Talk:Ja'far al-Sadiq/Archive 1

Early Islam

I did a lot of research in this area and currently work at the University of London and went through hundreds of books in the school of oriental and african studies SOAS library. The SOAS library contains more books on this topic than almost any other library. Some of the books are also very old. When you go through the oldest books like Al-Muwatta you realise that there was no such thing as Sunnis and Shias at that time. There were highly educated people like Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and Imam Malik. But there were no theological differences. Then when their students when to far away places, they still all agreed on what was contained in the Quran but allowed the people in those areas to continue with some of their pre-islamic laws and traditions, if they did not contractic with the Quran. Due to there not being good communications, their implementation of islamic law was not so standardised.

A good book to read is

N.J. Coulson - History of Islamic Law http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d5Ks31qHlSYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=coulson+history+islamic+law&source=bl&ots=QVA59sVI8G&sig=stT7OrQHTIkIJ6mgK5-kQzT0gAg&hl=en&ei=durLTOa5KI_QjAe06rnYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

The concept of Sunni and Shia developed much later. These terms were developed to divide people so that the rulers could get people to fight their opponents. The Safavid dynasty did a lot in this regards. Safavid ruled Persia and the Persians were sufi as were the Ottomans and the two groups would not fight each other. So the Safavid implemented a policy of divide and rule. — Preceding comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Needs references. Sayings should be in wikiquotes, not in the article. An infobox and picture(s) would bring it up to B class. -- Psychless 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Quotes

One editor deleted the quote section entirely on the basis that there were too many quotes. I think a better strategy would be for someone to select the most relevant, instead of wholesale deletion. Which quotes should be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.129.27.169 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we cannot have a section highlighting some of his quotes.Xareen (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

Inaccuracy regarding his marriage. I am going to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water Stirs (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic-to-English Transliteration

The word "al" means "the".
The word "sadiq" means "truthful".
Therefore, "al-Sadiq" means "the truthful".
In the Arabic language, the "l" in "al" is removed, and instead, the "s" in "sadiq" is pronounced twice, to produce a strong "s" sound. However, for the sake of clarity, and in accordance with Wikipedia standards, it should be written as "al-Sadiq" rather than "as-Sadiq". Adamcaliph 3 October 2005, 20:21 (UTC)

Al or al?

I think that generally AL is written Al and not al when it is prefexing a capetilized name .

It should be al in small letter but I have seen both formats (al or Al) used in academic books. Many articles on Wikipedia used Al, but I have also seen some articles where the al is being used. I say just leave the way it is. Xareen (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think al- is more appropriate, since it's not part of the word, and just acting as an article.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I copyedited, tightening up and removing undue praise. I also removed the claims that the founders of three schools of Sunni jurisprudence were students of Ja'far. I don't think that the Sunni accept those claims. I am not completely "up" on this controversy, but what googling I did suggested that Sunni would object. If material on this claim is to be re-introduced, it should be in a separate section and the controversy should be outlined. Zora 09:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-article"

Striver, you've been creating articles without any consultation with other editors, and then going through Wikipedia labeling other articles as "sub-articles" of your own articles. So far as I know, "breakout article" is used informally, but it isn't a formal description of articles that elaborate a point treated more generally elsewhere. I have never seen "sub-article" used by anyone else to describe articles. Usually, the nexus between articles is either the link, or the "See also" section. It seems like utter egotism for you to take articles created by other editors and then annex them, as "sub-articles", into your grandiose schemes. I'm going to raise the issue of your "sub-article" schema as a policy issue. I'll give you a link on your talk page after I raise the issue. Zora 09:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Is his full name "Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr al-Siddiq"? --Striver 16:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. His grandfather wasnt Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, but his grandfather was Imam Ali ibn Hussein (as). Imam Jafar's (as) father wasn't al-Qasim, but his father was Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as). "Abd al-Rahman" has no basis, to the best of my knowledge (which is limited). Thus, his name is Imam Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali as-Sadiq (as).

Abd al-Rahman ifn al-Qasim was a real person - but he was not Ja'far al-Sadiq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.194.83 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr was the grandson of Caliph Abu Bakr as Siddiq. Al Qasim was also the maternal grandfather of Imam Ja'far Al Sadiq.

Picture

The drawing is misleading as it is not original and is out of one's imagination... will have to remove it, or atleast have to move it to some other inside section.. Especially when he is one of the most respected personalities, this must be hurting to many.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyHuman (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Can we see this picture first please?--79.69.104.119 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic line?

I removed the whole dang academic line section, as it's seriously misleading. I took the list of names and put it in the scholarly attainments section, and said that these people attended Ja'far's lectures. Zain, you had just restored the old material that seemed to claim undue influence for Ja'far. This is just a restatement of old Sunni-Shi'a polemics.

I'm still not sure that even that list of names should stand. I'll have to think it over. Zora 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it claim undue influence to Al-Sadiq? If you're a student, it simply means he taught you, whether for a day, or for many years. Zain 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Sometimes teacher-student relations are formal and perfunctory, but sometimes they are like the guru-chela relationship. This is particularly true of religious study.

In those days, there was no university, no course of study, no certification -- a scholar would just give lectures and people would show up to listen. I think it's OK to say that those Sunni scholars attended Ja'far's lectures. Did they have a closer relationship to him? Do they owe everything to him? Was he their guru? I don't think that can be proven. Shi'a tend to claim guru-ship and Sunnis to claim that they attended lectures. If the Sunni admit that, then it's safe to say it. Further than that starts to be controversial.

If this is a big problem, you might want to collect cites that say that Ja'far was their guru, and I'll look for the cites that say he was just a lecturer. Or can we just leave it the way it is? Zora 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the way it is, but I think it's safe to say that Musa al-Kazim (as) did more than attend a few lectures. Zain 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sadiq or As-Sadiq?

I think the title shoud be Ja'far As-Sadiq. Bidabadi 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a sub-title called Sunni View since Sunni's do not consider him to be a Shia and they also regard him highly.

I added the section.Please tell me how it is.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Al-Sadiq and As-Sadiq are incorrect the standard Wikipedia style for Arabic names such as this is al-Sadiq ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.126.79 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of this article

The article of Ja'far al-Sadiq needs more improvement , I have added an infobox and re-write some lines . I would like to invite interested users to add more information to this article and more references .Brokenlove 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]