son Qasim. Many early Scholars like Jafar al Sadiq who the shia follow and Qasim his grandfather from his mother side are as much related to Ali as they are to Abu Bakr. Ali even raised Abu Bakrs son Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. People in Iraq and Syria were fighting each other before they were Muslims. Its like a habit and they have long memories and usually the border lines are at the same location. It's tribal. Ali appears to have got stuck in their troubles. But some how the troubles of Iraq and Syria at the time found their way into later history books and then into the sects in Islam. Ali and Muawiyah father were second cousins. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your understanding of Biased materials is completely different from the way we work in wikipedia. Please read WP policies and guidelines.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

land at Fadak

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)

First, There are pages for almost all technical terms such as Mubahala, Ghadir Khumm, Succession to Muhammad, etc. Can we move almost all of the information of the article? No, this is not the way we work in WP. All of the issues which you have mentioned do not relate to our work in WP. I added those information with reference to the reliable secondary source. Of course, we should add every other POV as well.Seyyed(t-c) 11:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Images for the article

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):

• 
  Ali Receiving the Bay'a (Swearing of Allegiance)
• 
  Imam Ali and his children
• 
  Ali with Hasan and Husayn
• 
  Imam Ali and his sons, Hassan and Hossein
• 
  The Imam 'ali
• 
  Imam 'Ali with Hasan and Husayn
• 
  Imam Ali and Hamza in the battle of Badr

More can be found in the commons category for Ali.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that these images are of Ali? Who was the artist? How do you know that the artist lived 1400 years ago, at the time of Ali to have captured his image? Where did the artist meet Ali? What museum are these images in and have they been carbon dated to 1400 years ago? What book written 1400 years ago says that these are the images of Ali? What is the copyright on the images ? I was under the impression, as were many other people that Ali was against people making images of him as was Muhammad. Unless it could be proven that these are 1400 years old and are of Ali, putting images like this on wikipedia will make people think that Ali looked like this and that these images are original images of Ali. Looking at these images, Ali looks different in each image. The style of Artwork of some appears like it is from Iran or India from the 1600s. Other look even more recent. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We do not need to verify that the artists were alive while Ali was. Nor do we need to verify that they are an "accurate" depiction of him. What we do need to verify is that a substantial and/or influential group of people believe these to be images of Ali. For example, if one of these were hanging in a relevant art gallery somewhere, and a reliable curator had labelled it "Image of Ali", and provided some sort of lineage of the painting, that would be sufficient. This is no different than any image of any historical figure; we include paintings, sculptures, and other images throughout Wikipedia that post-date the historical figures, and this is absolutely acceptable. What we want to verify is not the "accuracy" of the image, but that the image has been labelled as being the person in reliable sources. That said, I would like to know what sources you have (Underlying lk) that indicate that these are of Ali. Are they, for instance, in an art history book, that includes the titles? That alone would be sufficient to include one or more of the images. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Starting from the left, these pictures have been identified as representing Ali by the Harvard Art Museums, Tajan (a French auction house), the British Library (hosted on the website of the Columbia University), the Iran Chamber Society (in this case the artist is known, Ibrahim Naghash bashi Isfahani), Christie's, the Harvard Art Museums again, and while the last miniature doesn't come from a reliable source, it is from the Turkish Siyer-i Nebi (Biography of the Prophet) so it surely represents Ali. Johnleeds1 is exactly right about their provenance, they're nearly all from Iran, with one from India and one from Turkey. As for his objections, he might find of interest that there is a religious arts museum dedicated to Ali in Tehran, of all places. Another art gallery in Tehran even mounted an exhibition of Ali's paintings during Ramadan, and the state broadcaster reported about it on their website.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Making of Pictures is forbidden(Haram) in Islam, according to many scholars. So in such a sensitive article, these images should not be used. Faizan (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if we were somehow bound by the opinion of Islamic scholars (and we're not) I disagree: the article's name is not Wahhabi view of Ali, but just Ali. Plenty of scholars would disagree with your statement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As to whether or not these images are truthful depictions of Ali's appearance: of course they aren't. But I will quote you an excerpt from a book that might explain why, despite that, many people are still attached to them: "[…] Although identifying the portrayed as Imam Ali, the ritual leader did not believe the portrait to be a 'true' presentation of Imam Ali, but understood it to be a representation. She made a distinction between material and spiritual aspects of the image. Whether or not there actually was any physical likeness between the visual representation of the historical Ali bin Abi Talib was not important for her evaluation of the image. More relevant was the portrait's ability to represent Imam Ali's qualities and character, traits she held were reflected in the facial expressions. According to the ritual leader, the face expressed kindness and honesty, qualities that many Shia believe characterize Imam Ali." Source.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

These images are in the style of Hindu gods with light emanating from the head. They are deeply influenced by that style of art work. People who know very little about Islam, could easily reach the conclusion that like Hinduism, Islam also has many deities. Later images of other people from the early days of Islam will appear and people may start thinking Islam has lots of deities. Ali appears to be a central character is early Islam. The Quran from beginning to end, appears to tell the reader that God is against idol worship. Looking at Muhammad's early biographies, he also appears to go to great lengths to stop people worshiping images. There is an image of Muhammad on this page too, that is not original. To me it just seems contradictory to make images of Ali and Muhammad and then talk about the "spiritual aspects of the image" when according to both the early Sunni and Shia books, Ali and Muhammad them selves appear to discourage people from worshiping anything other than God. For this reason, images of Muhammad and Ali did not appear for a thousand years. There appear to be no images of Ali before 1500s. Images of Ali only appeared after the reduction in literacy rates in the Middle East after the Mongolian invasions and after the safavids. Such images in the style of a Hindu deity appear to contradict what Ali taught. Qwyrxian, if one follows your line of reasoning, are you saying that if images of Allah appeared and a substantial and/or influential group of people believe these to be images of Allah, you would put them on Wikipedia? --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] Nearly all of those pictures are from Iran, rather than India, and even then I think the artists were more likely to be inspired by words such as these: "If you want to see the knowledge of Adam, the piety of Nuh, the devotion of Ibrahim, the awe of Musa and the service and devotion of Isa, look at the bright face of Ali." (Sunni references: Sahih al-Bayhaqi, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v2, p449).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This statement is metaphorical, it talks about his charactor. People like Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, lived hundreds of years after Ali. They did not see the face of Ali, they were writing about Alis character metaphorically. They did not say go and draw a face of Ali. There are no picture Ali from Ali's time and no one knows what he looked like. That is why for a thousand years people used the Arabic text for Ali's name not pictures. Putting pictures up will just encourage others to put silly cartoons up and another substantial and/or influential group of people will say that they depicts Ali. Then others will complain that it offends them. The Harvard Art Museums, Tajan (a French auction house), Christie's, the British Library do NOT say these are pictures of Ali, they say "this is an artists impression of..." A cartoonist could say this that their cartoons are an Artists impression too. Auction houses would say anything to make money and sell artwork. Images of Muhammad and Ali have often offended people. If images offend, they violate many WikiPedia policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material so why not just keep it simple and not include such images. They are not even real images of Ali.

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop debating Islamic theology/iconography--it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our decision to include these images. Johnleeds1, perhaps you are not aware, but we spent several years, numerous dispute resolution sessions, an ArbCom, and a final binding community poll, and every time the use of images was upheld on Muhammad, so long as those images have historical and/or artistic value. We are never going to "keep things simple and not include such images". And, again, your "the are not real images of Ali" has absolutely no merit whatsoever. The article on Jesus has dozens of pictures, and not one of them was painted anywhere near when he lived. The article on Zeus has quite a number of pictures as well, and I think that the consensus is pretty strong that he never even existed in physical form. If the images have been identified as artistic representations of Ali, then they some of them should be in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates for the death of Ali

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)

Encyclopædia Iranica entry, ʿALĪ B. ABĪ ṬĀLEB also states CE date to be 27 January 661.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It should furthermore be noted that there is some uncertainty in Islamic sources on the dates when Ali was wounded and subsequently died. Probably for this reason the entry on Ali in the Encyclopaedia of Islam only gives the year. The entry on his assassin, Ibn Muljam, in the same source (vol. 3, pp. 887-890; online here) provides more details and cites sources giving 17, 19 or 21 Ramadan for the wounding and dates varying between 11 and 21 Ramadan for his death. AstroLynx (talk) 09:57, 20 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)

Thanks for explaining the origin of the anomalous Western date for the death of Ali - I already suspected that it was a Gregorian calendar date but I was not sure. However, I would strongly advise against the use of Gregorian calendar dates when dating historical events before its introduction in 1582. Not one single historian does this - everyone uses the Julian calendar (or the proleptic Julian calendar for events before 45 BCE), see also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars. Introducing Gregorian calendar dates for early Islanic events will seriously complicate matters when you try to correlate them with contemporary events in nearby Christian countries which of course used the Julian reckoning. AstroLynx (talk) 08:32, 21 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)

Did you read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars? It is true that some countries switched to the Gregorian reckoning much later than 1582 (parts of my own country did not switch until 1700/01). But it is the common practice of all historians to use the Julian reckoning before 1582. Any reader of Wikipedia (or any other digital or printed source) actually assumes this. If you take the trouble to consult Islamic-Western calendar conversion tables (back in the old days when you only had printed sources) you will see that dates before 1582 are Julian and dates after 1582 are Gregorian. 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)

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)

Again I repeat my earlier question, did you read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars? I suspect that you still have'nt because it very clearly states that before 1582 Julian reckoning should be adopted and after 1582 the Gregorian reckoning (with exceptions of course for countries such as England, Sweden, Russia, etc. where the reform was introduced at a later date). In any case, it should always be clear which calendar is used which evidently is not the case now. A casual reader will assume it to be a Julian date while now it is a Gregorian date. I do not agree with your claim that converting Islamic dates to Julian dates is less precise than converting to Gregorian dates. For each Gregorian date there is only one unique matching Julian date - any error in the determination of a Gregorian date will result in an equally large error in the Julian date. The date converter which I recommended converts 21 Ramadan 40 AH to 27 or 28 January 661 CE, depending on whether the 'astronomical' or 'civil' epoch is adopted. I am not familiar with date converters which would produce dates such as 24, 25 or 26 January - if they do exist it is obvious that they should not be used as they clearly have serious errors. AstroLynx (talk) 08:23, 22 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)

My problem is that you apparently still have not read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars. I suggest that you do this first before we continue this discussion. AstroLynx (talk) 14:18, 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)

I have no problem if you add the qualifier Gregorian to the converted calendar date, but I cannot speak for the other editors of this page and it is not conform with the general guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars which is based on the common rule adopted by historians worldwide. Thanks for the comprehensive list of Islamic date converters - as I host one these myself (I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which one is mine) I can use them to complete and correct my list of online date converters. As you correctly state, an exact conversion will never be possible (unless the weekday was also transmitted) as we have no actual data on the new moon sighting (hilal) for that particular period and region. That problem is very well known to me as I also host a much consulted website on this issue. AstroLynx (talk) 14:46, 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)

Thanx! AstroLynx (talk) 15:07, 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)

Ghadir Khumm

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:

But according to the Muwatta[6] by Malik ibn Anas, the oldest book in Islam after the Quran.

" 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]

Also in Ibn `Abbas by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 #20108) and al-Hakim (1:93=1990 ed. 1:171) and by Malik in his Muwatta' and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331) and Abu Hurayra by al-Hakim (1:93=1990 ed. 1:172), al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10:114 #20109), al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (4:245 #149), al-Lalika'i in Sharh Usul I`tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (1:80), al-Khatib, al-Jami` li Akhlaq al-Rawi (1983 ed. 1:111=1991 ed. 2:165-166 #89), Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (24:331), and Ibn Hazm who declared it sahih in al-Ihkam (6:243)

There are also other versions of this Hadith that say:

"I leave for you the Quran alone you shall uphold it. Muslim 15/19, nu 1218; ibn Majah 25/84, Abu dawud 11/56..

Many of these books were written between 100 and 300 years after Muhammad. These hadith were transmitted orally until they were written down. Muwatta[8] by Malik ibn Anas is the earliest of these books.

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)

I agree with you, the said user has not only sprayed many articles with primary sources and quotes from them but also has added lot of original research content too & worse there are lots of instances when unrelated info is added and the user insists on keeping all of that. Anyways good to see you in action.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

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)

If there are specific errors, you're welcome to edit them. However, be careful about adding "Islamic sources". For example, religious texts count as primary sources, and, as such, are generally not useful for verifying article content. Look tSimilarly, religious sources need to be examined and chosen carefully; they should ideally be from scholars of religion, not from religious organizations. Additionally, we need to be careful, especially when dealing with a figure like Ali, about whom there is obviously a lot of disagreement among Muslims, that we do not choose one "side" as being the "truth". But, feel free to recommend sources, and we can revert/discuss as needed; first, though, it will probably help for you to review WP:RS, which are Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The move, though, was definitely inappropriate. We need to use the name most commonly used in English sources. If you wish to pursue a name change, please open a discussion below, as explained at this policy page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Naming

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)

Please provide a reliable source.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

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)

Ali and the Ridda Wars

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. Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First, some of your sources are heavily POV and I question their reliability. Second, this article is not about Abu Bakr, so the info is out of place. Third, in your edits to the page you have also changed sourced info to something not supported by the source. If you have a source that supports your view, then add that, don't alter the article to misrepresent what an existing source says. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the above sources may not be well-cited, most of their claims are verifiable. The participation of Ali in Dhu al-Qissa is mentioned in the famous works of al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir. You can see a glimpse of it in the following snippet [11]. Perhaps the above text, and what the existing sources (wrongly?) claim, need to be rewritten in light of this new information. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJDF2367 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to be more clear. "scraped together", "self-proclaimed", and "stalwarts" are all non-neutral. Furthermore, your reference link is broken; you don't want to link to a search string like that; rather, give the book name, author, publisher, and page number; if needed, you can put a quotation on the talk page here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PJDF2367 has also posted this same POV version to many articles besides this one. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 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)

Correction from fifth Sunni caliph to first Umayyad

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)

Minor edit concerning the caliphate of Muwayiah

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)

Images of Ali and his descendants that may have dynastic motives are offensive to devout Muslims

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)

Image removal for neutrality

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)

I want Wikipedia to be a neutral forum for the people of every religion and community. Therefore, I want the first picture to be removed immediately that is offensive for other Islamic sects. There MUST be a picture that does not represent a particular religion/sect. Kindly remove that caligraphic picture immediately.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.M.A.A.R (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Merged S.M.A.A.R (talk · contribs) message in this section posted in a different section. -- SMS ^Talk 21:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what neutrality has to do with that image. Please read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy if you haven't read it, to understand what is meant by neutrality here at Wikipedia and also Wikipedia is not censored. If you find an image offensive there are ways to hide an image, that you may find helpful. -- SMS ^Talk 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving some content on views out of the article for the sake of length

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)

@MezzoMezzo; I moved some information to Shia view of Ali few years ago and shortened this one. Can you please explain your suggestion clearly. Then we can discuss on it.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian, it's ironic that you bring this up now. I was Wikisurfing yesterday and I found a very well-written yet overly long article that had some sort of a template - if I remember correctly tagging the article as too long. It would have been a good example of what I mean here and I only saw it yesterday, but now I've forgotten. American Revolution is an example of what I think we could do. Notice that for each subsection of that article, there are italicized wikilinks to other wiki articles. Now there is still a blurb about each of them in the main article, but most of the content has been moved to another article.

Considering this article is about one of the most influential men in the history of the world, I think it would be possible to do that here as well. Take Ali#Non-Muslim_views, for example. It doesn't have a structure parallel to the rest of the section, as those all have brief blurbs while this one has a table. One thing we could do here is move the stuff in the table to that article (some of it is already there) and replace it here with a short paragraph. As it is, the Non-Muslim view of Ali could be greatly expanded beyond what it is currently anyway. This is sort of a long-term suggestion, but I think it will both enhance this article, make it more accesible and help to improve other articles as well.

Oh this was too long. I hope my explanation gave a clearer picture than my original comment! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo; I do not think 109 kb article is long. However, I agree that some parts of it such as View of Ali should be improved. Unfortunately, I am too busy now. En Sha Allh,I will return about Ramadan and work on this article and the Persian version as well. We can cooperate to make it a Good Article. Best. Seyyed--Seyyed(t-c) 02:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian (do you get pinged without the @ sign?), sounds like a plan - I don't like handling important topics without help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I got pinged. The article in Arabic wikipedia is going to be chosen as FA[12]. There is a discussion in Persian Wikipedia [13] to improve the article as well. I have a plan and we can co-work on July. Best.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

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)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, we do not synthesise content from multiple sources, or use "logic". - Arjayay (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate edition on Caliphate section

User:Johnleeds1 has made an edition in the article which had several problems and I reverted most of it due to the following reasons:

1. Adding information without reliable source is against Wikipedia policies.
2. Using Primary source like nahj al Balaghah as reference is not acceptable. Please pay attention to wikipedia policy in this regard: WP:PRIMARY
3. Whatever you added about conquest of Egypt by Amr by using "The Great Arab Conquests , Hugh Kennedy " is completely irrelevant, therefor I moved it to Muslim conquest of Egypt#Egypt under Muslim rule
4. Removing a lot of well referenced and NPOV materials about First Fitnah without any discussion is completely unacceptable. This information is there at least since 2008 and you should have good reasons to substitute it. However, you can add new information which has not been covered if you have reliable source for it.

I am ready to discuss on the issue here.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticizing orientalists' approach towards Ghadir Khom

@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.

1. According to WP:NPOV, aq Jimbo describes clearly about WP:UNDUE:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

1. According to WP:RELIABLE the claim needs reliable source. WP:SCHOLARSHIP explains which source is reliable in academic context.
2. Due to the fact that the source is a Shia website, the claim may be a religious viewpoint. Then according to MOS:ISLAM :In Islam with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. Ordination alone does not generally ensure religious expertise or reliability. Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views.

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)

Thanks for this. I'd expressed concerns about this when I originally removed it and was planning to look into it more, but I am now removing it again until we can get agreement that it should be in the article and that it is reliably sourced. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Muhammad Rizvi's viewpoint as as famous scholar shiite concerned with second criteria , namely:

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

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)

As I understand he is a Shia scholar. Therefor, you should add it based on the third point not the second one. Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, Shia scholar, believes that orientalists explain the Ghadir Khum event regerardless to shiitte views rather that they interpret the event according to Sunni attitudes.

However, I have not convinced about satisfying WP:UNDUE yet. Can you please provide another reference with support this claim, as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

as far as I found out it, Shiite and Shiite scholar like Rizvi counted as a significant minority not as a extremely small (or vastly limited) minority.

besides as Wikipedia linked and formerly I bold the name of Rizvi in Wikipedia, it is clear that not only Rizvi counted as known and famous figure among Shiites but also as below:

"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)

unfortunately, you've got the issue completely wrong. What you has written about Muhammad Rizvi does not relate to our context, i.e. history. There is written While in Vancouver, he was able to complete his Master of Arts degree in History (with no prior undergraduate degree) in 1991 from Simon Fraser University. How do you expect we accept such a big claim from someone with MA in history. Please pay attention to his works. It is clear that his main field of study is Fiqh.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

poor article

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)

محمد الباحوث Salam, Can you please check the references of the article before accusing the others! As a newcomer with few contributions[14], I advise you reading etiquette especially WP:GOODFAITH. You can also ask Sunni participants such as User:MezzoMezzo about me. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I am open to discuss with you about every case which is controversial based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I confess that there may be some sentences like what you have changed in the article that need correction five years after developing this article. I wish I had time to check whole of the article based on the sources and fixed it again.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the ping here. محمد الباحوث, you seem a bit new so I will try to keep things short and we can progress from here.

First of all, I'd like to suggest that you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Wikipedia is a place where we deal with each other like adults. You can't accuse a total stranger of "sabotage" or similar things without any proof at all. The default here is the benefit of the doubt - please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Second of all, your comments here really aren't helpful. It's possible that articles on Wikipedia may lean toward a certain point of view, and quite frequently that's done subconsciously by editors who don't even realize it. But what specifically is the problem in this article? What passages to you find objectionable and why? And if you want progress to be made, you will need to be patient and post issues here one by one. Then other editors will be able to participate in said discussions. It's time consuming, but it's a proven method for improving the encyclopedia.

Take some time to cool off and think things over. Your fellow editors aren't your enemies and I can tell you that based on seven years or so of interaction, Seyyed is an honest and hardworking editor who wants to expand on articles related to the history of the Middle East and South Asia (and possibly other topics I'm not aware of). Please remember to always be respectful even when disagreeing, and think of other editors as your colleagues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014

Category:Assassinated religious leaders 

84.255.151.48 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Concern from a new editor 9th December 2014

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.

• 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 Of course, we have tried to do so since 2007. Therefor we moved a lot of information to the articles such as Shia view of Ali and Non-Muslim view of Ali and tried to reach consensus on this page.
• I am not asking for removal of the content but just that it be moved into another side article As I told above, we have moved the information which has not supported by secondary and tertiary sources. I think moving such information to the sub-articles is not acceptable.
• 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. These are just for clarification and in every cases there secondary reliable sources which support those primary sources. We tried to follow this guideline.
• Regarding the other reason for the inherent bias... Please be bold and provide information with reliable sources. Of course, some of the sources which you have mentioned or all of them are primary sources. For example, Bihar al Anwar is nothing but collection of Shia Hadiths.

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)

Into compression

Should we make the introduction shorter?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ali/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Totally confusing, please ammend

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)

Why Rafida hijacked page?

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)

This comment describes Shia Muslims with a pejorative term, Rafida. The comment does not represent the consensus among Sunni Muslims or any people of good will. I am sorry it was posted. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:08, 30 March 2015 (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)

Ghadir Khumm

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)

Yes please. Nannadeem (talk) 08:27, 1 August 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)

Ali in the Quran

• Hello. I am going to add a subsection namely Ali in the Quran, which would consist of the verses which Shiite scholars along with some Sunni ones believe that they refer to Ali. Hadi (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see why that would be a problem. But make sure when adding verses as examples, to mention if Sunni scholars disagree that a verse is about Ali for Neutral point of view purposes. Brustopher (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

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)

Another website was specifically created for this sort of thing. It doesn't belong on wikipedia. Brustopher (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree fully, especially as the user's only reason seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop lying Jeppiz, enough with your lies and false accusation, that is all you got. I never said I like it, various articles have views section at the bottom, doesn't mean you remove them. Why don't you man up and get some negative views if you are that willing to destroy the article? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again a comment that is 100% an WP:NPA violation, 0% related to the issue. This might need to go to WP:ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again another lie, I'm sick of your lies and the way you snake around the issues, how is saying bring forth a negative quote a 0% related to the issue, how many times are you going to lie ??Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything UNDUE or POV about it; it seems like an important element in the article. If you or anyone finds other quotes you are free to add them. Or to convert the quotes to prose. Or to find secondary or tertiary material for the section. What seems POV to me is a desire to obliterate this section. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>I personally don't see anything UNDUE or POV about it
The truth has been spoken, there you go.
>What seems POV to me is a desire to obliterate this section.
THANK YOU. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As I tried to explain, the problem is more with the quotes by non-notable individuals selected just for their views. A quote from a self-published book by a non-notable author is not due. I don't think anyone suggests we shouldn't have non-Muslim views on Ali, but the more pertinent question is whose views and why. Just adding quotes at random, whether positive or negative, does not seem the best solution. Jeppiz (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>by non-notable individuals
This is a clear POV pushing, you don't know them now means they are not notable, HOW DARE you insult these people?
>A quote from a self-published book by a non-notable author is not due
It's actually very MUCH due, since they are expressing their opinion and they know what they are talking about.
>but the more pertinent question is whose views and why.
Anyone's view who knows about Ali
>Just adding quotes at random
LIES upon LIES, where is the evidence they are RANDOM??? where
>whether positive or negative, does not seem the best solution.
It seems the best SOLUTION. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So my point was, and remains: based on what criteria should we select which quotes and by which persons to include? Jeppiz (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

They're all notable, they all have Wikipedia articles (one is a new article and may not meet notability). Most all of them are renowned scholars or writers. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Look in Jeppiz's language "non-notable author" = "I never heard of this author", don't waste your time. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, could you for once try to answer a question instead of just trying to score cheap points? Literally thousands of notable people have expressed views on Ali. My question was perfectly clear "Based on what criteria should we select which quotes and by which persons to include?". Jeppiz (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no points to be scored, so watch your mouth kid.
> "Based on what criteria should we select which quotes and by which persons to include?".
Based on the notability of the person talking about Ali and many of these men are historian, authors, and poets, you are here simply to wreak havoc in Wikipedia.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that if there are further options an editor wants to possibly use, that they be provided here on the talk page for review, and if the consensus is to include one or more, they can be added (or can replace one of the existing quotes if so decided). Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Jeppiz: Are arguing based on the policies? Can say what exactly makes you think this section is UNDUE? There's no criteria except what the WP policies say; Use reliable sources! Mhhossein (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:NOTQUOTE ("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)

• @Jeppiz: I suggest to move all of them to Non-Muslim view of Ali. The former discussion about this issue like Talk:Ali/Archive 6#Suggestion for moving some content on views out of the article for the sake of length with @User:MezzoMezzo supports this idea.Seyyed(t-c) 05:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by User:HyperGaruda

Hi, @HyperGaruda:, Please discuss before making major changes in the article. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: doing the opposite - making changes before discussing - is just being WP:BOLD, a completely accepted guideline. If you don't agree, just revert it and then we can have a discussion. That's the bold edit-revert-discuss cycle. I suppose you're concerned about the amount of text I've removed from the lead paragraph. After pruning the Abu Bakr article and lead, I think I might have been a bit too zealous in removing stuff; sorry for that. I will restore part of it to make the lead a more representative summary of the article, but I'm still leaving out the overly detailed stuff. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda:This is a stable article for a long time. Almost every sentence has reliable source and in accordance with WP policies and guidelines. The current situation of the article is the result of a broad consensus which has been formed during more the 5 years. Thus, you should provide reason to change it.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: my main objections to the former lead paragraph were the POV and specificity of the following paragraph:

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. 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. 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. 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.

References

First of all, the sentence "sourced" by Madelung is highly POV and it misrepresents the source. Madelung attributes these opinions only to Ali's "admirers" (p. 309 of said source). Second, the whole thing about the Verse of Wilayah is too specific for a lead paragraph, being mere support for Ali's succession rather than information about Ali himself. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss on it, however, you have changed some other parts of the article like the infobox, second paragraph of the lead and to some extent the third one.[15]--Seyyed(t-c) 10:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits in the other lead paragraphs were merely out of stylistic considerations. Some things were duplicates, superfluous or otherwise bad grammar, so I rephrased them more concisely (for example: the first paragraph said that Ali is Abu Talib's son, which was sort of repeated in the next paragraph by saying that his parents are Abu Talib and Fatima bint Assad, so I combined that into one sentence). The old standard infobox is a relic from the past, which I upgraded to the now more commonly used person-specific infobox. It saves bytes and is easier to maintain. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me how the infobox was updated and can you critique the infobox in Hind bint Utbah Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov: With updating I meant changing {{Infobox}} into {{Infobox royalty}}; you can see the specific changes in this revision history. The infobox in Hind bint Utbah seems good to me. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• LjL points out that this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit after Seyyed's approval". LjL (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• @LjL: lol. Thank you. However, I did not revert HyperGaruda's edits and just ask him to clarify them.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• @HyperGaruda: The new infobox looks good. However, some information such as the sources was removed. I reverted them.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• The parts related to the verse of wilyah are important aspects of Ali's life and has to be in the lead section. The qualifications has to be restored using "attributions". Moreover the current lead is not really a summary of the whole. Mhhossein (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and HyperGaruda: I made my comment above. Mhhossein (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: please check my comment from 09:56 25 November 2015. In short: that section was misrepresenting a source, WP:POV, WP:PEACOCK and (considering that Ali's imamate and the resulting sunni-shia schism is already mentioned) WP:UNDUE. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein and HyperGaruda:We can use the other sources to improve the lead and substitute the text:

• Britannica article[16] provides the information about Ali's position among Muslims. "Except for Muhammad, there is no one in Islamic history about whom as much has been written in Islamic languages as ʿAlī. The primary sources for scholarship on the life of ʿAlī are the Qurʾān and the Hadith, as well as other texts of early Islamic history. The extensive secondary sources include, in addition to works by Sunni and Shīʿite Muslims, writings by Christian Arabs, Hindus, and other non-Muslims from the Middle East and Asia and a few works by modern Western scholars. However, many of the early Islamic sources are coloured to some extent by a bias, whether positive or negative, toward ʿAlī."
• Iranica article [17] provides information about his personality: Since the conflicts in which ʿAlī was involved were perpetuated in polemical sectarian historiography, biographical material is often biased. But 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; he engaged in war against “erring” Muslims as a matter of religious duty. The sources abound in notices on his austerity, rigorous observance of religious duties, and detachment from worldly goods. Some authors have pointed out that he lacked political skill and flexibility.
• Brill's third edition: [He] fulfils a number of political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic roles within the various expressions of both Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam. Only amongst the Khārijites was he less revered, and even this was only expressed in relation to the period after his decision to accept arbitration at Ṣiffīn during the final years of his life--Seyyed(t-c) 03:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein and Sa.vakilian: 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. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we can give appropriate weight to each of the sources. there's no reason to ignore any of the reliable secondary sources. Btw, sources don't have to be neutral per WP:BIASED! Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion "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."--Seyyed(t-c) 05:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems to me Vakillian and Hossein are pushing for a hagiographic version of the article and Hyper wants to balance it up. Sources do not have to be neutral, but the article must be. This means that even if you use a biased source you will have to give another biased source to counter it. The best way is to use neutral third party sources, which we have plenty of in this article. Hagiography should not be inserted in article like this to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Unfortunately, you do not pay attention to WP:GOODFAITH policy. All of these sources are reliable ones. Let's discuss based on the reliable source and reach a consensus.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: what are your concerns about the edits anyway aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I see no problems with his edits while you want to push forward a hagiographic view of Ali. Even with reliable sources we have to create balance as I just said and you are not creating balance. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am here in wikipedia for about 10 years and know how should I work. I know dispute resolution mechanism very well. You had three blocks this year and your talk page clearly shows who wants to push his/her POV. Leave us to solve the problem. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: WP:OWN also seems to be your problem. Why should I leave and let you "solve your problem" ? Stop pushing your POV and listen to uninvolved editors. you seem interested in my blocks, would you like to get one too? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I just think you do not know what wikipedia is. I am open to hear from the other editors such as user:MezzoMezzo. However, I warn you for Disruptive editing.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then we should ping other editors of course. These guys edit Islam related topics regularly so they may lend a hand. Jeppiz, Tivanir2, DeCausa, Human10.0, Amatulić, Toddy1. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone who knows how wikipedia works and does not accuse the other editors to remove a POV. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:43, 14 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)

Improving the Lead

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:

• Britannica article[19] provides the information about Ali's position among Muslims. Except for Muhammad, there is no one in Islamic history about whom as much has been written in Islamic languages as ʿAlī. The primary sources for scholarship on the life of ʿAlī are the Qurʾān and the Hadith, as well as other texts of early Islamic history. The extensive secondary sources include, in addition to works by Sunni and Shīʿite Muslims, writings by Christian Arabs, Hindus, and other non-Muslims from the Middle East and Asia and a few works by modern Western scholars. However, many of the early Islamic sources are coloured to some extent by a bias, whether positive or negative, toward ʿAlī.
• Iranica article [20] provides information about his personality: Since the conflicts in which ʿAlī was involved were perpetuated in polemical sectarian historiography, biographical material is often biased. But 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; he engaged in war against “erring” Muslims as a matter of religious duty. The sources abound in notices on his austerity, rigorous observance of religious duties, and detachment from worldly goods. Some authors have pointed out that he lacked political skill and flexibility.
• Brill's third edition: [He] fulfils a number of political, legislative, spiritual, and even cosmic roles within the various expressions of both Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam. Only amongst the Khārijites was he less revered, and even this was only expressed in relation to the period after his decision to accept arbitration at Ṣiffīn during the final years of his life

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)

Just replying to give disclosure that I've seen the lengthy discussion above, though I haven't delved into all of it and this new section might be a good idea.

Am I correct in understanding that in addition to Seyyed's suggestion above, there will be counter suggestions as well? (I'd rather not jump into making my own suggestions now and simply see if I can comment on what is posted here by those more involved in the discussion.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

With regards to preventing copyvio, I've taken the liberty to paraphrase your suggestion a bit: 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)

We can make the last line more clear: 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)

Like - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I like this version and strongly agree with the inclusion of the words "in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah." But I would like to know: what does "cosmically" mean in this context? And does the body of the article go on to explain Ali's 'cosmic' significance among Sunnis and Shias?

Since we're talking about the lead, I would also like to propose the following change to the first line of the third paragraph: "Sunnis consider Ali the fourth and final of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), while Shias regard Ali as the first Imam after Muhammad due to Muhammad's statements in Ghadir Khumm, and consider Ali and his descendants (all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt, the household of Muhammad) as the rightful successors to Muhammad." —Human10.0 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Regarding cosmic it may refer to a supernatural characteristics which both sects believe Ali had, however, I do not access to the source now. God willing, I will check it on Friday.

I agree with your second suggestion. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0 and Sa.vakilian: I'm also a bit confused by the phrase "cosmic(ally)"; I wonder what Brill has to say about that. The second suggestion and its current counterpart in the article seem a bit long, so I've chopped the sentence into bite-size chuncks in the following total suggestion: 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 Good. Very neutral. Nannadeem (talk) 20:12, 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

1. cosmetic, Quran instead of Koran and Sunnah instead of Sunna
2. Npov, the ghadir-e-khumm is interpretated by Shi'ites to be a nomination of seccessor, Sunni's do not hold this view.
3. Semantic, not all of his descendents were the successors, as only some of them became Imams, so "From his desencdants" seems better to me.

RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I prefer @HyperGaruda:'s suggestion. Almost all Shias believe Imams should be Muhammad's descendants. You see, Imams should be the descendants of Fatimah Zahra. Therefor, the last sentence looks wrong. "Shi'as also hold the view that the rightful successors to Muhammad were from Muhammad's descendants through Ali(all of whom are members of the Ahl al-Bayt)." --Seyyed(t-c) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: I think you have misunderstood here. Hypergaruda wrote 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)

I agree with FreeatlastChitchat's wording of the part about Ghadir Khumm. I would like two more modifications:

• The text should say "at Ghadir Khumm" instead of "in Ghadir Khumm"
• The line "Shias also hold the view [...]" should be replaced with HyperGaruda's suggestion: 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)

How about simply specifying the descendants: 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)

@HyperGaruda: I think we are close to the consensus. Please add your suggestion to the article. We can improve it later.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Adding "other Shia Imams" fixes the mentioned problem. Mhhossein (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda and Human10.0: I could not find any description about "cosmic" in the source. We can omit it if it is ambiguous.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Thank you for looking it up, I appreciate the effort. The lede looks good. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Refs in infobox

@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)

OK. thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to act a bit differently for challenging materials if there are any. Mhhossein (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF does not forbid placing citations in the infobox. For articles where information is contentious, citations in the infobox are a useful protection.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How should Shiism's view of Ali be described in the infobox?

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)

Muhammad was not a Shia imam. Most readers of Wikipedia do not know this. If the infobox lists Muhammad as Ali's predecessor as Shia imam, most readers of Wikipedia would conclude that Muhammad was a Shia and was imam before Ali.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Good point. However, the infobox does not list Muhammad as Ali's predecessor as Shia imam, it just says "Shia Islam's view" at the moment and gives Shiism's view according to which Muhammad preceded Ali (in spiritually guiding people). (On a sidenote, Shias do believe that their version of Islam is the one that Muhammad preached and followed, so if the infobox portrays Muhammad as a Shia when presenting Shiism's view, I do not think that would be inaccurate). Any suggestions on how the infobox can be improved to clarify that Shias see Muhammad as the final prophet who was then succeeded by Ali (as an Imam)? Can we do something similar to Ali's infobox as has been done to Abu Bakr's infobox, which lists Muhammad as Abu Bakr's predecessor but clarifies that "Abubakr succeeded Muhammad as the Head of State only"? —Human10.0 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Anglican Christians believe that their religion is the one that Abraham and Moses preached, but it is not reasonable to create infoboxes suggesting that Abraham and Moses were Anglican Christians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: No one is creating another infobox, the current infobox already has a section for representing the Shia view and it is not inaccurate if readers conclude from reading that section that Shias consider Muhammad a Shia (i.e. in the sense that the version of Islam he preached is the one followed by Shias). Suggesting 'Shias believe Muhammad was XYZ' is not the same thing as suggesting 'Muhammad actually was XYZ as stated by Shias.' —Human10.0 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Birth Place

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)

@Nannadeem: I think the article is stable. Do you have any suggestion --Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 29 January 2016 (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)

Mecca is city Kaaba is house (of Allah). I have never read or heard about any house other than Kaaba about his place of birth. Either we have to mention an alternate house as place of birth (duly referenced) or we have to mention the Kaaba, which is widely referred.

@ Seyyed I think page is ok with regard to place of birth. Nannadeem (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To the unsigned comment: we almost never provide the actual house in which somebody was born ([[WP:OSE|though exceptions perhaps exist), we give the city. So saying Mecca in this article's infobox and introduction is both correct and consistent. Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: So, why have you written this discussion!?--Seyyed(t-c) 03:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Seyyed Plz see revision history of this page during Dec-2015 (especially last week). You will notice reverts about Kaaba and Mecca. In order to build a consensus about birth place I started discussion. Now in the lead section paragraph-2 birth place of Ali Ibn Abi Talib has been written as "born in the sacred sanctuary of the Kaaba in Mecca, the holiest place in Islam, as many sources, especially Shia ones say". The users reveting Kaaba with Mecca now seems to be in agreement with “born in the sacred sanctuary of the Kaaba in Mecca”. I think I have cleared my position. Anyhow you may ask for further clarification. Nannadeem (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding more information with valid sources

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)

Please could you go through the edit you want to do on the talk page? Also the sources have non-English titles. It is OK to use non-English sources, but in addition to the titles in the foreign language, I would like to see translations of the source details in English - the usual format for this is to put them in brackets next to the titles/author name/publisher, etc. I noticed that you make heavy use of Wikipedia templates - does this mean that you copied from another Wikipedia article?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 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)

New information with reliable sources

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)

• Arabic Link: https://archive.org/stream/Tarikh_Khlafa_Suyuti#page/n32/mode/2up  : 1424 AH/ pages:133-134
• English Link: http://islamicblessings.com/upload/Caliphs%20Suyuti%20Tareekh%20ul%20Khulfa.pdf  : 1881/ page:171

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.

• Arabic Link: http://www.noorlib.ir/view/fa/book/bookview/image/13537

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)

@Mahda133: Al-Suyuti's text contradicts your summary of it. In any case, this article already has a statement to that effect, citing a strong tertiary source: "According to Ibn Ishaq and some other authorities, Ali was the first male to embrace Islam.[Gleave, Robert M. (2015). Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Brill.]" Primary sources should be treated with caution per WP:PRIMARY. Eperoton (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References vs Bibliography

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)

References are the sources cited in the article. The bibliography section is what's normally called Further reading. Eperoton (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Image change

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)

Removal of content

@Emir of Wikipedia: Why did you remove the list of children of Ali? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the less notable children, but the infobox still links to the rest where it says (among others). He had many children and I think if we are going to include some combination except the two I left then a discussion should take place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Less notable? What's the basis of your conclusion? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just my view, as they are the most well known particularly in their relationship wit their father. Furthermore one of them (Muhsin) was believed to have not even been born. Are you really telling me that someone who was not even born can compare in notability to someone who lived a life? If you disagree what do you propose? Keeping in mind that with this edit an IP inserted Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing the children's name is unacceptable, while they have articles which show they are notable.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What are we supposed to discuss "Emir"?! If the fact that all those figures have already their own separate entries in Wikipedia is not enough of a clue, the fact that we are talking about children of an outstanding Islamic figure who altogether belong to an immensely remarkable and highly revered family in Islam that is Ahl al-Bayt should spell the end of argument for notability! Expectant of Light (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and Expectant of Light: So you two propose we add all the children who have a Wikipedia page to the infobox? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly! Of note, naming family members of any notable figure is standard across Wikipedia even if the family members are not notable on their own. See Muhammad, Abraham, Moses and Barack Obama for instance. Expectant of Light (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

We can add some of the most notable of them including Hasan, Hussain, Zeinab, Umm Kulthum, Abbas and Muhammad Hanafieh and the others. This way helps the reader to find the complete list without making the template too lengthy. --Seyyed(t-c) 23:41, 16 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)

Expansion tag on family life

@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)

@Sa.vakilian, Hello! First of all, I'd like to preface that there were a disruptive slew of edits made starting 16 February 2017: [21] which involved changing every Ali to 'Ali; the same editor also changed the "four Rashidun" to "five" in the articles Hasan ibn Ali and Rashidun Caliphate, which i managed to revert (I haven't rechecked since) and had a discussion going at the WikiProject talk page (which I urge you to join). It should be pointed out that, per MOS/Transliteration, names must avoid diactritical marks (except in the first line, or etymology section) and should use "common transcription" (conventional spelling). I've avoided reverting those edits (in Ali) since so many new edits have been made since then (but hope to when possible).

Referring to my template on the section "Family Life," I was initially hoping for more elaboration on his other wives and children outside of Fatimah. Since it's titled "Family life" I was surprised why it didn't mention any; hopefully the latter was not a secretive family. What are your thoughts? DA1 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@DA1:Regarding your template, I agree that the article should cover information about his other wives as well, however, I suggest to add them under "family and descendants". Because, the section which you have mentioned is restricted to his family life during Muhammad's era.--Seyyed(t-c) 23:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian, I was just thinking about that, in which case the section should be retitled more specifically to lose that "broad" implication and ambiguity. On top of that, the last paragraph states:

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.

So it seems to leave room for the latter marriages and children (readers clicking on the section per title, would be left wondering); But if we are to narrow it down to his marriage during "Muhamma's era", I think it would be best to retitle the section Marriage to Fatimah. DA1 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507092829/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72 to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212719/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629162138/http://www.velaiat.com/shshow.asp?rsabs=43&id=kash to http://www.velaiat.com/shshow.asp?rsabs=43&id=kash

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird chart

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'a denominations

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)

Without a reliable source bridging between the chart and Ali, it's WP:ORIGINALSYN to add the chart, although I find it non-sensible, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some confusion here between different kinds of "genealogies": 1) historical branching of denominations; 2) spiritual genealogy of imams and their acceptance by different denominations; 3) physical genealogy claimed by some dynasties. Eperoton (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

But are these combined in a source or is it ORIGINALSYN like Mhhossein said above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any sources cited for the chart. Eperoton (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ali's link with Shia Islam is well discussed in various sources. All Shia denominations if put together in a chart form would be helpful to readers.--Md iet (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: Hi, I think your proposal is a suitable chart for Shia Islam, but irrelevant to this article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said ("in which case it does not belong in Ali, but in Shia Islam#Branches"). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theismaili.org/festival/yawm-e-ali
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205021213/http://www.imamalinet.net/en/indexe.htm to http://www.imamalinet.net/en/indexe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem covering depictions of Ali

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)

Whatever happened to the insignia (calligraphy) that were being used as infobox image in the past? DA1 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The painting that I had used instead of the calligraphy was removed on copy-right violation charges. I seek to restore the painting after sorting out the legal requirements. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the issue with using the calligraphy then? DA1 (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

‌ No issue! But the painting that I have in mind is far more interesting. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Different Shi'ite views

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)

Date of death

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)

@Howcheng: It gets more complicated. I found two sources Islamic source & Encyclopedia Britannica which give the Islamic date for the attack: the 19th of Ramadan in 40 AH. Encyclopedia Britannica says he died two days later, but doesn't actually give a Gregorian equivalent, stating only that he died in January. The Islamic source says he died on the 21st of Ramadan, which seems to match up. Using this tool and this tool both say that the 21st of Ramadan in 40 AH would equate to Jan 28, 661, however I think those tools would count as original research. To make matters more complex this source says he was attacked on the 24th and died "two or three days later", which would put his death on the 26th or 27th, but also might explain the discrepancies in his death date. But again, Encycloaedia iranica does say he died "Two days later, on 19 (or 21) Ramażān 40/27 January 661". So my take on it is that Jan 29 is clearly wrong. All sources seem to agree that he died on the 21st of Ramadan, so I think the problem perhaps comes down to converting the date into its Gregorian/Julian equivalent, which seems to be either Jan 27 or Jan 28.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the move?

Seriously why did you move this article? Lovely108hh--SharabSalam (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced?

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)

Proper nouns are not for translation. Also your translation is wrong. Actual literal translation would be "–Ali the son of the father of Talib". Also, if RS, RS doesn'mt mean dictionaries, rather Brill Encyclopedia of Islam and books of academic historians, don't use translations of Arabic proper nouns, and they don't, Wikipedia shouldn't too. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

AhmadLX is correct. Proper names are not translated, as titles are, and even if they were, one would not cite dictionary definitions for constituent parts. Oldperson, you comment on some of the talk pages I follow, and I must say that many of your comments verge on belligerence. Please tone it down and help us keep things collegial around here. Carlstak (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have some ulterior motive for reverting your edit; I don't. I said your content was unsourced because it was the most obvious reason why it wasn't appropriate here. The other reasons, as well as the issues with the references you provided, have already been stated and I won't repeat them. But it's worth pointing out that the fact that you were unable to find a single, reputable source about Ali which includes this translation is a big indication that this information is not notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia.
Alivardi (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Talib doesnt just mean student, it also means "demandant" it also could be an Arabic version of the name Ta'lab. In any case, it doesn't make any sense to transliterate it since it is a name of a person.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam and Carlstak: Talib in fact means student or seeker of knowledge, which is a student. It is even the basis of the name Taliban (Students in English). Persons names have meanings other than just words in all languages. In English Leonard is heart of a lion, William is helmet of resolution. In any event I posted sources above. And names are not just names, they have meanings, especially in Arabic. There is no disputation that the name Ali means Exalted or a synonym, Muhammad means praised, or praised one, commendable, that ibn mans son or Abi means my father and Talib means student (seeker of knowledge) so the name literally translates into Ali ibn Abi Talib, so what is wrong with that? Quillermo Ferrer translates into a stubborn smith. Leonard Carpenter means the lion hearted carpenter. pf course we are not cognizant of that today, we choose names for our children on a different basis than our ancestors did. In the European world, names have morphed into just words, sans any transliteration, but it wasn't always so, and it wasn't always so in the mid east, and not even today. For instance Muhammad al Baghdadi means Muhammad of Baghdad. There are web pages devoted to the meaning of baby names, and many people choose names for their meaning, some for their sound,some because they are familial, some because they are faddish. But such was not the case a thousand years ago, not in the mid east. I really don't see the problem or the reason for the objection. And Carlstak when I mentioned " as you know" I was referring to his obvious knowledge of Arabic (from his user name),and was confounded as to why he demanded a source, when he knew the meaning of the words that constitute the name. Your point is understood, but my point stands the social and cultural situation of the present is not that of over a thousand years ago. Did Julius Caesar conquer France or did he conquer Gaul? Whatever the case I will leave it be.Oldperson (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Saint

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Template removed.

---

{{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 removed it. It wasn't helpful and not needed.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

infobox

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: Other than changing the infobox from royalty to officeholder, did you change anything else? —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Yes. I removed "(Sunni View)", because the political position of caliphate wasn't a religious belief, it was a real fact. Also, I removed "1st Imam of Shia Islam" bacause this one is a religious belief, not a political one. Benyamin-ln (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Benyamin-ln, I think Imam should stay, it is a religious-political position. Also I have never seen office holder infobox being used with ancient persons biography.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: See Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) for example. Imamate in Shia doctrine is a religious-political position but Ali hasn't political power until he elected as Caliph (which was the head of state of Muslims). Benyamin-ln (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Benyamin-ln, Okay, you can change the infobox, but I am not supportive of this and I don't oppose it. I just don't see it necessary because some Shia will come later and argue to add Imamate in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I see. I'm not hurry. I can wait for more comments. Benyamin-ln (talk) 23:34, 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)

Prophet

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)

You misunderstood the statement. The article stated that Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, who was the last prophet of Islam.
Alivardi (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Theosophy"

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)

Please remove following line

"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)

Thanks, I checked the source myself again, and yes, it seems to be as you said. I removed the line.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:04, 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)

Addition of Fatima bint Muhammed as Ali ra wife

Fatima bint Muhammed was the first wife of Ali ra Madihaamberan (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Already in the article, although the spelling "Fatimah" is used. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

External Links

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.htmlHima14 (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Descendants of Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S) from his Son Abbas (A.S)

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. "

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

​I was the one who had performed the second revert, so I'll clarify the reasons.

1. Regarding WP:CITEKILL, cluttering the article is only a possible result of using excessive citations; it is not the sole reason to avoid them. The jist is that there is no reason to add half a dozen references when the content can easily be sourced from just one or two.
2. Regarding WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are allowed if the publisher is reputable, not the source itself. Unfortunately, the citation you provided for Kihalastah al-Nisab had not provided the publisher.
3. Regarding MOS:DUPLINK, you are correct in saying that this is an issue which can be easily fixed. The reason your content was removed was because of this in addition to the other listed problems.
4. Regarding WP:CITEHOW, it didn't state that page numbers are unnecessary, but rather that they should be added "if appropriate". For example, if a text did not actually have page numbers, then it would not be possible to add them and they can therefore be forgone in the citation.
   The point of a citation is to provide the necessary info for a reader to verify the article content in the provided sources. This is not possible if page numbers, release years, authors, titles etc. are not present.

None of this is to say that the content that you are trying to add does not have a place in the article. It just means that you should try to follow Wikipedia policies when doing so. If you need further sources, I recommend you start with Google Books. This tool can be used to create appropriate Wikipedia citations using Google Books URLs. Best of luck.
Alivardi (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank Youu! Alivardi - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

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)

 Not done: He is mentioned in the article already regarding the Rashiuddin Caliphate. The remainder is puffery. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

(Sunni View)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[✉] 16:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Date of death

@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)

Mhhossein, That seems acceptable. To be honest that discussion was so long ago I forget what I was thinking there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you CaptainEek, yes it dates back to 2 years ago! Let's see what @Howcheng: thinks about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as we accurately reflect the sources, it works for me. —howcheng {chat} 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

OK with me too, but please do not call this the Gregorian equivalent -- the Gregorian calendar is only used after 1582 (or even later depending on your views of the Pope changing the calendar). 28 January 661 is the 'Julian' equivalent of 21 Ramadan 40 AH according to one version of the tabular Islamic calendar -- it could also be a day earlier. It would be helpful if the weekday was known -- 28 January 661 was a Thursday. AstroLynx (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hazrat Imam Ali (A.S) is the Bravest and mosr Powerful Man in the world

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.

 Not done: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). See WP:NPOV for more details. DanCherek (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

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)

 Not done: you seemed to have linked a file from your computer as the source, which we of course can't access. If you can find a published reliable source and explain the changes that should be made to the article, feel free to re-open this request. Volteer1 (talk) 07:24, 23 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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

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)

If you can provide references that challenge the statement, which contradict citations 11 and 12, please provide them here. Your request cannot be accepted as such. Ferkjl (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

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)

 Not done: @Majiidhussain: The names are in compliance with MOS:PBUH. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The Family life section is all over the place, needs to be fixed

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)

Regarding sourcing, please note that we don't use Sunni/Shia sources but those published by professional academic experts (whether Muslim or non-Muslim; religious affiliation is irrelevant in academia). Regarding the encyclopedia, you can find full bibliographic information in the bibliography. It is the responsibility of the reader to find the source if they want to verify. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

wife?

(He is) "the wife of Fatemeh Zahra" doesn't look right. Laugh Tough (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Laugh Tough: Good catch! Fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

hyphen

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)

Thanks for noticing this. It's fixed now. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted citation

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:

According to Madelung, Ali stood firmly by his principles and would not compromise them for political self-gain

The citation was:

Madelung, Wilferd (1998). The Succession to Muhammad. Cambridge University Press. p. 149. 'Ali, deeply convinced of his right and his religious mission, unwilling to compromise his principles for the sake of political expediency, ready to fight against overwhelming odds.'

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy1. It is fixed now.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

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)

 Done It was already commented out, but since this was a complete junk source, I removed it altogether. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Where is the two Omar’s A.S? And 1 Uthman A.S? Guloy61 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for bibliography sorting

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)

Caliphate

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)

Merged the above two sections and summarized them, largely borrowing from Kharijites and First Fitna articles. Albertatiran (talk) 15:42, 28 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)

In Arbitration, the sentence "But, the religious leaders of Medina, who did not participate in the first arbitration, tried to resolve the crisis of the Caliphate in this way" doesn't exist in the source (Madelung, pp. 238, 239). Albertatiran (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The last year of the caliphate does not meet the Wiki's standards of writing in some places, e.g.,

• "still called himself the caliph of the Muslims"
• "his loyalists decreased every day"

Some other claims are innaccurate or exaggerated, e.g.,

• "Ali lost control of the Hejaz"
• "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"
• "Arab public opinion tended to Mu'awiya's succession" (It seems that the tribal chiefs were willing to support Muawiya but I guess this claim here is a generalization.)
• "Iranian uprising" (A country with this name did not exist back then.)

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)

Hi Albertatiran, pings only work when you add text in a new paragraph with a new signature, so your ping here didn't work. The easiest way to 'fix' a ping is to make one new edit with a new bit of text in a separate line with a new signature, and then just to self-revert. Pinging Ghazaalch for you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Albertatiran's proposal

@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. 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. 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. Muawiya also began to dispatch military detachments to terrorize the civilian population, killing those who did not recognize Muawiya as caliph, looting and ravaging. 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. Ali could not mount a timely response to these assaults. 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. Ali was also faced with armed uprisings by the remnants of the Kharijites, as well as opposition in eastern provinces. 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. These plans were abandoned after Ali's assassination.

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, 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. Among them were rebels in eastern Iran who did not pay their taxes to the Kufi and Basri tribes. 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. 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. 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.

• Thanks for the ping. It looks ok to me, but I haven't looked into it deeply. Just a couple of things. Replace "Saudi Arabia" with "Arabian peninsula" or something. Second you quote Madelung's opinion in the second sentence, so I wonder what others scholars believe was the reason for Ali's weakening? Do they agree with Madelung, if so, we can replace "According to Madelung" with "According to scholars/historians". If not, it would be interesting to consider their views. I haven't read this subject but I'm sure it has been the subject of much study.VR _talk 19:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Be warned that I am not familiar with the very specific and detailed subject matter here, so if you got anything wrong from a content perspective I will just not have noticed. That said, your proposal generally looks like an improvement with regard to encyclopedic focus and style. I would leave out the "according to Madelung" bit (you're already hedging enough by using "might have been"), and the word "infamous" should definitely be struck (what is infamous or not is very subjective, which makes the word only very rarely fit in an encyclopedic context). The repeated use of "terrorize", looting", "ravaging", "killing" also seems a bit much: I think this needs to be toned down just a little to meet WP:IMPARTIAL.

Just as an additional, general remark: why are we always using almost exclusively Wilferd Madelung? What's wrong with Fred Donner, Patricia Crone, Hugh N. Kennedy, or Robert G. Hoyland, all of whom have written important monographs on the early Islamic period? It's weird to never see those experts cited on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think This article should not be too short, because deleting every part of it makes the article incomplete. Add less important things to the Ali as Caliph.
• Use other sources, in Persian translation of this article has different sources for easily after checking these add to this article.M.Nadian (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. I've implemented most (?) of these comments. I realize that the article is inconsistent when it comes to citation (harvtxt, harvnb, snf) and hopefully that would be fixed gradually. (For completeness, my earlier response: Will also add pointers to Fred Donner and Patricia Crone soon (and try to read the other two sources you mentioned). The choice of words (terrorize, etc.) is borrowed from Madelung but I'll tone that down a bit more.) Albertatiran (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References