Talk:Musa al-Kazim

This article is very partisan

The tone is partisan and completely out of character, it's filled with paragraphs that do not belong on an encyclopedia article and feels like a religious polemic (i.e. his "arguments" and examples of his kindness). There is little to no neutral facts. Almost the entire article needs to be rewritten. AbbasHawazin (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.145.91 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping to address some of the issues with the article in the coming weeks. Albertatiran (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Pre nomination

Hello Albertatiran. I am going to work on this article as the next good article. I hope it is OK with you. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch, thanks for this. Yes, that's alright with me. I'm also back after a couple of weeks and will finish the edits to Ali al-Hadi soon. Albertatiran (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Albertatiran, I read your revised version. Thanks for your great work. Just a few comments:

1. The readers may like to know the subject of the "intercede" in "...visited the caliph in Rakka to intercede for his son, al-Fadl.[1]"
2. In the sentence "...as a place where prayers are fulfilled or bab al-hawaij","bab al-hawaij" is an adjective/noun but you used it as a verb.
3. the subsection "Redemptive suffering" may not be WP:DUE, since it is a fringe idea in Shia thought, though its similarity to the redemptive suffering of Jesus Christ may have been interesting to some to mention it in their writings.

Ghazaalch (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ghazaalch! Thanks for the comments. I've (hopefully) addressed the first two in the article. As for the third one, I agree that there is a similar concept in Christianity but redemptive suffering is also common among the Shia, who often hold that the Ahl al-Bayt suffered injustice and were rewarded with the power of intercession for their followers in return. This redemption though may not extend to all followers, say, those who don't pray, etc. If you're not convinced, it's ok with me to remove that subsection altogether. That wouldn't affect the rest of the article... Albertatiran (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Albertatiran. Let it be or ask for a third opinion. I have no problem with it being in the article. Good luck with the nomination.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Musa al-Kazim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Will take this on with great pleasure and anticipation :). Constantine ✍ 15:53, 16 September 2023 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• he is known by the title al-Kazim (lit. 'forbearing'), a reference to his patience and mild demeanor. coming right after the information about his birth, this is odd, as if he was named this during infancy. I suggest extracting this into a separate sentence to come before Born in 745 CE.

Yes, that's a good point. This was changed to: Musa is often known by the title al-Kazim (lit. 'forbearing'), which might be a reference to his patience and mild demeanor. He was born in 745 CE in Medina to the Shia imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, the sixth Shia imam, who died in...

• His father, Ja'far al-Sadiq perhaps 'His father, the sixth imam Ja'far al-Sadiq' for clarity

Done. Please see the response above.

• reliable traditionist. the meaning of this may not be clear to the average reader.

To address your comment, this part was replaced with: and viewed as a reliable transmitter of prophetic sayings.

Life

• His father was the Twelver imam Ja'far al-Sadiq At this point, there was no distinction between Twelvers and non-Twelvers. So simply 'Shia', or even better, add a brief explanation about what the imamate was: e.g. 'His father, Ja'far al-Sadiq, a descendant... Al-Sadiq was widely accepted as the legitimate imam by many among the early Shi'a community, who rejected the ruling Umayyad caliphs as usurpers.' or similar

We added the following slightly different sentence to introduce Ja'far al-Sadiq: Ja'far was widely accepted as the legitimate imam by the early Shia community, who rejected the ruling caliphs as usurpers.

• Note that Musa was a younger son of al-Sadiq.

We added the following sentence: Isma'il and Abd-Allah al-Aftah were the older sons of al-Sadiq.

• Since al-Saffah did not really do that much, perhaps replace him with the Abbasid Revolution?

Done!

• where his remained out of politics 'where he remained out of politics'?

This was corrected.

• Link Alid revolt of 762–763, Battle of Fakhkh to the respective events, vizier (Abbasid Caliphate), Fadl ibn Yahya at the first instance

Done!

• The Abbasids were generally hostile to the Shia imams Since the article deals with the early Abbasid period, this might be the place to introduce info about where the hostility arose from? I.e. that the Abbasids also came to power exploiting the popular support for a 'Rida min Al Muhammad' and were part of the wider Al Muhammad but that the Shia did not accept them as legitimate and favoured an Alid, etc? This would also help provide some context about the statements later on about Harun's reign

To address your comment, the opening sentences of that paragraph were replaced with the following: To overthrow the Umayyads, the Abbasids, who claimed descent from Muhammad's uncle Abbas, had rallied the support of the Shia in the name of the family of Muhammad. But many Shias were disillusioned when the Abbasid al-Saffah (r. 750–754) declared himself caliph, as they had instead hoped for an Alid leader, one who had descended from Muhammad, that is, a descendant of his daughter Fatima and Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Abbasids soon turned against their former allies, and were generally hostile to the Shia imams, especially after the abortive 762–763 revolt of the Alid pretender Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.

Excellent! Constantine ✍ 08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• who did not publicly designate an heir hmmm, I have several sources contradicting this. E.g. Daftary The Isma'ilis 2007 p. 88 saying "According to the majority of the available sources, he had designated his second son Ismāı̄l ... as his successor, by the rule of the nass. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this designation". Halm Shi'a Islam 1996, p. 24 "Ja’far’s son Ismâ’îl, who was evi­dently designated as successor, had already died ten years before his father, and Ja’far’s firstborn, Abdallâh, only survived his father by several months, leaving no heirs of his own" etc.

I think what I had in mind was a replacement for Isma'il after his death, that is, al-Sadiq did not publicly designate a successor before his death (and after Isma'il's death). That Isma'il was probably the designated successor before his death should be emphasized in "Imamate".

Would still suggest adding a brief mention to the succession in the biographic section, to the effect that al-Sadiq died without a clear successor, and that Musa was recognized by part of his father's followers. The Imamate section can and should go into more detail then. Constantine ✍ 08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Imamate section should better discuss whether Isma'il was the designated heir during his lifetime. Regarding the bio, it already mentions the crisis of succession after al-Sadiq and that it was resolved in favor of al-Kazim. Please see "Reign of al-Mansur. Albertatiran (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It also seems that you're right about the designation of Isma'il; this also seems the view of Momen and McHugo, but not of Haider, who is more cautious. The opening sentence in "Designation" was changed as follows: Isma'ilis believe that their eponym Isma'il was the designated successor, and this might be the general consensus of the early Shia sources.

Death (799)

• Be consistent between Yahya b. Khalid and Yahya al-Barmaki. Perhaps Yahya ibn Khalid al-Barmaki for the first instance?

Done!

• Link Raqqa

Done!

• Al-Tabari has already been introduced and linked earlier.

The second introduction and link were removed.

• Mention that Kazimayn was named after him?

I think you're right about the naming but I can't find a source for it. The city developed around the ancient shrine and most have probably assumed this claim to be trivially true.

I can give you one: Heinz Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd Edition 2004, p. 33 "He [i.e. al-Jawad] died there in the same year and was interred beside his grandfather Mūsā al-Kāzim (al-Kāzimayn = the two Kāẓ ims)." Constantine ✍ 08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Done! However, please note that I added to the bibliography the copy of the book that I found on Internet Archive which might differ from the copy available to you. (Unfortunately, I get the message "Borrow Unavailable" on Internet Archive, which means that I don't have access to the book and can't check the page number myself.)

• since the time of the Buyid dynasty add dates or at least a century

We have added their reign (934–1062) as you suggested.

• Sunni imam al-Shafi'i would recommend not to use 'imam' here as it would confuse readers

To address your comment, we replaced 'imam' with 'scholar'.

Will continue with the remaining sections and a review of sources and images tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Designation

• Per above, AFAIK and the sources I've read, Isma'il was most likely the original designated successor, whether publicly announced or not.

I think you're right about this. Please see the response above for our correction.

• progenitors of the Isma'ilis 'progenitors' means ancestors in the physical sense usually, so perhaps 'predecessors' or 'antecedents'?

Done!

• and they divided again when Muhammad died...the rest traced the imamate through his descendants this is not correct: a) Muhammad ibn Isma'il is an extremely shadowy figure, so we don't really know when or where he died or what his followers did, and b) as far as can be reconstructed, until the schism of 899, the mainstream Isma'ili doctrine was that Muhammad would return as the Mahdi. Perhaps rephrase this as '...who for long expected Muhammad ibn Isma'il's return as the Mahdi, but later followed a line of imams who claimed descent from him, the Fatimid dynasty.

That claim was sourced from Haider's Shi'a Islam: An Introduction. I have replaced that sentence with the above suggestion but also added the tag. If you also happen to remember a source for the new sentence, please let me know.

Suggest also Daftary 2007 here, he has an extensive account on early Isma'ilism at pp. 88ff. Constantine ✍ 08:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What I gather from pages 96–97 of Daftary 2007 is that the Ismai'lies split again after the death of Muhammad ibn Isma'il (the date of which remains uncertain, as you noted). One group waited for him to return as the Mahdi and the rest followed his descendants. (This claim is identical to what Haider reports.) It also seems to me that your a) and b) above don't really contradict Daftary 2007 or Haider 2014. This is to say that, based on my limited reading, Daftary 2007 too supports the article's earlier statement, i.e., nd they divided again when Muhammad died...the rest traced the imamate through his descendants.

• The 'energetic opposition' to the Abbasids by the Ismailis belongs to the latter 9th century, much later than events here.

We have replaced that sentence with the following more generic claim: The Isma'ilis were active against the Abbasids.

• but were of marginal importance until their rise to political power late in the ninth century since the Fatimid Caliphate was not established until 909, perhaps 'at the turn of the 10th century'? And I would suggest mentioning both the Fatimids and the Qarmatians of Bahrayn by name here rather than MOS:EASTEREGGing the Fatimids only.

To address your comment, that short sentence was expanded as follows: but were of marginal importance until their rise to political power much later: The Fatimid Caliphate was established in Egypt at the turn of the tenth century and the Qarmatians rose to power in Bahrain in the late ninth century.

• there were additional branches at the time:[60][61][62] After the death of al-Sadiq 'additional branches emerged after the death of al-Sadiq:[60][61][62]'?

We used the following slightly different wording: ...there were additional branches that emerged after the death of al-Sadiq.

• Daftary 2007 p. 88-89p has some more details about the succession problems after al-Sadiq's death and the groups that emerged during that time

The following sentences were added to "Designation": After the death of al-Sadiq, some waited for his return as the Mahdi,... Some other followers of al-Sadiq turned to Muhammad ibn Ja'far, also known as al-Dibaj, who staged an unsuccessful revolt against the Abbasids in 815–816.

Representatives

• northwest Africa...the Maghreb would suggest simply mentioning the Maghreb, as this is what northwest Africa is, whereas Akhmim is simply a city in Egypt.

We changed that part as follows: ...new Shia centers were also established in the Maghreb and Egypt, for instance, in the city of Akhmim.

What is the significance of Akhmim? If no particular one, I would suggest leaving it out; just that his followers expanded into Egypt and the Maghreb is enough. Constantine ✍ 08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Done!

• Ali ibn Yaqtin's holding the vizierate likely reflects Twelver traditions, but it is not factual. Per Sourdel Le vizirat abbaside vol. I p. 120 he was simply keeper of the seal, and did not even remain in the post long as he was executed as a zindiq.

Interesting. I was not aware of this. I have added the following sentence: Historically, whether Ali ibn Yaqtin attained such a high office and for long enough to make any difference is uncertain.

Hmmm, if this is referenced to Sourdel, then this is not correct: Sourdel does not mention him as being vizier at all. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• A more general comment: I am a bit uncomfortable with labelling the Abbasid caliphs as 'Sunni' without qualification at this point in time. Labels like this, as well as the ritual distinctions, likely reflect much later traditions than those current in the 8th century. A clear Shia-Sunni rift in dogma and ritual did not emerge until the 10th century. And the Abbasids did not become champions of Sunnism until that time as well, in large part as a reaction to the Fatimids and Buyids. The rivalry between Abbasids and Alids in Musa's lifetime was due to Alid legitimism rather than clear religious differences.

The sentence in question was changed as follows: In line with the principle of taqiya, al-Kazim even instructed Ali ibn Yaqtin not to practice the Shia ablution (wudu') because he had become suspect in the eyes of the Abbasid ruler.

• Link al-barid

Done!

Succession

• If Muhammad ibn Bashir is worthy of an article, please WP:REDLINK him

Done!

• Ibn Bashir was later charged with heresy and executed by the caliph if a date is available, please add it.

The date is not given in the source. I couldn't find anything with a quick search but will keep that in mind.

Ghulat

• absence in later Shia writings 'mainstream Shia' or 'Twelver Shia', as ghulat beliefs most definitely cropped up later, e.g. the Druze.

Done! We went with the first recommendation.

Descendants

• Why is Donaldson's account preferred here over the others?

A nearly identical statement also appears in Kohlberg's EI article. The opening sentence was replaced with the following: By some accounts, al-Kazim had eighteen sons...

• Three of his sons 'his' here appears to refer to Ali al-Rida, as he is last mentioned

Fixed! That part was replaced with the following: Three of al-Kazim's sons...

• Link Safavid dynasty

Done!

• even though his brother which brother?

We changed that to: ...one of his brothers...

Legacy

• I think it should be mentioned that from al-Kazim on, all Twelver imams were held in captivity in Iraq, and their deaths are ascribed to assassination by the Abbasids in Shia martyrology.

To address your comment, we opened the "Legacy" section with the following sentence: All successors of al-Sadiq, including al-Kazim, were largely removed from public life by the Abbasids, through imprisonment or surveillance.

Quotes

• Indeed, this should be moved to Wikiquote.

Done!

Images

• The map of the Abbasid Caliphate should be changed: first, the caption is misleading, since the Abbasids were not in power in 744, second, they never exercised any authority over the Maghreb (and in al-Andalus only nominally for a brief time, IIRC). Further, I suggest replacing the map itself with a better image, e.g. File:Caliphate 740-en.svg or File:Abbasid Provinces ca 788 improved.png

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. We opted for the second map and changed the caption to "Map of the Abbasid Caliphate circa 788."

Sources

• Sources are high-quality scholarly sources or specialist tertiary works.
• Daftary 2020 is not used in the article. I would recommend using his 2007 edition of The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines as it has more detail on the post-765 Shia groupings.

Daftary 2020 was replaced with Daftary 2007, as you suggested.

I still see Daftary 2020 (as well as Halm 2004 and Sharif al-Qarashi 2005) listed as references; either remove them or move them to a further reading section. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Halm in Shi'ism (2004) pp. 32, 40 points out that the Waqifites were the first to put forth the notion of occultation for al-Kazim, which then became part of Twelver doctrine when the Waqifites merged with them.

The concepts of Mahdi and occultation are probably even older, e.g., Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya#Kaysanites. It can be argued (and I think Hussain argues to this effect somewhere in his book Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background) that these concepts were circulating among the Shias from very early on (perhaps on the basis of their hadith literature) and were recycled and appropriated by various Shia sects, including the Waqifites. This topic might be a better fit for Waqifite Shia IMO.

I agree it is likely too much to go into any detail here; my point was merely in the context of the impact of al-Kazim in wider Shia doctrine. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Have not done a spotcheck yet, will do so once the article is in a more or less final state after my comments above are addressed.

@Ghazaalch and Albertatiran: Overall the article is, as usual, in fine shape and a considerable achievement. Looking forward to your replies! Constantine ✍ 08:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Hope all is well with you and thanks again for the comments. Above please find the responses. The most crucial one was probably about the status of Isma'il during his lifetime, which has hopefully been addressed in the revision. Looking forward to your feedback. Courtesy ping: Ghazaalch

@Ghazaalch and Albertatiran: Sorry for the long delay. I have finally managed to do a proper read-through. Most of my comments above have been addressed. Some additional comments, mostly on new additions or changes:

• taught religious sciences perhaps 'devoted himself to religious teachings'? The current phrasing reads as if he was in a university department...

Done!

• The caliph is said to have ordered his governor of Medina is said by whom?

The source is apparently Usul al-kafi. The revised sentence reads, Shia sources report that the caliph ordered his governor of Medina to kill the heir to al-Sadiq...

• Some other followers of al-Sadiq turned to Muhammad ibn Ja'far, also known as al-Dibaj he has already been introduced above, so perhaps 'Some other followers of al-Sadiq turned to Musa's younger brother, al-Dibaj,...'?

Done!

• I did a spotcheck on the sources, nothing major pops out.

As I have said before, an excellent piece of work. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thanks for all this. I took care of the new comments! Courtesy ping: Ghazaalch Albertatiran (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.