Talk:Ali al-Sajjad

Zainul Abideen

I would seriously suggest moving this to Zainul Abideen—that's the way he's usually referred to. The precedent for this is Hasan al-Askari, who is listed by the name he's usually referred to, and not his "accurate" or given name, Hasan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad. Creating a redirect, anyway.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 23:57, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Created Zain al-Abideen, Zain al-Abidin, and Zainul Abideen as redirects.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 00:00, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Zayn al-‘Ābidīn Park3r (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong! Zayn al abidin is not his name! It is his title. He also has another title called as-Sajjad. Please move this entry back to his original name. His name is Ali ibn al-Hussain Zayn al-Abidin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

 Moved page to Ali ibn al-Hussain without any tiltle as His tiltles vary in geopgraphies (unlike Hasan al Askari who is universally known as Askari).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 13:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the page. Like I said before, Ali ibn al-Hussain has a few titles to his name, such as, Zayn al-Abidin and also as-Sajjad. But we shouldn't remove his first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I kept His name and Qunnaya and didn't included any title because title vary in geographies as as-Sajjad (meaning one who prostrates) is also rfered as Sayyed us-Sajedeen (Leader of one who prostrate). So, its better to exclude the tiltle from the name.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be called Ali al-Sajjid--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The phrase evil minded banu ummayya makes me believe this article has not been written by a neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifshiraz (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

grandson?

How is he the grandson of Muhammad if his mother was not Fatima? Is there a blood line between him and the prophet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.125.185 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

he is the great grandson, not the grandson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.58.151 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

resolving NPOV

I got rid of the phrase "evil-minded". Since I do not see any other NPOV related concern, I will have the tag removed unless there is any other concern. Please, be bold (Wiki recommends!) and join in this discussion if you see anything NPOV related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazemita1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Why do we have this label on his bio page

{{infobox Imams |image

Can we fix this? His biodata should not be in the bullet form format. Xareen (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is fixed now. So that is what it was. Thanks. Xareen (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the infobox, '}}' was missing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Image

I recently uploaded File:Zayn al'-'Abidin - Ramayana of Valmiki, vol. 2, folio 236, recto - Google Art Project.jpg which is attributed to Zayn al-'Abidin. I'm not sure if it's the same person, but if it is please feel free to use it. Dcoetzee 21:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity??

This entry reads as though it were written by Islamic scholars. It should be removed until it is done in a more academic mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:1470:C497:54:3219:D752 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving the Article

Hi. I am going to help improve this article due the following problems labeled at the top of the article page:

• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2013)
• This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (October 2013)
• This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (October 2013)

Doing so I will have to modify or delete some disputed information. Hadi.anani (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

-The article do not have the mentioned problems any longer so I am going to remove the label from the top of the article.Hadi.anani (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to remove the label from the top of the article page asit does not have the problem labeled there any longer. I hope so. Hadi.anani (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed text

Per WP:COATRACK:

As for Ali al-Ridha, the eighth Shiite Imam, when he was appointed a successor to Al-Ma'mun, a Sufi objected him: "The Imam should eat rough food and wear coarse garments." The Imam refuted his view, saying: "Yousif b. Ya‘qub was a prophet; nevertheless he wore silk-like garments embroidered with gold. Allah did not prohibit clothing nor did he prohibit food. However, He wanted the Imām to be fair and just." Then he recited these verse: Say: Who has forbidden the adornment which He has brought forth for His creatures.

Repeated text:

Ali ibn Husayn was the only son of Hussein ibn Ali who survived the Battle of Karbala in 680 when he was twenty three years old. For, he could not take part in the battle due to his illness, and was thus saved from the general massacre. Once again when he was led as a prisoner before Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad in Kufa, the latter ordered his execution but left him alive at the entreaty of his aunt, Zaynab.

References

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160305/http://www.lailahailallah.net/Khutbahs/Khutbah30.asf to http://www.lailahailallah.net/Khutbahs/Khutbah30.asf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Image in infobox

• @SharabSalam: recently removed an image from the infobox containing the name of Ali bin Husayn in Arabic. It is extremely common for notable Islamic personalities to have their name in Arabic in a circle in the infobox; for example, one may look at the pages Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Fatimah, etc. SharabSalam cited WP:HONOUR as a reason to remove the image; however, WP:HONOUR applies to text in an article, not to images. The overwhelming existence of images with honorifics on Wikipedia can attest to this, and we could call in a Wikipedia administrator to confirm this if needed. As a result, I believe that the image of Ali bin Husayn's name should be restored to the infobox. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Snowsky Mountain, no, it is not common. We don't put "own work" of the name and add honorifics in these Photoshop created images. Also those articles contain images that are an illustration from the Hagia Sophia Istanbul, Turkey. See their Wikipedia commons description.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Here is a non-complete list of Wikipedia articles with images of names in the infobox that are not from the Hagia Sophia:

  • 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf
  • Ibn Abbas
  • Abdullah ibn Salam
  • Abdullah ibn Umar
  • Abu al-As ibn al-Rabi'
  • Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib
  • Abu Dharr al-Ghifari
  • Abu Hurairah
  • Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah
  • Aisha
  • Ammar ibn Yasir
  • Hafsa bint Umar
  • Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib
  • Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib
  • Abd al-Muttalib
  • Hashim ibn Abd Manaf
  • Abd Manaf ibn Qusai
  • Hassan ibn Thabit

  Clearly, it is very common for such images to appear in the infobox. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter, they should also be removed. Wikipedia doesn't promote any own work unless it has an educational purpose. These images would have been deleted from Wikimedia commons if they were not used in Wikipedia. This is why the person who creates them add them to articles immediately. The other articles like the one about prophet Muhammad, that image is an illustration of Hagia Sofia in Istanbul.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  The "own work" guideline refers to citing one's one book in an article. Also, you can't make a blanket claim that every single image in a Wikipedia infobox was placed there by the same person who created it. And what gives calligraphy of the Hagia Sophia such a special status that calligraphy from there can appear on Wikipedia but no other calligraphy can? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Snowsky Mountain, it's notable!. Think about it. Imagine if some random Wikimedia common user draw a picture of prophet Saleh peace be upon him and uploaded it, then he placed it in the article of prophet Saleh, would you allow their own work in the article of prophet Saleh?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, according to MOS:IMAGES, if no image was already present, then such an image may be allowed until it is replaced by an "image of higher quality or greater pertinence," as long as the picture was not considered offensive. (Also, by "drawing," I'm going to assume you mean draw a picture of his name.)

  By the way, since you mention Prophet Saleh, I should mention that his Wikipedia page already has an image of his name in Arabic, similar to the image on this page that you removed. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I am done here. I will add the image back. I still think it shouldn't be used but I don't want to continue this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor improvements

I'd like to make small edits to this article, e.g., I spotted "Zany" instead of "Zayn" and small gammar typos. Albertatiran (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "The Consistently Prostrating", I think we can borrow the argubly more appropriate "[one who is] constantly prostrating in worship" from Madelung's article. Albertatiran (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: yes, 'the one who is constantly prostrating in worship' is a lot clearer to people who don't know Arabic.

One important note though: when "ibn" (Arabic: بن) occurs in the middle of a name, it is transliterated in lower case (Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hasan ibn Ali, etc.), but when it is the first word in a name (Arabic: إبن), as in Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Qutaybah, Ibn Khaldun, etc., it is spelled in upper case: "Ibn". In your recent edits you changed it a number of times from "Ibn" to "ibn" where it should be "Ibn". Could you please undo this? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Sure, will do that (I hope) before next Monday. To avoid these kind of errors in the future, I wonder if this information about style is compiled somewhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Albertatiran (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There's the abortive WP:MOSAR, which was a proposal for the Manual of Style that was never actually voted in and now lies dormant. You're absolutely right that we should have an active page for this kind of stuff, but alas, it appears that there are just not enough active editors to make it work. I'm watching WP:MOSAR, so if any activity should resume there, I probably will also participate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ali bin Hussein (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

GOCE

The article was submitted to GOCE in preparation for GA nomination. Albertatiran (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Ghazaalch

Citation style note

Hi there, looking at this linked from GOCE. I feel it would reduce clutter a lot to merge the citations into single ref tags, eg

They were treated poorly along the way.{{Sfn|Qutbuddin|2019|p=107}}{{Sfn|Hamdar|2009|pp=86, 93}}{{Sfn|Hyder|2006|p=46}}

could be

They were treated poorly along the way.<ref>{{harvnb|Qutbuddin|2019|p=107}}, {{harvnb|Hamdar|2009|pp=86, 93}}, {{harvnb|Hyder|2006|p=46}}</ref>

giving:

They were treated poorly along the way.

rather than

They were treated poorly along the way.

Jim Killock (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock Thanks for the input. I think this is to some degree a matter of personal taste. One advantage of sfn over alternatives is significantly fewer footnotes without any repetitions. It's a fairly popular template on Wikipedia. Albertatiran (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you should use SFN when i is single sources I agree. However, you can reduce clutter on the page as it is being read by using harvnb where you have 2, 3, or more citations listed together. This is just a suggestion as you have some places where the footnotes in the text get a bit overwhelming, eg "Mukhtar's revolt" or "Character". Jim Killock (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock I appreciate the suggestion but the article doesn't look particularly cluttered to me personally. It's also perfectly fine with me if you find the time to change the citation style... Albertatiran (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You can still use sfn for bundles, just with {{sfnm}}. Aza24 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aza24 and JimKillock: Very useful tip. It's on my to-do list for this article. Albertatiran (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

exellent, thank you @Aza24 Jim Killock (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Albertatiran

References

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:Ali al-Sajjad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Albertatiran (talk · contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Will take this on during the next few days. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 3 August 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   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:

A few days turned into a month, but I finally found some time. The article is as usual of high quality and well researched and referenced. Some comments follow:

Lede

• Suggest linking quiescent to political quietism in Islam (I know it is imperfect, but better than nothing, and the technical term will be unclear to the average reader otherwise), and (optional) Revolt of Zayd ibn Ali where it is mentioned.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Life

• The sections here are extremely brief. Is there a particular reason (e,g, reflecting traditional historiography)? Otherwise I suggest merging some of them (e.h. 'In Karbala' and 'In Kufa' could be 'Karbala and aftermath', 'Journey to Damascus' can easily be merged with 'In Damascus', etc). 'Aftermath of Karbala' now also comes several sections after 'In Karbala', which is at least a bit confusing at first glance when trying to gain an overview. Would suggest renaming it to 'Later life' or similar, and have the next sections be subsections of that.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Optional: suggest merging 'In Karbala' and 'Aftermath of Karbala' in one, and 'Tawwabin revolt' and 'Mukhtar's revolt' with 'Role in the Second Fitna'. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done!

• Shia Muslims annually celebrate the link should be to Shia Islam rather than the generic Muslims

Corrected! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• great-grandson of Muhammad link and contextualize Muhammad as the Islamic prophet

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• some believe some what? Modern historians? Shia theologians? Medieval sources?

This was changed to: some historical accounts. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest adding regnal years for Yazdegerd III (using Template:reign), and possibly some context, in that he was overthrown as a result of the Muslim conquest of Persia?

Both suggestions were implemented. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• with Persians 'with the Persians', or even 'with the Persian royal dynasty'?

This was corrected to the Persians, which matches the source. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a look in the article, I am not sure that the reason for this singling out, namely "according to a tradition of the Prophet, the Kuraysh are the elect of the Arabs and the Persians are the elect of the non-Arabs." is made clear here. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Oddly, I didn't notice this earlier but here Madelung says that the title praises the Persian royal family whereas Chittick says it honors Persians as a whole. I've changed the text as follows to sidestep the issue altogether: Shia tradition thus refers to al-Sajjad as Ibn al-Khiyaratayn (lit. 'son of the best two'), a title that signifies his noble descent on both sides.

A good compromise, sometimes less is more. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• his mother was the daughter of Yazdegerd III...some Shia sources, Shahrbanu, the daughter of Yazdegerd III is there a reason the name is not given in the first mention? Are some Shia sources suggesting another identity for the shah's daughter? AFAICT Shahrbanu is only attested in Shia sources and no other source claims that Yazdegerd had daughters. This should be added.

To address this comment, her name is now mentioned the first time she appears in the text. Regarding Yazdegerd's family, apparently al-Masudi writes that he had three daughters, according to the Persian Wikipedia, but this is a primary source anyway. Do you happen to know of a better source? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing, unfortunately. Works specializing on Sasanian history (e.g. Pourshariati 2008, Daryaee 2009) do not mention it at all, unlike Yazdegerd's sons who are well attested. However, EI2 is explicit in attributing this to Shia tradition, so I do not consider it a stretch to point out that this is not a historical fact. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to incorporate that into the text: While it is not certain that Yazdegerd had a daughter, some Shia sources claim that she was brought… The template is to be replaced with Pourshariati 2008 and Daryaee 2009. Please share their details with me.

Here it is: T. Daryaee, Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, I.B. Tauris 2009, pp. 37–38 mentions the sons of Yazdegerd III fleeing east and seeking Chinese support (cf. Peroz III). However, I would alternatively suggest just a formulation along the lines that the claim she was a Sasanian princess only comes from Shia tradition, which seems plain enough from the EI2 phrasing. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas I followed your suggestion (and made some other minor edits to the rest of the paragraph): However, the claim that al-Sajjad's mother was a Sasanian princess is specific to Shia sources. Albertatiran (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Add regnal years for Yazid I and the other Umayyad caliphs at first mention.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• After killing Husayn and his male relatives and supporters, the Umayyad troops looted his camp and found al-Sajjad lying deathly ill in one of the tents. lacks a citation

Fixed! The text was also slightly edited to read: ...the Umayyad troops looted his camp and some were intent on killing al-Sajjad but his life was ultimately spared. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• the women unveiled link to hijab?

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• displayed from "village to village" if this is a quote, it is a very short one (i.e. it is trivial and can be removed), but at any rate it should be attributed.

I've removed the quotation marks. The quote must have been borrowed from one of the two works cited at the end of that sentence. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Similar accounts are offered by the historians...Such views are expressed by other authors it should be noted that all of these are modern historians, who interpret extremely biased medieval sources. So all these opinions should be treated with due caution. I would even recommend (although this is not required for a GA-level review) to note which medieval sources represent which side of the story, and are respectively relied on by modern historians. Some contextualization might also be in order, e.g. 'Yazid's reaction to, and culpability in, events in Karbala have been disputed ever since' or similar.

I understand. It couldn't trace the primary sources in the few secondary sources I just checked. Instead, I kept only the secondary sources for consistency and altered the paragraph as follows:

The captives were paraded in the streets of Damascus, and then imprisoned for a while, before being brought to the caliph. Yazid’s reaction to, and his culpability in, the events in Karbala have been debated in classical and modern sources alike.

The first narrative is that he treated the captives kindly after an initial, harsh interrogation, saying that he regretted the conduct of his governor, and that he would have pardoned Husayn if he were alive. Such accounts are offered by the Islamicists L. Veccia Vaglieri, W. Madelung, and H. Halm. In contrast, M. Momen, another expert, believes that Yazid, fearing social unrest, released the captives as public opinion began to sway in their favor. Similar views are expressed by some other authors, including J. Esposito, R. Osman, K. Aghaie, D. Pinault, H. Munson, and the Shia scholar M. H. Tabataba'i. In particular, the Islamicist H. M. Jafri writes that Yazid is not known to have reprimanded his governor in the wake of the massacre, which does not suggest any remorse to Jafri. At any rate, such claims of remorse are in stark contrast to Yazid's earlier orders to his governor to either exact homage from Husayn or kill him.

The alternative narrative suggests that the captives were brought to the caliph in a ceremony, who gloated over avenging his pagan relatives killed fighting Muhammad. Such accounts are given by the Islamicists T. Qutbuddin and R. Osman. According to some reports, Yazid also dishonored the severed head of Husayn with blows from a cane, although this last episode is sometimes attributed to Ibn Ziyad instead, in line with the Sunni tendency to exonerate the caliph of killing Husayn and blaming Ibn Ziyad. Part of the great mosque in Damascus, known as Mashhad Ali, marks where al-Sajjad was incarcerated. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• In particular, the Sunni historian Ibn Kathir...An alternative account is presented by the Shia scholar Tabarsi (d. 1153) and by the early historian Abu Mikhnaf (d. c. 773) Having the medieval historians follow after the modern ones feels weird. As above, I would expect medieval sources to be analyzed first, and modern scholars to come after.

Please see the previous bullet. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Link great mosque in Damascus

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• The captives were eventually freed is there any indication of the approximate date?

The freed captives arrived in Karbala dirty days after the battle, according to the religious folklore. But I don't know of any concrete information in reliable sources… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• He kept aloof from politics link to Political quietism in Islam?

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Main article: Battle of al-Harra would rather suggest to have the entire Second Fitna as the reference here, with a corresponding section header (e.g. 'Role in the Second Fitna')

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Tawwabin's revolt 'Tawwabin revolt' or 'Revolt of the Tawwabin'

Done!! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Death

• Provide a link to Demolition of al-Baqi

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Give some context about the Wahhabis (who they are, what they represent, their ties to the Saudi regime)

To address your comment, I added the following introduction for Wahhabism: ...a revivalist Saudi-backed movement that considers veneration of Muslim saints a form of polytheism and a grave sin.(shirk). Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Shia sources add that the destitute in Medina discovered, after his death, that al-Sajjad was the benefactor who regularly brought them food at night, while covering his face to preserve his anonymity This might better be placed in the 'Character' section, where it is alluded to.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference after secretly provided for destitute Medinans is now redundant. Constantine ✍ 15:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed!

Imamate

• Husayn had designated al-Sajjad Link to Nass (Islam)?

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• who revolted under the auspices of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah 'auspices' may be unclear or misleading, since his connection with Mukhtar is unclear.

This was changed to in support of Ibn al-Hanafiyya… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ibn al-Hanafiyyah occurs a few times, suggest standardizing to 'Ibn al-Hanafiyya'

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• the Zubayrid Caliphate since this is not a proper historiographic name, 'the Zubayrid caliphate'; I would even suggest 'the Zubayrid counter-caliphate' or 'Zubayr's counter-caliphate'. Ditto for the mention further down.

Good point! I followed your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yet some Shia figures add 'contemporary' for clarity.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• But perhaps Ibn al-Hanafiyya had secret designs 'On the other hand, perhaps Ibn al-Hanafiyya had secret designs'

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Kasaniyya was a Shia sect that traced the imamate through Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya and his descendants suggest merging with previous section, and rephrasing a bit, e.g. 'Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya's followers among the Shia became known as the Kaysaniyya, who continued to trace the imamate through his descendants' or similar, because the transition is somewhat abrupt.

Thanks, I implemented your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• when Ibn al-Hanafiyya died add year of death.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Most Zaydis, by contrast, do not count the quiescent al-Sajjad among their imams some more context is needed here, to make clear that Zaydi imamate is not hereditary, and must be politically activist. Alternatively, move this part to the later section where Zaydis are introduced and their doctrine mentioned.

To address this comment, some information about Zaysism is provided: Most Zaydis, by contrast, do not count al-Sajjad among their imams, for his political quietism disqualifies him from Zaydi imamate. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• majority views to the uninitiated, this is not clear; at least something like 'majority views that were not espoused by the early Shia' or similar is necessary for clarity.

I followed your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• condemn the first two caliphs: Abu Bakr and Umar leaves the reader asking why they should be condemned; I would recommend moving most of whom view Abu Bakr and Umar as usurpers of Ali ibn Abi Talib's right to the caliphate immediately after that.

Changed that sentence as follows: to For instance, he did not condemn the first two caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr and Umar, who are denounced in Shia Islam as usurpers of Ali ibn Abi Talib's right to the caliphate. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• qualified for leadership link to Imamate in Zaydi doctrine?

Done!

• Some duplicate links, please remove them.

I removed at least one duplicate link… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala, Kufa, Abu Khalid al-Kabuli, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib are all duplinked. Suggest using the User:Evad37/duplinks-alt tool. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas All done! Also, thanks for the tip! Albertatiran (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles and epithets

• Gloss kunya

Changed that sentence to: Ali's teknonym (kunya) is… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Abu al-Ḥasan, Abu al-Ḥusayn render 'H' according to the simple transliteration used throughout

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• A gloss for Dhu al-Thafenat?

Changed that sentence to: He was also known as Dhu al-Thafenat, meaning ‘he who has calluses’ from frequent prostration in worship. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Character

• among Sunni Muslims as the Sunni-Shia divide is not quite there yet, perhaps 'non-Shia' or 'majoritarian' Muslims'? At the very least 'proto-Sunni'.

I used non-Shia Muslims, as you suggested. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• How much of this description comes from 'neutral' sources (e.g. al-Tabari) and how much comes from Shia sources?

Hard to tell because, except Pierce, the authors I looked at omit their primary sources. My guess is that this is a universal description of al-Sajjad, as it was (and still is) common for Sunnis to describe early Muslim figures as pious men with minor disagreements and misunderstandings (that somehow led to bloody wars). The part quoted from Pierce was changed as follows: ...to the point that his face was bruised and his legs were swollen from lengthy prayers, according to his Shia biographer. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Family

• Apart from Muhammad, are there any of his children, or more remote offspring, that are noteworthy? E.g. the son for whom the Mausoleum of Abdullah ibn Ali Zayn al-Abidin was built?

Very good note. I wasn't aware of this. However, I did know about Tahir ibn Zayn al-Abidin, buried in Tehran, Iran. Unfortunately, none of them has been mentioned in reliable sources. That said, Abd Allah does appear in an article by Baghestani and Haeri in a Persian encyclopedia. I've added the following sentence to this subsection: Among his sons were Zayd and Abd Allah, and the eldest of them was Muhammad al-Baqir. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Works

• often regarded as authentic by whom?

This is now clarified: The book, attributed to al-Sajjad, is often regarded as authentic by Shia scholars of hadith… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Would add the link to Supplication of Abu Hamza al-Thumali in the main body of the text, rather than in the 'See also' section.

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• The years given for the EI2 articles are incorrect; EI2's last volume was published in 2004. Cf. Template:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, which I strongly recommend to use (otherwise something from Vol. I, i.e. 1960, is erroneously presented as being up-to-date, and EI2 is shown as being later than EI3 articles).

I completely understand. Currently what's given is the “first-online” date, which is the only date given by brillonline, as far as I can tell. Since I don't have access to the printed articles anymore, it’d be difficult for me to address this particular comment. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You can find the alphabetical ranges in the template link above. There is a remote possibility that an article is in the supplemental volume 12, but that should not be the case here. Also, have a look in your email inbox. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your resources. I updated the bibliography accordingly.

Veccia Vaglieri 1993 needs to be fixed, otherwise it looks OK. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas Veccia Vaglieri 1993 was corrected to Veccia Vaglieri 1971, as you suggested. Albertatiran (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

• In the top infobox, Hasan al-Muthana is listed as his successor in Zaydism, in the succession box in the bottom, it is Zayd ibn Ali. I would suggest that both are wrong, as the article makes clear that the Zaydis didn't regard him as an imam at all.

You're right. I didn't notice that. That's been fixed. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Still in the succession box in the bottom of the page. Constantine ✍ 07:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, now that's gone too.

That's it for a first pass. After the points above are dealt with, I will do a second read-through and a source review. Constantine ✍ 14:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Helpful and well-thought--of comments, as usual. Thank you very much! Please find my responses above.

@Cplakidas: Thanks again. Please see the second round of responses above. Albertatiran (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

• In the lede, add that Zayd ibn Ali, whose rebellion was crushed by the Umayyads in 740 marks the birth of Zaydism.

Done! ... marking the birth of Zaydsim. Albertatiran (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• In the lede, without participating in the numerous uprisings against the Umayyads should be more specific, e.g. 'without participating in the numerous pro-Alid uprisings against the Umayyads during the civil war of the Second Fitna' or similar.

I used the wording that you suggested.

• In view of their later importance to Islam in general and Shiism, including Imami Shiism, in particular, think it should be mentioned that Ibn al-Hanafiyya's followers gave rise to Mahdism, and that the bulk of the Kaysaniyya eventually became the Hashimiyya and helped the Abbasids to power.

Here is my first attempt. It's a bit long and should probably be trimmed. ..Some others thought that he was concealed by divine will and would eventually return to eradicate injustice on Earth. This was perhaps when the messianic concept of the Mahdi became mainstream in Shia Islam. Most Kaysanites, however, followed Ibn al-Hanafiyya's son, Abu Hashim. When the latter died, the imamate supposedly passed on to the Abbasids, that is, descendants of Muhammad’s uncle, Abbas. Kaysanites later proved instrumental in the Abbasids’ overthrow of the Umayyads. As the Abbasids gradually turned against their former Shia allies, they carried most Kaysanites with themselves toward Sunnism.

Looks good to me, a few minor tweaks: "...his imamate supposedly passed on to the Abbasids..." and link the Abbasid Revolution. Optional to mention that the title of Mahdi would be applied to Ali's own descendant, the twelfth imam. Constantine ✍ 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• The captives were eventually freed,[21] and escorted back to Medina.[21][11] both the latte references are to the same author. Are they both necessary? I would suggest keeping one (if #21, then the middle one is redundant).

I only kept [21], as you suggested.

• In Damascus, captives were paraded in the streets of Damascus redundant repetition

Sources insist that they were paraded both in Kufa and Damascus. So this might not be entirely redundant. However, if you consider it to be undue, I will keep just one of the two episodes.

My point is merely that 'in Damascus' is a repetition of 'in the streets of Damascus'. Constantine ✍ 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• debated in classical and modern sources alike 'classical' in English evokes classical antiquity unless otherwise qualified; suggest 'medieval' instead.

Done!

• The majority Shia view is that the imamate perhaps the majority modern view? Depending on the time period, this may not have always been the case, as indicated by the article itself later on.

Yes, you're right. Now it reads: Today, most Shias believe that Husayn was succeeded by al-Sajjad...

• from Husayn to his son al-Sajjad 'his son' is probably redundant here

Done!

• Spotcheck: #4, #13, #33, #64, #86, #98 show no problems apart from some word choices taken over. Constantine ✍ 16:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Albertatiran: will pass now, there are one or two comments above, but they are minor; well done, as usual. Constantine ✍ 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

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.