From Talk:Ali/Archive4

Jamal Confrontation and Siffin Confrontation

Zora please do not delete the Jamal Confrontation and the Siffin Confrontation section in Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib’s article because these two events were big things that happened after Imam Ali AS became a caliph. I did read a neutral website on the two events and then I wrote these two things in my own words. If I copied and pasted then these two sections would have been two to three pages long. So please do not delete it because of two reasons. Firstly, these two events were major events that happened when Imam Ali AS became a caliph, and, secondly, I spent a lot of time writing these two sections in my own words. Even thought I am a Shi’a I have tried my best to write these two sections in a neutral format. Thank You Salman

Salman, you have inserted what is basically pious Shi'a propaganda without ANY reference to the rest of the article. You haven't integrated it at all. You shouldn't do that. You have to engage with the article as it is and not just insert your own POV essay wherever you feel like it. Zora 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zora. The language needs to be more factual and less emotional. I realize that the confrontations Ali had were a big deal, but sources need to be cited for anything that is highly debated. Cuñado

- Talk 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine give me some time to figure out how to source correctly and then i will post the confrontations sections again. But i don't think that the two sections were saying things from the Shi'a point of view. Thank You Salman

Salman, the article already has discussions of the events you want to discuss. You can't just write your personal essay and insert it into the article as if the rest of the article didn't exist. Your contributions have to be PART of the article. Take it one sentence at a time and if you want to add extra material, reference it. Be warned, we may take it out again, or move it to the Shi'a section. You often rely on Shi'a websites that do not give sources and include material that is not based on the earliest historians. Zora 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article does in the Caliphate section but not in detail. The Jamal Confrontation and the Siffin Confrontation were two very important events that took place when Imam Ali AS became the Caliph that is also the time when Shi’aism was founded. I e-mail those two sections to wikipedia and asked them to read it and tell me if they think the paragraphs are written from a Shi’a POV. So I am just waiting for their reply. I they say no, then I am just going to repost the two sections under Caliphate section of Imam Ali AS’s page and if they say that they think those paragraphs are written from the POV of Shi’as then I am going to write them again and try my best to be neutral and then I will post it. Okay! Thank You Salman 12:21 PM, 05/11/06

Events may be important, but they won't necessarily be discussed in great detail in the earliest histories. In Islamic history, the detail is often added later, by people who want to make a good story out of it. WP cannot retail those stories as historical fact. Salman, you aren't in the US to study history, but if you're going to try to write it, you're going to have to play by the rules of the historical profession. How about reading Tabari and Baladhuri, rather than relying on Shi'a websites?

I should also add that discussing a few of the events in Ali's life in excruciating detail and leaving the rest as generalities is bad writing, and it's boring to boot. You are not going to attract anyone to Ali, or to Shi'a Islam, with bad writing. Zora 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Ali in the battles(Gazw)

User:Cunado19: Please tell me why did you delete the role of Ali in the "Battle of Uhud" and "Battle of trench" and reverted Ali#Ali in Medina.--Sa.vakilian 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore whatever I changed. Cuñado

- Talk 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe here why you or any other wikipedian remove something from the article.--Sa.vakilian 01:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a myth. Sunnies do not agree with such a claim. --Islamic 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the al Kamil of Ibn Atheer and he is Sunni.--Sa.vakilian 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battles

I have begun a new section, regarding the battles. Muslims, both Shi'a and Sunnis, do not disagree as to the unmatched prowess of Ali, in the battles that he partook in. Most of the sources used are neutral - neither Shia nor Sunni, but Western.

Because there was some information about his battles, I moved them to a new article:Ali the Warrior. You can merge some part of it in this article Ali#Ali in Medina and Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud.--Sa.vakilian 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should make a new section? Isn't easier to just leave it in the main article?

1- Because there is another part which contains something about these two battles and we don't want to duplicate anything. So you should merge them.

2- Ali the Warrior has too many details which don't relate to this article, for example the role of women in the battle. I don't want to remove them completely.

3- We make new article wherever we have enough information. Please look at Hezbollah it has 5 subarticles.--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign what you write in the talk page:--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't see a link to the new article in the main one.:--HusaynIbnAli 9:54, 12 November 2006

You're right. I added.--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is the religion of peace and tranquility and does not like killing, plundering, and bloodshed. But if someone kills another without any reason then Islam has strong punishment to deal with him. Of course, if an enemy attacks the Muslims then by the standards of wits, common sense, and religious law, self defense which as a form of Jihad becomes essential and indispensable.

This is not only baldly false, but shockingly fatuous as well. I recommend removing it, so as not to harm the credibility of the rest of the article. The Sanity Inspector 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]