Talk:Al-Sahifa al-sajjadiyya

Al-islam.org

Why are there so many External links to Al-islam.org, but no references or citations? --72.75.85.159 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the links are a double, i removed it. Good call. You will have to ask the creator. Why they let me edit.

Fair use rationale for Image:Sahifa3.jpg

Image:Sahifa3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

new article

Hi. Since this article is incomplete, some related issues is not attended, references is not available, and also does not have an appropriate structure, I'm going to complete this page and preparing a draft that will eventually move it into the page. M.Sakhaie (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing

M.Sakhaie: I have been reading through the latest version which you have prepared, with a view to copy-editing it as suggested by Mhhossein, but I am afraid I cannot understand quite a lot of it. If I list the sentences, could you either rewrite them here or explain what you mean, please? Then I will be able to do some copy-editing!

• "This book ... shows the relationship between man and God with the universal language." What does "with the universal language" mean?

It means everybody with every language, every culture and every nation (who is just human and believe in God) can understand the concepts of this book and confirm it (if the book is translated of course). This book is useful not only for Muslims, but also for everybody around the world. Ok? M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "Although it is a collection of Islamic knowledge and thought in supplication form." On its own, this isn't a sentence. Where is the rest of the sentence?

Thought is noun! Means idea. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean! Perhaps if you write the sentence in other words I will understand. (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "It is said that the book was an uprising against the Umayyads." What does this mean?

This is a historical matter. I don’t understand, what is the problem? M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• A book cannot be an uprising! How does the book relate to this uprising?

in that time, there were not freedom of expression, especially for Imam Sajjad. He express his opinion by speaking to God (which is called supplication) and use any opportunity to teach these supplication to everybody. It is lead to awakening of people, therefore people in that time began to hate Umayyads rule and an uprising against the Umayyads is formed. M.Sakhaie 08:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good explanation, thanks. (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "Also there are many descriptions about it." Does this mean descriptions 'of' it? On its own the sentence means little. Can you say where the descriptions have appeared, for example?

I don’t know which preposition is suitable. I did not understand what exactly you mean. But maybe I should say: there is a book named al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, and there are a lot of book that explain and describe the content of al-Sahifa al-Sajjdiyya. These books are known as description of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

@P-123: There is a misunderstood. The book of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is important (or noteworthy) for Sunni Muslims and Christians, not the descriptions book. Usually when a person read al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, he/she will like this book. But this is not true about descriptions book of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya; at least this is not mentioned in the references. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@M.Sakhaie: I understood you the first time, but I can see how my copy-edit can be read the wrong way! I will amend it. (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "The title of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya means the book of Sajjad, which is the epithet of Ali ibn Husayn who is the fourth Shia Imam." What do you mean by "epithet"? This word usually means a name that is 'descriptive' of a person.

I mean an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality characteristic of the person. I think the Synonymous is surname. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)(Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is intituled several titles such as “sister of Quran”, “Gospel of Holy Household” and “Psalms of Muhammad dynasty”; which indicate its glorification." What is "its" and what does "indicate its glorification" mean?

“It’s” refer to al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. Indicate its glorification: the book of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is known as “sister of Quran”, “Gospel of Holy Household” and “Psalms of Muhammad dynasty”. These nouns or titles shows us that this book has prominent position among Muslims. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "... but also the public was unwilling". What does this mean? Unwilling to do what?

Unwilling to listen to words of Imam Sajjad. OK? Or more explanation is needed? M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's fine. (Now copy-edited)

• " It seems al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya -which was protected from government agents by Imam Sajjad’s sons and companions- was a sectarian and organisational booklet, which the access of the government agents to it make ineffective all Imam Sajjad's efforts." Could you rewrite this sentence to make it clearer, please, or explain what it means?

Nowadays al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is just a supplication book. But in the past (During the Umayyad era) politically it was a special book. If anybody who works for Ummayyad rule (or government) was aware of the book, it lead to making trouble for Imam Sajjad and his companion, for example they were arrested or tortured. So Imam Sajjad thought these supplications secretly (particularly those supplications which Ummayyad did not like) and ordered to his companion: don’t allow Ummayyad be aware of these supplications. The vague sentence want to say that al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya politically was special book and was protected. I say "special" because I do not know which word is suitable, perhaps "Manifesto" is good. M.Sakhaie 10:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @M.Sakhaie: Again, this is interesting information. I am wondering if the political aspect of the book should be brought out more in the article. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "... this book emphasizes to freedom of the material world". Do you mean "the" and not "to"?

Yes. “Emphasize” has no preposition which I did not know. M.Sakhaie 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, my question was incomplete. What does "this book emphasises the freedom of the world" mean?

If we assume there is material world and spiritual world (in other word physical world and metaphysical world) this book emphasize: don’t be involved in material world more than enough. For example don’t always think about best car, best house, best food, etc. But also think about justice, kindness, amiability, worship of God, and so on. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

@P-123: It seems there is a misunderstanding. This is the sentence which is in related reference: "It(al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya) represents the most perfect freedom from the material world, full devotion and fleeing to Allah." @Mhhossein: Do you understand what is my mean? can you explain it for P-123? M.Sakhaie 08:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123 and M.Sakhaie: I think the original text aimed to express the "freedom from the material world" rather "freedom of material world". The former means "not to be very busy with the world and its affairs". This stems from the religious idea of "the other world" which is the destination of human after death. So, in other words, Imam sajjad meant to advise people not to adhere to this world (=not to be addicted to money, job, world's hobbies and etc) and be prepared for the world after death, for example by being good and helping others. Mhhossein (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein: I was misled by the "of" in "this book emphasises the freedom of the world"! ~ P-123 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• What does "most of natural occurrence, events and laws" mean?

The examples for natural occurrence and events is raining, rainbow, thunder, germination, and the example for natural law is earth gravity. OK? M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• What does the "advantages" of lightning, season’s changes and environmental changes mean? What is meant by "environmental changes"? Perhaps you could rewrite this sentence using different words. (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

@P-123: the changes of season and many environmental changes is useful for us. al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiya talk about these uses or benefits (or advantages). M.Sakhaie (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• "... Umayyad Caliphate tried to clean up the name and memory of Muhammad and his family." What exactly does "clean up" mean here?

means remove. or do something that everybody forget Muhammad and his family. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "In addition, according to some scholars al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiya is in the highest level of eloquence and purity after Quran and Ali’s Nahj al-Balagha in Arab words." What exactly in that sentence does "in Arab words" refer to?

It refer to Arabic Literature. The original book is in Arabic language. So this book in Arabic (not other language) is in the highest level of eloquence. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "The specialists in the science of Hadith.... ". I don't think "science" is the right word here, but I don't know what is meant by the "science of Hadith". "... specialists in the study of Hadith"? "Scholars of the Hadith"?

you are right. that is not right word. I think "specialists in the study of Hadith" is correct. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "... the text is Mutawatir, means successive narration which is one conveyed by narrators so numerous that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity." I understand what Mutawatir means, but I don't know what "they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity" means. Can you rewrite that in other words to make the meaning clear?

In this sentence I have just tried to explain the word "Mutawatir". if you think this sentence is not clear, write the better one, please. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I can't write a better one because I cannot understand what it means!

It does not matter! you/I can remove the unclear sentence and add a sentence which explain the word "Mutawatir" in better way. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can you add a new sentence, please? I cannot edit the article as I know absolutely nothing about this subject; I can only copy-edit it (i.e. improve the language).

OK, I will. But I need more time. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you perhaps help with this sentence? It comes from the wiki on Mutawatir. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: Definition of Mutawatir: A Mutawatir hadith is one which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together. for example P-123, M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein, all together confirmed that X said Y. Different people confirmed X said Y so we conclude this fact is true and X really said Y. Thus Y is Mutawatir. M.Sakhaie 08:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "The endeavors and attentions of different classes of twelver’s scholars in all era for narrating al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, and its mention in scholar’s permissions, and writing its name and descriptions in list of Sheykh Najjashi, Sheykh al-Ta'ifa Toosi, and ibn Shahr Ashoob Mazandarani leave no doubt about validity of this book." Some words whose meaning is unclear here: "classes", "permissions", "list of". The whole sentence is unclear. Could you rewrite it in different words, please? When I understand what it means I can copy-edit it!

classes: There are many scholars and narrator, during history, who had narrated hadiths. These scholars and narrator, in hadiths study, are divided into different categories or classes, based on some criteria. Permission: In the past, for some reasons there were no permission (or license) for ordinary person to narrate any hadith. If somebody wanted to narrate a hadith, he should be allowed by a scholar. In addition sometimes scholars allowed everybody to narrate a particular hadith. List of: Sheykh Najjashi, Sheykh al-Ta'ifa Toosi, and ibn Shahr Ashoob Mazandarani, each one wrote a book (or something like that). In these books they wrote the names of who narrate al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and names of who described and interpreted al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. This is called list of Sheykh Najjashi, etc. the vague sentence wants to say: certainly al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is a valid, authentic and reliable book, because of 1) The endeavors and attentions of different classes of twelver’s scholars in all era for narrating al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, 2) its mention in scholar’s permissions, 3) writing its name and descriptions in list of Sheykh Najjashi, Sheykh al-Ta'ifa Toosi, and ibn Shahr Ashoob Mazandarani.M.Sakhaie 12:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• That is a lot of interesting historical background, thanks. But the sentence is still too vague. At the moment I cannot see how we can put a sentence like that into the article without giving a lengthy explanation of those things. Just mentioning "classes", "permissions" and the lists will not mean anything to the uninformed reader (which I was, and is why I was puzzled)! I am not yet sure what the best solution is here. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! sorry, I did not consider this issue. no problem, if you think there is no solution, I will remove the vague sentence. "if" I find a better sentence, I will tell you. M.Sakhaie 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Can you think of a solution here, that will not involve cumbersome explanations for the reader? ~ P-123 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Probably best left out ~ P-123)

• "Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya also comprises some scientific realities which was not discovered before him." I have understood this to mean: "Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya also describes some scientific facts, for which explanations had not yet been discovered." Is this correct?

yes. this is correct. M.Sakhaie 08:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

__________________________________________________________________________________ I will add to this list when I have some more time! You can either add your answers beneath each number in the list, or make a separate list of answers, whichever you find easier. If you have any queries, please ping me here and I will do my best to answer them. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think you are going to make any more new edits to the article, or is this the final version? If you are going to make more alterations, perhaps I should wait until you have done that before starting to copy-edit. Let me know. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @P-123:. Thanks for your attention. I think this is my final version and I am not going to make any more new edits to the article. I am going to answer the questions one by one beneath each number in the list.M.Sakhaie 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie: Thanks for the answers so far. I'm afraid I can't understand some of them (I have highlighted which ones), so I will ping Mhhossein for some help with this. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie: Most of the answers are fine now. I still haven't finished reading the article, so there will be more questions later. There is no rush, so don't worry about giving answers quickly! Unless I add anything underneath your answers, you can assume I have understood them. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: Which parts are vague? Mhhossein (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I have understood all M.Sak's answers so far, but he has not answered some questions in the list yet. Those are the only vague parts. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Queries

M.Sakhaie: I have changed the first sentence of the article to make clear that Sajjad is the great-grandson of Muhammad. I hope this is what you meant to say. I have also added the date of the Battle of Karbala, but not the Islamic calendar date. Perhaps you could add this. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie: Can I be clear about one thing, please? Sajjad was not the actual author of the supplications, he collected these prayers from various sources and wrote them down in this book, al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya; is that correct or not? (I am referring to the supplications here, not the later addenda.) It is not very clear, because the article says at one point: "In several supplications Imam Sajjad explains the concept of Imamate (leadership). He explains what Imamate means ..." etc, which suggests that he is the author. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: I did not understand what you mean is exacly. But I should say: All supplications belong to Imam Sajjad and these supplication is not from various sources. I did not know is he write supplications by himself or not. But I know he say the supplications and his sons write them, like dictation. It might be useful to say that these supplication is reached us from different ways (as it is Mutawatir). M.Sakhaie 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: Those supplications are in fact the exact words that Imam Sajjad used to say when praying or worshiping the almighty Allah. Is it clear now? Mhhossein (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: But did he actually write the words, was he the author? See my question to M.Sak above. They are mutawatir, i.e. handed down by a succession of people, which suggests he was not. The article says at one point: "According to Shia tradition, Imam Sajjad had collected his supplications and taught them to his families, particularly his sons, Muhammad al-Baqir and Zayd." That - "collected" - suggests he did not write them himself, but the first sentence of the article says this "is a book of supplications composed by Sajjad, the great-grandson of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad." It is not clear what "composed" there means. The article also says, "In several supplications Imam Sajjad explains the concept of Imamate (leadership)." That suggests that he was the author of at least some of the supplications and that they were not all mutawatir. So there is a contradiction in the article, isn't there? ~ P-123 (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been wrongly assuming that Sajjad "inherited" these supplications through mutawatir, whereas mutawatir in this article refers to the subsequent handing-down of his supplications. My misunderstanding was cleared up by Mhhossein's explanation below of how the book came into existence. ~ P-123 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition

@P-123: Could you please explain why you did this edit? I think we don't need it there, but I'd like to know what made you do that. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Handing down words by a succession of people over a long time through spoken repetition (which I understand is mutawatir), instead of passing them down those words in written form, is called the oral tradition (see wikilink I gave). But perhaps I have misunderstood what mutawatir is. "Oral" means by mouth. I thought that addition might help readers, but perhaps not. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the wiki on mutawatir again and it just refers to "narration". Narration can be either oral or written. So I was wrong about "oral tradition". I will remove those words! ~ P-123 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: I think Mutawatir has a special meaning from hadith science point of view. Mhhossein (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We definitely need a better description of mutawatir than is in the article now. When I first saw the word in the Lead, I thought "What's that?", looked at the wikilink, but was still not clear what "the book is mutawatir" in the Lead meant! That wiki description of the word is a little muddled. It is said several times in this article that the book "is mutawatir" and I think the uninformed reader needs clear help on this. M.Sak says he is working on a better description (see "Queries") so perhaps we should wait for him. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Further questions on the text

@M.Sakhaie: Here are some more questions about the article text:

• "For protecting of Islamic territory, which was the result of endeavors of Islamic Prophet and his companion, Imam Sajjad in several supplications talks about important matters like jihad ... military equipment, and so on. While expressing the ideas, virtues, attributes and characteristics of God's fighters, officials and border guards and explains the true Islamic idea." Who is the Islamic prophet referred to in "endeavours of Islamic Prophet"?

Muhammad is Islamic Prophet. He had a daughter named Fatima. Fatima had a son, named Hussain. Hussain had a son named Ali or Sajjad. Prophet Muhammad and his companion really tried to establish Islamic society and to protect Islamic territory. But after Prophet Muhammad there were many dispute over the succession. At last Ummayyad became the ruler of Islamic territory. Ummayyad was the enemy of Imam Sajjad. Imam Sajjad talked about (in supplication form, of course) some subjects concerning Islamic territory while Ummayyad was his enemy, because Imam Sajjad wanted to protect Islamic territory. In special circumstances, for Imam Sajjad, it did not matter who was the ruler of Islamic territory, but also protecting of people in Islamic territory was more important. M.Sakhaie 13:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Who is "his companion", or should it be "his companions"? If it is "his companion", I think we have to put in the name (but not the names if it is "his companions").

Sory, it is my mistake. "his companions" is right.M.Sakhaie 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "While expressing the ideas, virtues, attributes and characteristics of God's fighters, officials and border guards and explains the true Islamic idea." is not a complete sentence. How does it relate to the sentence before? Should it read "While expressing the ideas, virtues, attributes and characteristics of God's fighters, officials and border guards he explains the true Islamic idea."? Would "ideal" be better than "idea" in that sentence?

You are right. "he" should be added. But i think "ideal" is incorrect. My mean is teachings or doctrine or view, something like that. M.Sakhaie 10:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "Philip Woolley, a professor and researchers from Germany, asked to send a version of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, since his friend, who was a Cardinal, saw his al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya incidentally in his library, studied part of it, and took it insistently because the content of the book was novelty for him." What does "asked to send a version" mean? Asked who? Send it to whom? What does "insistently" mean?

Sorry for incomplete text. Philip was living in Germany. He had an al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in his library in his house. One day his friend went to Philip house as a guest. Suddenly, during this party, the friend saw al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in Philip’s library. He began to read part of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. After reading some page he decided to read all the book. So he asked Philip to give him al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. Philip liked the book too. He did not want to give al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya to his friend. But his friend asked him again and again (or insistently). Philip did not want to irritate his friend. So he give him the book. Thereafter Philip write a letter to Foundation of Islamic C.P.W. He tell his story and requested an al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya as there were no al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in Germany. Years later Foundation of Islamic C.P.W release a book and mentioned this story. It seems "version" is not suitable word too. M.Sakhaie 07:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "In 1934, Ayatollah Mar'ashi Najafi sent a version of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya to Sheykh Tantawy Juhari in Cairo, the prominent Arab Professor of Philosophy and author of many notable books from Alexandria. After general delivery he wrote in response ..." Does "after general delivery" mean after delivery of the book?

yes, it does. M.Sakhaie 18:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• The English translations of extracts from the Sunni scholars' books in that section need copy-editing. Where did you get those translations from? I can see nowhere to check them in the footnotes, which cite mostly books. Can I copy-edit those quotations into better English myself? (The quotation from Juhari does not need any altering.)

yes, of course you can. M.Sakhaie 18:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• The wikilink for Ibn al-Jawzi leads to a disambiguation page. Which of the names there is the correct one? I will need to change the wikilink to indicate the right one.
• I don't understand why Ibn al-Jawzi's quotation is given in this section. It is about Ali ibn Husayn, not the book al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. Have I misunderstood something? Also, this section seems a little disjointed. Can you perhaps link the sentences in a more meaningful way? Sorry, I had forgotten that Ali ibn Husayn is Sajjad. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)
• Could you please check that my copy-edit of this sentence is correct: "In 1934, Ayatollah Mar'ashi Najafi sent to Cairo a version of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya for Sheykh Tantawy Juhari, a prominent Arab professor of philosophy from Alexandria, a Sunni scholar and author of many notable books."

Yes, it is. It is correct. Thank you. M.Sakhaie 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Sakhaie (talk • contribs) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• "He explains what Imamate means ... because the subject of prophet succession and the concept of Imamate were faced with serious challenge after Islamic prophet death and particularly after the Battle of Karbala." What is "Islamic prophet death"? Does that refer to the death of Muhammad, or the death of prophets generally?

@P-123: It refers to the death of Muhammad. M.Sakhaie 04:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• What sort of date is Sunni scholar Qunduzi? Is he a modern-day scholar?

Qunduzi was born in 1798 and died in 1872. He is not a modern-day scholar. M.Sakhaie 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

• What sort of date is Ibn Shahr Ashoob? Is he a modern scholar or one from the past? Full names of books and transparent citations are not so important, but to have no dates of any kind I think would be a mistake. I always like to know the approximate dates of figures that are presented in articles and I think an encyclopaedia demands it, really.

Ibn Shar Ashoob has died in 1192(his birth date was 1092). He is frome the past. M.Sakhaie 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC) (Now copy-edited ~ P-123)

I don't think there are any more questions to ask about the text! ~ P-123 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie: Thanks for answering those final questions. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mutawatir

@M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein: I think we need to sort out how much of this book is mutawatir and establish if we can whether Sajjad copied the supplications into the book or wrote some himself. In the article at the moment this is unclear (see my comments in "Queries" above) and I think uninformed readers will be puzzled by this, as I am. I am also not clear about how the Addenda relate to the book. There is a sentence which says, "A number of scholars have written addenda to al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. These comprise supplications that are attributed to Imam Sajjad, but they do not exist in the main al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya." What exactly does "attributed" to Imam Sajjad mean, that he wrote them himself, or something else? In way it is quite useful that I am one of the uninformed readers, because I can see where the gaps are and what is needed to make things clearer! Do you think we can sort this out? I do think it is important that we try. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to explain. Imagine you speak in different places (for example in a conference, in a meeting, in a classroom, in a church etc.) about different issues. Imagine you try to teach your opinions to everybody. And another one, called M.Sakhaie, collect your speeches, select some of them (for some reason) and release it in a book called al-Sahifa al-P-123 with your permission. Who is author? P-123 or M.Sakhaie or someone else? The content of book belong to whom? It seems the word “collect” and “composed” which I used is wrong, but I don’t know which word is suitable. Again imagine people like to know all your opinions, not a selection of them. So a person named X collect all your speeches and release it in a book called Second al-Sahifa al-P-123. But another one named Y find out there are more speeches which is not in Second al-Sahifa al-P-123. So he began to write a book called third al-Sahifa al-P-123. Second al-Sahifa al-P-123 and third al-Sahifa al-P123, both of them are addenda of al-Sahifa al-P-123, not al-Sahifa al-P-123. If my explanation is not enough, tell me please.M.Sakhaie 18:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The explanation of the first part is fine, and as I suspected it comes down to the meaning of the terms used! In your example, clearly the "author"' is P-123 and the "compiler" of his words is M.Sakhaie. ("to compile" - "to produce (a list or book) by assembling information collected from other sources.") What would be misleading would be to call M.Sakhaie the "composer" of a book of P-123's words. A musician "composes" works, so does a poet or a playwright - "composer" is the same as "author". I assume you mean that Sajjad is the "compiler" of the supplications and never the "author". If that is true, then some of the wording in the article will have to be changed, where it gives the impression that Sajjad is the "author", as in the first sentence, for example, which says the book was "composed" by Sajjad. The book was "compiled" by him!
• The article says, "In several supplications Imam Sajjad explains the concept of Imamate (leadership). He explains what Imamate means ...Imam Sajjad in several supplications talks about important matters ...". If he is not the "author" of those supplications, we can't say Sajjad "explains" or "talks about" those things. The supplications "explain" and "talk about" those things!
• Then there is that difficult sentence, "A number of scholars have written addenda to al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. These comprise supplications that are attributed to Imam Sajjad, but they do not exist in the main al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya." What exactly does "attributed" to Sajjad mean here? If he is not the "author" of the supplications, some other word than "attributed" is needed, because "attributed" suggests he was the "author". I can't at the moment think what the best word would be here, but I am sure there is one and I will find it! I hope what I have said makes sense, M.Sakhaie; if not please ask for clarification. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Deleted by P-123 ~ P-123 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! as I understand there is a misunderstood. I should say: Imam Sajjad=P-123. and Imam Sajjad's companions= M.Sakhaie. M.Sakhaie 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@M.Sakhaie: I don't understand now. Am I correct in saying that Sajjad collected these supplications and compiled them into this book, that he did not write any of the supplications himself as author? That is all I need to know to be able to copy-edit. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: It seems incorrect. Because you said P-123 is author, and compiler is M.Sakhie. So the author of al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is Imam Sajjad. M.Sakhaie 09:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you help here, please? M.Sakhaie are not understanding each other on this. I cannot make my questions any clearer than I have. I think it is best to completely forget the analogy given (from "It is hard to explain...") and start again. I need to know:

(a) did Sajjad write any of these supplications himself, i.e. did he author any?

(b) did he collect the supplications and put them into the book, as the article says?

(c) what does the book "is Mutawatir" mean exactly?

(d) (see my first question in this thread) what does "attributed" to Sajjad mean?

These are important questions, as the article is unclear about how this book came into existence, and the uninformed Wikipedia reader needs to know. .~ P-123 (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123:

(a) He did not write them, these supplications are his words written by others.

(b) Imam Sajjad did not collect those prayers, he spelled those prayers and others wrote them down.

(c) Mutawatir is a term attributed to authenticated and well-documented narrations. When it is said that a narration (hadith) is Mutwatir it means that the hadith is found trust-able after researches carried out by scholars. To explain more, I'd like to refer you to Mutawatir, where it is said:"A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant, though unspecified, number of narrators at each level in the chain of narration, thus reaching the succeeding generation through multiple chains of narration leading back to its source."

(d) Attribute here means that those addenda are also said to be supplications by Imam Sajjad (like other supplications!).

Did it help? Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Yes, thank you, that was very clear. I have copy-edited the text accordingly. I understood what mutawatir was, though not how it related to this book, until you explained exactly how the book came into being, but it is all clear now. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To all editors involved in this page; a quick point about mutawatir. This is a very heavy word to be using so lightly on the page since it has been mentioned that the book is respected by sunni's as well. Firstly Mutawatir in the science of hadith means literally "undisputed information". For the sunni denomination in the world, who literally invented the science of hadith, only two books reach the level of mutawatir. Those being the books by bukhari and muslim. Even with those books, not all the content is Mutawatir. So to say the book in question is mutawatir, you would need some solid reliable sources from both denominations or clarify whatever the sources say in the article. Secondly there is the reference in the lead and an entire section on view of sunni scholars which paints this book in a positive fashion. It is almost certain that this is a very fringe view as there is no reliable source to suggest this book is respected by sunni's the way it is written so in the lead. There is also a mention of Ibn al-Jawzi and his opinion on the author but this is used to suggest his approval of the book without it being backed up by a reliable source. These are some issues which were apparent and it is hoped they can be fixed. Mbcap (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein: Just pinging you about the above comment. Hope this can be resolved. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw it. I am working on it and will resolve it. Just give me more time. M.Sakhaie 11:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: mutawatir means a successive narration which is one conveyed by narrators so numerous that it is not conceivable that they have agreed upon an untruth thus being accepted as unquestionable in its veracity. Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya have these conditions. Also there is a relibele and non-partisan source for this fact! M.Sakhaie (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie I do not think there is anything wrong with the article saying it is mutawatir if it only had content regarding the Shia school. However since the article has a Sunni view section, the lead would be misleading in stating it is mutawatir. For that reason, if there are no reliable sources to make a claim like that about Sunnis, we should make it clear in the relavent section that they do not consider it mutawatir. But it seems that you were able to find reliable, non-partisan sources for this so the issue seems almost resolved. Could you list those sources here please. Mbcap (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap this article is part of a series on Shia Islam, so there is no misleading. The references are in article! what is your mean? but anyway if you think this is very important, you can make it clear in the relavent section that Sunni Muslim do not considr it mutawatir and say why. But something is strange for me. You said for the sunni denomination in the world only two books reach the level of mutawatir. How? two books means there is only two author, while in mutawatir it should be numerous narrators. How is this possible? M.Sakhaie (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie What? I apologise if I have caused upset as it seems you are not happy with my post. Regarding my reference to the two books, that is not a relevant discussion here. Anyway, I thought we resolved this issue because you said you have reliable, non-partisan sources. Just list them here please, and we can move on. Mbcap (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I think there is a misunderstanding. Did you read my comment carefully? M.Sakhaie (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Political aspect

@M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein: When reading the article again what became more and more clear to me is that this book has a strong political aspect. M.Sak wrote more about this in answer to one of my questions about the text (search on "Manifesto" to find where he wrote about this). I think this political aspect deserves to be brought out more and should be expanded on in the article, and that the dichotomy between the book as a book of prayer and as a book with a political message should be emphasised. I think this could be achieved by splitting the "Contents" section into two named subsections ("As a book of prayer" and "Political aspect", for example). I really think the passages in the article which describe the political aspect should be brought together, clarified and expanded on, to highlight more how the book played a part in the uprising against the Ummayads. Again, I am speaking from a position of ignorance, so you may disagree with this, but I think uninformed readers would be very interested to learn more about this aspect of the book. What do you think? ~ P-123 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: You just hit the nail on the head. Political aspects of the book is of a great importance, so we have to highlight this fact in a separate section called "Political aspect", but we can't have this section under "Contents" because we can't separate the prayers from their political aspects (the subsections that you are suggested make readers think that political texts are a separate part of this Sahifa.) However, thank you for such a nice suggestion. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, the relationship between the book as a collection of prayers and the book's political aspect is probably too complex to split it as simply as I suggested, into two subsections - but not necessarily for the reason you said, that readers would be misled into thinking there was a separate political text in the book. I cannot begin to think of a way to describe how the supplications were used politically against the Umayyads, but that stems from my ignorance and particularly as it is not really explained in the article. Someone more knowledgeable would have to describe it! Who can do that? More work for M.Sakhaie, perhaps? He seems very knowledgeable about the history around the time when Sajjad was active. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Anchor link

I made an anchor link between the first appearance of mutawatir (in the Lead) to its second appearance (in "Authenticity") so that by clicking on the first mutawatir (where the relevance of that word to al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is not well explained by the wikilink) could go straight to where it was explained. Two outside editors (who know nothing of our discussions) reverted my link after I went to the Help Desk asking how to make an anchor link, so readers will now be as baffled d when they first see it in the Lead as they were before. IDKWIB. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If mutawatir is linked, it needs to use the existing redirect. To do otherwise is contrary to good linking technique as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Whatever issue with the word exists in this article, it needs to be solved without violating Wikipedia MOS guidelines, and it's inconceivable to me that doing so is the only way to solve it. I hope it doesn't need saying, but neither I nor User:Maproom, the editor who agrees with me, are Wikipedia cops, and I'm certainly not going to watch this article to protect it against this usage. When people come to the Help Desk asking for advice, I give the best advice I can, and that's what I have done in this case. Take it as you will. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

When a reader encounters the term "mutawatir" he may, like me, have no idea what it means. A good way to handle this is to make it a link to an explanation of its meaning. Before my edits, the first occurrence of "mutawatir" linked to the second, and the second both linked to an explanation of its meaning in another article, and was immediately followed by a copy of that explanation. This duplication, with two explanations of the term in different articles, can cause problems. Someone could easily edit one of the explanations, confusing readers by making it different from the other. It is better to have just one explanation of the meaning, with links to it wherever necessary.

Now that I have checked the article's edit history, I see that you, P-123, have made many other edits to it which are clear improvements. I hope you will continue to edit, and not be deterred by an everyday difference of opinion. (I have noticed that many English-Wikipedia articles on Islam have been written by editors whose first language is not English, so they could benefit from copy-editing.) Maproom (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maproom: I judged the wikilink to be an inadequate explanation. The wording in it is very clumsy and some of it incomprehensible. I attempted to copy-edit it into better English and add it to the article, but you have removed it along with the anchor link connecting the two occurrences of the word mutawatir. This has been an extremely difficult article to copy-edit, as you will see from the version that pre-existed the copy-editing and Talk page discussions. My only wish, as it always is when copy-editing, has to been to clarify this article for Wikipedia readers. I do not consider a simple wikilink to "mutawatir" adequate to explain to the uniformed reader (which I was) what this word means in the context of this book, al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya. That is why I added those words of explanation.

I was called in to help with this article as my mother tongue is English, unlike other editors here. I thought very carefully about how to handle this word "mutawatir" in the article so that readers would understand it. "Mutawatir" appears first baldly in the Lead. When I first saw it, I thought "What's this?" I clicked on the wikilink and was none the wiser, about exactly how the word related to this article. I added an anchor link so that clicking on it would lead to the other mention in this article, which is wikilinked, where I added those extra words of explanation. It is no good readers having no idea what "mutawatir" means when first encountering it and not knowing that the word is mentioned, with a clear explanation of what it meant for this article, at a later appropriate point in the article. My editorial judgment seems to have been called into question by the Help Desk, with none of the editors there having any background in this, and with a unilateral removal of my edits which I believed would help the uniformed reader.

Maproom (not Mandruss), would you please suggest exactly how and where I can expand on the meaning of the term without falling foul of any WP regulations and without confusing the reader. The word "mutawatir" here badly needs further explanation, as the simple wikilink as I said is not enough. I have written this lengthy and somewhat repetitive message to inform other editors here, who are all Iranian, I believe, about what has been going on. @Mhhossein and M.Sakhaie: ~ P-123 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

First, let me thank you again for all the copy-editing you have done, it is a big improvement.

Certainly the word "mutawatir" needs explanation, for most English-speakers. And there is an explanation here, linked to from this article. Any experienced reader of Wikipedia who thinks "I wonder what mutawatir means", will immediately realise "the word is in blue, I expect the link leads to an explanation". I cannot judge whether the explanation provided is a good one. If you believe that it is incorrect, or inadequate, you should correct it, rather than providing an alternative explanation of the same word.

This technique, of linking from technical terms to explanations of their meanings, is common in English-language Wikipedia. See e.g. the article Lie group. Its first sentence uses the terms "group", "differentiable manifold", and "smooth structure". Readers may not know what these terms mean, so the words are linked to other articles where they are defined. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@P-123: I also appreciate copy-editing you have done and thank you for your patience. It seems the word "Mutawatir" baffle English readers because it is technical term in study of Hadis. Is it OK to use this sentence in the lead: “this book is authentic.” and use this sentence in article in authenticity section: “this book is Mutawatir in point of view of Hadis study”? or something like that. My mean is perhaps the word "Mutawatir" should not be used in lead. M.Sakhaie 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie At first I thought not having muatwatir in the Lead might be a good idea, but a Lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, and mutawatir is quite an important part of it, in my opinion. So I don't think leaving it out of the Lead would be a solution. I have just lost the message I had written to Maproom explaining the problem in more detail, so will try to reconstruct it and we can see what he says. :). ~ P-123 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

P-123: today I noticed this, at Arecaceae#Taxonomy:

Palms are a monophyletic group of plants, meaning the group consists of a common ancestor and all its descendants.

So a technical term is used, linked to a article which gives an explanation, and followed by a short summary of this explanation. I now think it would be reasonable to do the same for "mutawatir". Maproom (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maproom: Thanks for that example and clear advice. It is more or less what I was attempting to do for mutawatir. Thanks for all your help on this. ~ P-123 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Troubling concerns about sunni section

The following concerns which are bullet pointed below are still present in the article.

• In the lead; "Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is an important book for Shia Muslims and is considered noteworthy by Sunni Muslims and Christians who have read it".---> This is a false statement. Please provide your sources (has to be non-partisan) to corroborate that Sunni Muslims consider it noteworthy. As far as I can see there are just three scholar that have spoken positively, with two out of the three (Mubark and Fahimi) having un-established credentials. Please provide reliable non-partisan sources to show the latter two are notable sunni scholars who have said what is being claimed. As to Juhari, I could not find any reliable source which gave that quote of his. In fact when I copy pasted it into google, I found these three Shia pushing websites[1][2][3] that have the same quote but without any references. Please provide a reference to this quote as attributed to Juhari, in a reliable source non-partisan source. Mbcap (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• The other scholars mentioned are Ibn Shahr Ashoob, Qunduzi and ibn al-Jawzi. I will address the issues with each one in turn.

• Ibn Shahr Ashoob --> I cannot find his views on the book from any non-partisan reliable source and the article entry is a quote which is primary research. Please qualify this quote from whatever the book in question says about it.
• Qunduzi: There are no reliable sources that state Qunduzi was an established scholar or even if he was a sunni. To give you a source about the uncertainty of his religious affiliation, the Shia scholar Buzurg Tehrani said regarding Qunduz; "Though the Shia'ism of him is unknonw, he is a gnostic and his book is considered that of the Shia."
• Ibn al-Jawzi --> This is the most saddening entry of all as the entry is just his view of Sajjad. What does this have to do with the book. Please remove this quote and put it into the Sajjad article. By using the quote this way, you are implying to the reader that he held this book in good light.

I will delete the false sentence from the lead but I will leave the section on Sunni view of the book alone for now. Hopefully editors would be able to rectify this issue. Mbcap (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please note that al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is considered noteworthy by Sunni Muslims who have read it not all Sunni muslims. there is relible sources, what is your mean?
• Perhaps I will make some edits for Ibn Shahr Ashoob and Qunduzi. But about Ibn al-Jawzi: This quote is about al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and it's author, what is the problem? M.Sakhaie (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)+

@Mbcap: sorry, I do not understand what is your mean about Ibn Shar Ashoob. His book exist and you can see it. In addtion other sources wrote about it. What is the problem? M.Sakhaie (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• M.Sakhaie Thank you for considering the editing of Ibn Shahr Ashoob and Qunduzi. For reasons stated above, please remove both these persons's views from the section unless there is a reliable source for them. Regarding Ibn Jawzi, he makes no mention of the book. The quote from him is his view on Ali ibn Hussein (Sajjad) and not about the book. This gives a false impression of his actual views on the book, which is something I was unable to find.
• The Al-Sahifa is not considered noteworthy by Sunni Muslims who have read it. This is false and again there are no reliable, non-partisan sources to state this. Then again, I may be wrong so please do provide a source for this.
• Regarding Tantawy Juhari, Zaki Mubarak and Sadiq Fahimi; please provide sources that show these scholars have been vetted by other scholars from the Sunni school. Alternatively you can provide a non-partisan RS and that would do as well.

In all honesty, this is a very fringe view. I was unable to find sources to suggest otherwise. Even without the issues listed above, the views which are elaborated on in the Sunni section are not even in the minority view. I would be grateful if you could provide citations. Mbcap (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have looked endlessly for third party sources to state what is mentioned in the sunni view section but there is nothing there. The sources in the this section at the moment are unreliable. I did find two reliable sources;

• 1. Encyclopedia of Islam - Talks about Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in two sentences in the "Zayn al- ʿĀbidīn" section of the book. No mention of sunni view of the book at all.The citation is:

Kohlberg, E.. "Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

• 2. Encyclopaedia Iranica - Talks about Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya in two sentences only in the "ʿALĪ B. ḤOSAYN B. ʿALĪ B. ABĪ ṬĀLEB" section of the book. No mention of sunni view of the book at all. The citation is:

W. Madelung. "ʿALĪ B. ḤOSAYN B. ʿALĪ B. ABĪ ṬĀLEB." Encyclopaedia Iranica, Volume 1, pp.849-850.

Both of these sources do not mention any sunni view. As these are both considered very reliable sources and expansive in their scope, you would expect them to mention the sunni view, even if it was a minority view. This however is not the case. They do not mention it because there is not even a minority who hold these views on it but at the most it is a fringe view. For this reason, I am going to go ahead and delete it. Mbcap (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all if something does not exist in Encyclopedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica, This does not mean it does not exist at all.

1. About Ibn Shar Ashoob: His book, Manageb, is available, is it OK if I cite it?
2. About Ayatollah Mar'ashi Najafi and Sheykh Tantawy Juhari: this is a Correspondence between Ayatollah Mar'ashi Najafi and Sheykh Tantawy Juhari. Ayatollah Mar'ashi Najafi published the letter. Do you have any reliable source which shows Sheykh Tantawy Juhari denied this letter? If you don’t, then the mentioned source is reliable.
3. About Zaki Mubarak. I wonder! I cite his own book, what is the problem? Please explain more, I do not understand what you mean.
4. About Sadiq Fahimi. Certainly I cite reliable source unless you provide a reliable source that shows he denied these words.

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I don't know, maybe I did not use the correct words. I do not want to say this is a general attitude among Sunni Muslims. But also I want to say there are some Sunni Muslims who read the book and said something about it which is published. Do you understand what I mean?

finally, please do not hurry up. I am busy, and I can not answer immediately. M.Sakhaie (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie The above encyclopaedias and other biographies of Sajjad in reliable sources do not mention a sunni view of the book. I was also unable to find any reliable source for this book which mentioned it's reception by Sunni scholars. For the reasons above and also to keep the article compliant to WP:NPOV, we cannot have this section back in the article. The reason for this is, because on the NPOV policy page it states in WP:BALASPS that,

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."

If there was even a minority of Sunni scholars who held these views on the book, we could keep it in but as it is not mentioned at all by reliable sources, in the interest of balance, its inclusion is not appropriate.

Regarding the issue of mutawatir, there is no problem anymore because the content of this page only concentrates on aspects of the Shia school. Mbcap (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say again “sunni view”? Did you read all of my comment? why did not you answer my question to resolve the problem of sources?

Here is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia! Not those Encyclopedias.

First you fussed about sources and edit the article immediately. Now that I have explained about sources, you are talking about WP:BALASPS which is irrelevant. It is clear that the article does not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject and strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. It is expected that you would help to improve the article, rather than impose your own view. I am going to undo your last edit. M.Sakhaie (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Sakhaie I have explained in detail that this view is not even held by a minority of Sunni's. I could not find any reference to this in reliable sources. You said you had reliable sources but when I asked you to list them, you refuse to do so. I have listed two encyclopaedia's, which are expansive in their coverage which make no mention of a Sunni view on the book. To add to this, you have quoted Qunduzi who's religious affiliation is not certain and also Ibn al-Jawzi who only speaks about Sajjad. The Ibn al-Jawzi entry in the article is SYNTH. To add to this, in any article, each bit of information has to be given due balance and because there is no mention of such information in reliable sources, we cannot have it in the article. I ask you again to please provide the reliable sources which you mentioned previously in this thread. Untill then, the section on Sunni view will have to stay off as it is inaccurate information. Mbcap (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• How is it wrong merely to indicate that those of other faiths admire the book? The section on this is small, so there is hardly undue weight being given here.
• Please prove that the sources provided are not Reliable Sources. This is important, because the argument for rejecting this section seems to hang on this.
• I doubt whether an encyclopedia on Roman Catholicism would say anything about the views of other branches of Christianity on well-known Catholic treatises or prayerbooks.
• What does the reference to mutawatir mean? I thought it was said earlier that it was unacceptable to mention mutawatir in this article.
• Perhaps the strongest grounds for not including the section is WP:SYNTH. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

P-123 Thank you for raising those questions. I think it will help us to move forward.

• There is nothing wrong to indicate that people of other faiths admire the book, if that is what is said in reliable sources. My searches revealed this not to be the case however, as there was no mention of of even a minority of Sunni scholars having a favourable stance towards this book.
• These sources are unreliable, at least for issues other than their own school of Islam;

• Immamology, published by Allameh Tabataba'i University. The universities in Iran are directly controlled by the ministry of education so the neutrality of the source is highly questionable. For more information please read this[4] from Human rights watch on academic freedom in Iran. It may be acceptable to use to detail their own positions and opinions but not other schools of Islam.
• Fars news agency; Ok this source is unreliable because the source is a joke. It is a propaganda outlet that stoops to extremely low levels. For example running an onion news story as true as reported here[5], or that US is run by aliens[6], or that an Iranian has built a time machine[7][8]. It is also credited as being an Iranian mouthpiece[9] and also referred to as a semi-official organisation by Reuters[10]. I do not need to mention that lack of press freedom off course. It provides good entertainment as it is onion news masquerading as a vetted news source but that is all it is good for.

• You are right about the encyclopedia of Roman Catholicism but you would expect a non-partisan source like Encyclopedia of Islam to mention the Sunni view of the book if a minority held it in positive regard but they do not. That is because this view is not held even by a minority of Sunni scholars.
• The reference to Qunduzi is not appropriate for Sunni views because his religious affiliation is questioned by even Shia scholars.
• The Ibn al-Jawzi reference is WP:SYNTH.
• I do not know how much information would be left once you discount unreliable sources, instances of SYNTH and removal of comments by Qunduzi who's "shiaism was unknown". I mentioned undue weight because not even a minority hold these views. If the body of reliable literature mentioned a minority of Sunni sholars holding such views, then we could put it in.
• The mutawatir reference is fine because now there is no sunni view in the article. In regards to its definition; in hadith (sayings of Muhammad) terminiology, the hadiths are graded according to authenticity. Mutawatir is the highest classification, meaning it can be unquestionably sourced back to Muhammad. Obviously the two schools of Islam disagree on which hadiths are mutawatir and which are not. I am puzzled for that reason as to why this term is being used for a book but if the sources state the word then it can be used. My contention previously was because there was Sunni views section and the mutawatir claim was not clearly attributed to the relavent school so as not to give the false impression that it is mutwatir according to all schools of Islam.

• I hope this explains my concerns but I welcome any advise regarding that, about which I am wrong. Mbcap (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice Fars News Agency is used twice for citations in the article on the Khameini letter, To the Youth in Europe and North America. That means this should be discounted in that article as well, I presume. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of that page and its use of Fars news. The extreme effort that would be required to correct the issues on that page mean that for me it is not worth the hassle. I will attempt to address it at a future point. Mbcap (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That is serious. I am severely hampered by how much I can do for that article for certain reasons (not lack of knowledge), and am concerned about it as well. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is serious, I agree. I am also concerned with the Christian view section which has the two references but in reality it is just one reference with different page numbers. The source is:

• "Short Review on the performance of 33 years of Foundation of Islamic C.P.W (in Persian). Qom: Foundation of Islamic C.P.W. 2010."

The title of the book suggests that it is about the 33 year performance of the publishing house in Qom called Foundation of Islamic C.P.W, the same publisher that published the book. How likely is it that, in documenting the history of themselves, they talked about the Christian view of the book, Al-Sahifa. Having said that, I am going to leave this section of the article alone as I do not yet possess adequate knowledge of Christianity. It may well be that it is respected by Christians but that is highly doubtful. Mbcap (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Mbcap as I understand there is two problems which is important for you. The first one is concerning to Sunni view. I accepted it and said before I want to say no such thing. For solving this problem some edits is needed. The second one is sources. 1) Sources for mutawatir section, 2) and sources for Sunni section.

1) Sources for mutawatir section: you asked me to list the sources for mutawatir section and then I answered. But you did not pay attention. William C. Chittick, who is not Muslim, said that al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya is mutawatir. Although there are another sources, but according your words, it seems it is not needed.

2) Sources for Sunni section: First, you talked about Immamology. I stopped reading Human Rights Watch report when I realized it is based on Daftar Tahkim Wahdat, while there are another larger independent student organizations in Iran. (Indeed most of members of Daftar Tahkim Wahdat abandoned this organization until 2002 i.e. more than ten years ago!). By the way it is like to say because of this documentary film the universities of America is invalid! Is it a good reason? The main point is that Allama Tabatabaie publications is different from Allama Tabatabaie University. There is no relation between them but nominal similarity. The first one is a publication and is located in Mashhad, whereas the second one is a university and is located in Tehran. Anyway, for this section, there is some sources which is published before establishing of Islamic Republic of Iran. I am going to use it to wind up the discussion.

Second, you talked about Fars news agency. In fact I did not read and check all links you mentioned, due to lack of time. I suppose perhaps all of them are true. But there is a question for me. You know, I am in Wikipedia not too long, maybe I do not know the rules of Wikipedia accurately. While some sources like BBC have a lot of problems such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] why it is still a reliable source in Wikipedia? By the way it is not our discussion, and I am going to use another sources. Before that, if there is something else, tell me please. M.Sakhaie (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: User:M.Sakhaie has been blocked per SPI.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Revised article

A summary of the recent edits:

• There were concerns about the reliability of the sources in "Christian views". The revision reflects the Western scholarly view about Al-Sahifa which is probably a good enough replacement for.
• The whispered prayers are often included as part of Al-Sahifa and the revision reflects this point, e.g., their titles are included in the "Content" section.
• Chittick's views about the authenticity of Al-Sahifa are better summarized in the revision, including a better definition of mutawatir.
• "Background" doesn't seem like a good fit here and its content was merged with "Content" into a bigger section "About the book".
• Given their positive bias, the Shia sources (in Persian) degraded the credibility of the article (in my view) and, I think, they are almost entirely unnecessary as I was able to replace them with similar content from the more mainstream academic sources. The only exceptions are the "Strategic importance" section and the statements against the Umayyads. Those remain in the article (after some copy-editing). It is, however, difficult to know how reliable those claims are. To make things worse, those sources are behind a paywall.
• Statement like "many scholars" say this or that have been replaced with more specific and verifiable claims.
• Uninformative claims like the following were replaced with specific statements. "In the form of supplication, it expresses Islamic knowledge and thought and involves all aspects of individual, social, economical, political and cultural life. Reason, human feelings, emotions and conscience are all addressed by it" or "According to scholars, Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya exhibits the highest level of eloquence"... Albertatiran (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)