This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Vanamonde93, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on March 2015. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Excessive use of quotations
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I think the references feels very dubious. I can't find any information about this so called Islamic Research Center in Strasbourg. Are they a part of the Univesity? Why doesn't their published articles have any references? Doesn't feel very academic to me. Is this whole article just an invention to promote Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The Encycopedia Britannica article on al-Sadiq would appear to confirm that he is sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, so I think your question about whether the article is an "invention to promote Islam" is uncalled for. However, the single source cited for all but one of the claims made in the section As a scientist and philosopher appears to be a work self-published by its translator, Kaukab Ali Mirza. If the extracts quoted on the web-site cited in the article are accurate, Mirza's book also makes many completely unsourced exceptional claims, several of which would seem to disqualify it from being considered a reliable source. To cite just one, it asserts that al-Sadiq "refuted" the theory of geocentrism at age 11, but the argument against geocentrism which it attributes to him is nonsensical. Given that al-Sadiq appears to have been a highly respected Islamic scholar, it doesn't seem likely that he would have proposed such an obviously fallacious argument as a refutation of the then universally held notion of geocentrism.
The source purports to be an English translation from a Persian (presumably Farsi) translation of a French original, claimed to have been a "thesis" published by a "Research Committee", variously described as being eiher "of Strasbourg" or "of Strasbourg University". I would remain highly sceptical of these claims until someone can provide a traceable citation of the supposed French original.
None of the contributions to Astronomy and Cosmology which the article claims al-Sadiq made is mentioned in either J.L.E.Dreyer'sHistory of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler or C.M.Linton's From Eudoxus to Einstein, both of which have extensive chapters on oriental astronomy, most of which are devoted to Islamic astronomy. Also, the only mention which the Encyclopedia Britannica article cited above makes of al-Sadiq's contribution to science is that the alchemist Geber credited him with being the source of many of his own ideas. In view of all this, I believe the section As a scientist and philosopher should either be deleted, or at least rewritten from scratch using reliable sources, and Kaukab Ali Mizra's book should not be used as a reference.
Thanks for the references. They look quite interesting and authoritative. Unfortunately none of them appears to me to provide any support for the specific claims from Ali Mirza's book that have been made in the As a scientist and philosopher section of the article.
This article is a pice of the history of the world!
And the world insn't only the western ideologie.
To much knowledge is destroyed in the past by ignorant people, who don't
want accept the realitiy of a giant knowledge of mankind.
I donn't know who is so ignorant, to delete this article. This article
is an eminent part of the history.
Wikipedia is a Lexikon, it schould be a source of knowledge. The concern of
anyone who want to delete this articel is undoubtful a personal problem of
some ignorant people.
For me it is a part of a very bright article to understand the development of the
whole mankind in the whole history, not only in a small epoch (kommunismus, imperialismus,
rassismus) like you lern in the western school.
It's real - a part of reality. I for my part enjoyed this. Now I see how little
the Knowledge of the western schools are really were.
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Since no-one appears to have come up with reliable sources for the material taken from Kaukab ali Mirza's book via this web site (see discussion above), I have deleted it in accordance with the Wikipedia policiy on verifiability.
However the remaining material in this section also seems to be just as poorly sourced. The editor responsible for the single remaining reference (The Minister, 11 (10), p. 5-7, 1984) has confirmed that he has not been able to check it himself, but obtained his information about it from the web site indicated. This website contains an article on theories of alternative medicine and includes many poorly sourced extraordinary claims. In my opinion it can by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. The journal it cites for the claim included in the Ja'far al-Sadiq article (namely, The Minister) is so obscure that I have been unable to locate a library anywhere in the world which carries it, and the editor responsible for its inclusion has been unable to throw any light on where a copy might be found. I have therefore also added a {{verify credibility}} template to this citation. Unless someone can locate a copy of the given reference and provide some details to confirm that it's a reliable source (or alternatively provide another reliable source to support the material) within a reasonable time then I believe this material should also be deleted.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Since no-one has been able provide a reliable source for this material I have now removed it.
The problem under discussion immediately above was the availability and reliability of the magazine The Minister, not that of Kaukab ali Mirza's book. That the latter is available from Amazon doesn't make it a reliable source. Indeed, since it's self-published it's automatically disqualified from being considered as such in Wikipedia. I have already outlined several other problems with it above, and, in more detail, here.
Thank you for the source. I can't boast sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to make a confident judgement, but its article on al -Sadiq looks to me like a very comprehensive and scholarly treatment. As such, it would be indirectly relevant to judging the credibility of ali Mirza's book. Not a single one of the exceptional claims made in that book is mentioned at all in the Iranica article, not even as a later apocryphal tradition. This reinforces my suspicion that those claims are complete bunkum.
It's me that should be thankful to you for improving the article. I am now busy with other articles, but hopefully after Xmas vacations, I'll improve this matter.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Abu Hanifa was born in 699, while as-Saqiq was born in 702. Isn't it then a little hard to think of Abu Hanifa learning under as-Sadiq? Maybe he only attended some lectures as an equal. -- 213.6.12.131 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, as-Sadiq (AS) started attending lectures by al-Baqir (AS) at a very young age. I believe at this period, Abu Hanifa was perhaps only memorizing hadith and Qur'an. There are written stories about Hanifa and as-Sadiq's (AS) period as well. --Enzuru19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since Hamidah Khatun is notable and separate, why would we merge her article into this one? unsigned comment by Emilyzilch (talk)
The Hamidah Khatun page makes no claim of notability other than possibly the stuff of WP:ONEVENT. If the subject of that page in fact is generally notable, such notability must be claimed (and ultimately demonstrated). Bongomatic (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have a book that goes into the issue of Ismail's life and imamate, about how many thought he would be the Imam, and after as-Sadiq's death, the confusion that ensued. It has hadith from Twelver books, though it does not have a hadith with a specific declaration of nass, it certainly goes to great lengths to show there was a sufficient amount of confusion. --♥pashtun ismailiyya08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also have one, this one from the Ismaili scholarly institute, a fat tome by Farhad Daftary called Ismaili Literature. It goes into the whole Twelver-Ismaili then Ismaili-Qarmatian thing in great detail. I mean, clearly there were proto-Ismailis who believed the nass because there was a large and organised da'wah based out of Salamaniyyah. As for Twelvers, well, I know they also agree that Isma'il really died, but whether they believe he was ever nassed or was just "in line" is unclear to me. Nonetheless, the basic situation is that scholars from both sides disagree on who succeeded Ja'far, which is the basic point we are trying to make. Ogresssmash!08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are several opinions on the matter from the Twelver side, but one of the more prominent ones was put forth by Al-Shaykh al-Saduq, called badah, meaning God changed His will, if I understand correctly. Badah can be found in Twelver books of hadith as well. Anyway, the idea is that originally Allah willed Ismail to be Imam, however, He later willed Musa to be the Imam, hence made Ismail die. This idea is still held by some Twelver, but it's rarer now, most Twelver deny Ismail was ever even near the Imamate. I believe the Bábi used badah as one argument against Khatme Nabuwwat. --♥pashtun ismailiyya09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
It says on this page that Jaf'ar as-Sadiq(as) was a polymath. Could someone please produce a reference for this. And if there is a reference, can you post it on the polymath discussion page since we should try to get Imam as-Sadiq(as) onto that page. They are demanding a viable source.--IsaKazimi (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes i couldn't find one that described Imam as-Sadiq(as) as a polymath either. I thought maybe if we could find seperate ones that describe him as an expert in all the individual fields mentioned...then that would be sufficient since it would still show him to meet the criterea of a polymath.--IsaKazimi (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
There is no 'actual' picture available for the Imam. So to post a mere depiction of an artist (God knows if tomorrow some other artist comes and posts some other picture that is desecratory) and to post that as a PRIMARY image of a person would be incorrect. But gosh!! There are so many discussions about the same topic in other similar articles, I feel a little let down to start another discussion here. My final argument would be: If there is an actual picture , post it (and there is none) and if not, create another article that says 'An artists description of the imam' or whatever so that normal people dont have to see this picture each time they come to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasgadhia (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
According to both early Sunni and Shia books Jaafar Al Sadiq had said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice" (Al-Kâfî, Ar-Rawdah, 8:101). Many old Sunni and Shia books also said that Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali (Nahjul Balagha Sermon 66) and his son Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was the grand father of Jaafar Al Sadiq. The fiqh of Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr is captured in Imam Malik's book Muwatta Imam Malik and is referred to as the original fiqh of Madina by the Orientalists and used as a benchmark when comparing Sharia against other legal systems because both the Ummayads and the early Abbasids used the fiqh of Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr that was captured in a book form as Muwatta Imam Malik. Qasim is extremely important in early fiqh.
But Jaafar Al Sadiq had said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice". So I looked and initially could not find another branch up from Jaffar al Sadiq back to Abu Bakr because I found it very hard to identify the women in their families. The women in their families are very modest. They are highly educated and did a very good job of teaching their children, but are hard to identify. Then I came across Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's extreme opposition to Muawiya during the appointment of Yazid. And then came across Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's daughter Asma who was married to Qasim and was also Jaafar Al Sadiq's grand mother. So when Jaafar Al Sadiq said "Abu-Bakr begot me twice". He meant that both of Abu Bakr's sons Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr and Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr were his great grandfathers.
Many of these people are buried in the Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina. Then I came across photos of a family tree diagram of these people. Photos taken at the entrance of the Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina during this years hajj. They also had these details and had all the references. The references include both Sunni and Shia books. Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr is highly regarded by all early scholars. Its good that the diagram also remembers and shows some of Hassan's sons and some of Ali's sons who were killed in Karbala and are now more or less forgotten. Most family tree diagrams do not show the women, where as this shows the women and shows their mothers. I am still finding it hard to name Qasims mother. Most early books say that she is from Ali's family. Qasim's father Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali and was very close to Ali. Hassan is also buried in Al-Baqi grave yard in Madina along with his mother and many of his relatives. It is said 10,000 of Muhammad's companions are also buried there as are many of his family members and relatives.
All the books from Sahih Al Bukhari (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 352, Narrated by Yusuf bin Mahak) to Ibn Katheer's books state that Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr heavily opposed Muawiya for his appointment of Yazeed.
Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 352, there is a Narration by Yusuf bin Mahak:
Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). Then 'Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr told him something whereupon marwan ordered that he be arrested. But 'Abdur-Rahman entered 'Aisha's house and they could not arrest him. marwan said, "It is he ('AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse: 'And the one who says to his parents: 'Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?'" On that, 'Aisha said from behind a screen, "Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence."
Ibn Katheer wrote in his book the Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah [familytree 1] that "in the year 56 AH Muawiyah called on the people including those within the outlying territories to pledge allegiance to his son, Yazeed, to be his heir to the Caliphate after him. Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them. The speaker who addressed Muawiyah sharply with the greatest firmness amongst them was Abdul rahman ibn Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq
Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr fought in the Battle of Yarmouk against the Romans in Syria. Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr had been one of the first to dual in that battle. Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr sister Asmā' bint Abu Bakr also fought in the Battle of Yarmouk and was also heavily opposed to Yazid.
Then while I was going round old libraries in the Middle east, looking for old books I came across literature on Abdur Rahman and his family.
Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's brother Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was raised by Ali and was also Ali's general and was killed in Egypt. Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr was the son of Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr, who was the son of Abu Bakr, raised by Ali. Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr's wife was also Ali's close relative, meaning that Qassim was both the Grandson of Abu Bakr and a very close relative of Ali.
Then on top of that Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's daughter Hafsa was married to Hassan and Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's other daughter Asma was married to Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr. Qassim and Asma's daughter, Fatima (Um Farwa) was married to Mohammed Al Baqer and was the mother of Jaafar Al Sadiq. So I asked a Shia cleric from Isfahan in Iran and he said it was true. The Sunni's clerics also said it was true. Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr's and his brother Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr are both Ja'far al-Sadiq's great grandfathers. Abdullah bin Az-Zubair was also married to Hassans daughter. When Hussein was killed, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair took on Yazeed and drove his forces out of Hijaz but was later defeated. His mother Asmā' bint Abu Bakr deeply opposed Yazid. In his last hour, Abdullah asked his mother Asma what he should do. Asma replied to her son:
“You know better in your own self that if you are upon the truth and you are calling towards the truth go forth, for people more honourable than you were killed and have been killed, and if you are not upon the truth, then what an evil son you are, you have destroyed yourself and those who are with you. If you say what you say, that you are upon the truth and you will be killed at the hands of others then you will not truly be free, for this is not the statement of someone who is free... How long will you live in this world, death is more beloved to me than this state you are on, this state of weakness.”
Then Abdullah said to his mother after she had told him to go forth and fight: “I am afraid I will be mutilated by the people of Sham. I am afraid that they will cut up my body after they have killed me.” She said: “After someone has died, it won’t make any difference what they do to you if you have been killed.” Abdullah said to his mother:
“I did not come to you except to increase myself in knowledge. Look and pay attention to this day, for verily, I am a dead man. Your son never drank wine, nor was he fornicator, nor did he wrong any Muslim or non-Muslim, nor was he unjust. I am not saying this to you to show off or show how pure I am but rather as an honour to you.”
Abdullah then left by himself on his horse to take on Hajjaj. Hajjaj’s army defeated Abdullah on the battlefield in 692. He beheaded him and crucified his body. He said, “No one must take down his body except Asma. She must come to me and ask my permission, and only then will his body be taken down.” Asma refused to go and ask permission to take down her son's body. It was said to her, "If you don’t go, his body will remain like that.” She said, “Then let it be.” Eventually Hajjaj came to her and asked, "What do you say about this matter?” She replied, “Verily, you have destroyed him and you have ruined his life, and with that you have ruined your hereafter.” Asma died a few days later.
There are a lot of family links between these people. Even Abdullah bin Az-Zubair was Husseins second cousin. It looks like blood is thicker than water. We need to improve the layout of the family tree diagrams, including Family tree of Ali. These diagrams need to be like family tree diagrams. People like Qassim ibn Mohammed ibn Abu Bakr are also very important in early fiqh and Imam Malik's book Muwatta Imam Malik is based on the work of the committee headed by Qassim. Yet these days, they are almost forgotten. We need to improve the family tree diagrams of people like Qasim.
^The Caliphate of Banu Umayyah the first Phase, Ibn Katheer, Taken from Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Katheer, Ismail Ibn Omar 775 ISBN978-603-500-080-2 Translated by Yoosuf Al-Hajj Ahmad Page 82
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I feel that this article is very disjointed at the moment and should really be split up into smaller sections. Perhaps it would be worthwhile adding 2 new sections for the "Sunni view of al-Sadiq" and the "Shi'ite view of al-Sadiq". This would perhaps make the article more readable. RookTaker (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed the links—one of which was dead anyway—to the The Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher Imam Jafar Ibn Mohammed As-Sadiq (A.S.) by Kaukab ali Mirza, and the description of it, from the external links section of the article. I have recently acquired a printed copy of this book. Much of its content is utterly ludicrous, and its description, which was simply copied out of the book itself, is false. The correspondence between its contents and that of the French work it purports to have been ultimately derived from is so minuscule that they would appear to be completely independent works. Wikipedia should not be potentially inconveniencing its readers by referring them to rubbish like this as if it contained any useful information on the topic of the article.
Another editor, Neotherios, recently identified the French work which is supposedly the ultimate source for the contents of ali Mirza's book, and which that book incorrectly refers to as a "thesis", and posted an account of his findings on my talk page back in June. He had found an Arabic work online which is so simllar to ali Mirza's that both must have been derived ultimately from the same source. This Arabic work contained a list of references from which Neotherios was able to identify the purported French original. He described his identification, a little modestly, I think, as "not far-fetched", but I certainly didn't think it was quite conclusive. The French work is not a "thesis", in any of the normal senses which that word can assume in English, but the proceedings of a conference—the second Colloque d'islamologie de Centre de Recherce d'Histoire des Religions de Strasbourg.[*] When I discovered that a local library held a copy of these proceedings, I went and took a look, and found that the list of participants in the conference confirmed Neotherios's identification beyond any shadow of doubt. I have reproduced this list in the first column of the table below, in the same order in which it appears on pages 5–6 of the proceedings.
According to ali Mirza's translation of the preface by the Persian translator, Zabih Ullah Mansuri, the purported French "thesis" was published by "members of the Research Committee at Strasbourg" (p.17), and on page 19 we read "Names of some prominent scholars who are members of the Research Committee of Strasbourg, France, are as follows." This is followed by a numbered list of 21 names which I have reproduced, in a different order, in the third column of the table below. It is obvious, by comparing the names in this list with the ones in the same row of the first column, that the former are just garbled versions of the latter, with a few missing. The Arabic work found by Neotherios contains a different list which I have partially reproduced in the second column of the table below. From all except one entry of this list I have omitted those parts that were wriitten in Arabic, and marked the omitted texts' positions with ellipses. All except one of the names in this list were given in Latin script, and it is obvious that the list is again just a garbled and incomplete version of that in the first column.
The list of names in ali Mirza's book is so extensively garbled that it's difficult for me to believe there were only two steps in its production from the one in the proceedings of the Colloque de Strasbourg—French to Persian, and Persian to English. However, the level of scholarship in these works is so abysmal that I couldn't really rule it out with any degree of confidence. [I was being dense here]. Presumably the garbling in these lists of names is a consequence of their being translitterated from the Latin alphabet of the French source into the Persian alphabet, and then back into the Latin alphabet in the English and Arabic translations. The conference's proceedings identify Robert Brunschvig and Toufic Fahd as its organisers, but, apart from these two, the participants in the conference did not in any sense form a "Research Committee of Strasbourg", as ali Mirza's book refers to them; they were merely subject-matter experts who participated in the conference.
According to ali Mirza's translation, Mansuri's preface says that his book is a translation of "part of the Thesis [i.e. the proceedings of the conference], which is on the life of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (A.S.)". This could only refer to the paper Ğa'far aṣ-Ṣâdiq et la Tradition Scientifique Arabe, by Toufic Fahd, which occupies pages 131–142 of the proceedings. But even if the remaining mentions of Ja'far as-Sadiq, scattered throughout the rest of the proceedings, are added, the resulting text in French would fill fewer than 35 pages, not nearly enough material to account for the 250 or so pages of English purporting to be a translation of a Persian translation of it. And in fact the supposedly translated translation is chock-full of historical and scientific blunders of which there are no traces whatsoever in the French work from which it has supposedly been derived. Here are a few from just a single chapter (13), Rotation of the Earth on its Axis:
He [i.e. Galileo] knew quite well that the earth rotates about the sun, but most probably did not know that it rotates on its own axis also.(p.87)
It was so difficult to comprehend and believe that the earth rotates on its axis that the eminent French mathematician, Poincare, who died in the year 1912, made fun of this theory. He clearly stated he did not believe the earth rotates on its own axis. (p.87)
He [i.e. Galileo] also saw through his telescope that all stars spin.(p.88)
Galileo did not say anything in his lifetime about the spinning of the earth and after his death, his writings did not show he had come to know about it.(p.88)
Tycho had discovered that the earth rotates around the sun.(p.88)
The great German scientist [i.e. Kepler] proved his knowledge and his mental power by his three laws but he failed to find out the spinning of the earth on its own axis. (p.89)
All great scientists, whose names have been mentioned above and who had discovered the Laws of Planetary Motion failed to discover that the earth rotates on its own axis. It is, therefore, highly surprising that in the 2nd. century Hijra Jafar as-Sadiq, who lived in Medina, which was not a centre of knowledge and learning, made that great discovery. (p.89)
This book isn't a translation of any scholarly work at all; it's a largely fictional hagiography perpetrated by authors abysmally ignorant of science, history and proper standards of scholarship.
Proceedings list of participants
Arabic version
English version (2001 reprint)
M. Robert Brunschvig, professeur à la Sorbonne, directeur de l'Institut d'Etudes islamiques de l'Université de Paris, ...
... Robert BRUNSHVIG ... ٣ [3]
3. Mr. Robert Brunswick, University of Paris, France.
M. Toufic Fahd, professeur à l'Université de Strasbourg, directeur de l'Institut d'Etudes islamiques de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines de l'Université de Strasbourg, éditeur des Actes.
... Tufic FAHD ... — ٧ [7]
6. Mr. Tofic Fahal, University of Strasbourg.
M. Armand Abel, professeur aux Universités de Bruxelles et de Gand.
... Armand ABEL ... — ١ [1]
1. Mr. Arman Bull, University of Brussels, Belgium.
M. Jean Aubin, directeur à l'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, section des Sciences historiques et philologiques.
... Jean AUBIN ... — ٢ [2]
2. Mr. John Oben, University of Brussels, Belgium.
Another editor reverted my removal of this material and placed it in the "Further Reading" section on the grounds that the book "relate to the subject". But merely relating to the subject of the article is not sufficient to justify a source's being cited in the "Further Reading" or "External Links" sections. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on the former, it should contain "publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." But ali Mirza's book is totally useless for that purpose, and I strongly believe that Wikipedia should not be suggesting to its readers that such silly works might contain useful information on the subject of the article. As a temporary (I hope) compromise I have added a citation to the original French article which is supposedly the ultimate source for the information in the book, and replaced its blatantly false description—taken from the book itself—with an accurate one. Unless someone can offer a more convincing reason than that the book "relate to subject" for retaining a citation to it, I firmly believe such a citation should not appear anywhere on the article's page. David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry David, I didn't go through your above clarifications. I just thought, you might have confused it for another Jafar and removed the reference.--Md iet (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Thank you for the reply. I have now removed the citation to ali Mirza's book, but left the citation to the French article which it claimed to be a translation of. Even though this latter article is in French, it's still a useful source for anyone who understands that language.
I have recently obtained more information about the Persian book from which the one described above has been translated. The Persian title of the book is (مغز متفکر جهان شیعه امام جعفر صادق (ع ("Magzhe Mutafakkir Jehan Shi'a Imam Ja'far Sadiq (?)" — the question mark representing the glottal stop with which the letter ع is pronounced), which Google translate renders as "The mastermind of the Shiite [world] Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (AS)". A translation of the word "Jehan", meaning "world", is omitted from Google translate's translation. The book's author is Zabih-Allah Mansuri (Persian: ذبیحالله منصوری ), an Iranian journalist, and prolific author and translator of popular works in Persian. Short English biographies of him can be found online in Encyclopedia Iranica and Eminent Persians.
Both biographies mention the fact that Mansuri's translations often included massive amounts of detail which did not appear in the works which were supposedly being translated, or that he even authored works which he misrepresented as being translations of non-existent sources. According to the Encyclopedia Iranica biography his book, "Maḡz-e motafakker-e jahān-e Šiʿa (The think tank of the Shiite world, 1975)"—clearly an edition of the same one identified above—, originally serialised in the Persian literary magazine Sepid o siāh (Black and White), and comprising 620 pages, was based on an original article of only 24 pages.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello Vanamonde93. Many thanks for your recent edit on this article which is much better now. I am wondering if your could help more to nominate the article as a good article? I made some clarifications and the only thing to do is to transfer the direct quotations to Wikiquotes. What do you think? Hadi (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Greetings, Hadi. I'm glad to help in any way; I should just mention that I have no experience with this topic. I came to this article because it was flagged as needing copy-editing. However, I would be glad to help with any prose issues, and such things. I could also probably look over it for comprehensiveness, and leave some suggestions. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have a couple of immediate suggestions; it's not just that there are too many quotations, it's that the "teachings" section relies too heavily on them. What you ideally need is secondary sources that analyze these teachings. I don't know the subject matter, so I don't whether such exist; but that would be ideal, and probably necessary for a GA. Second, those two sections that I commented out need to be dealt with. If they are relevant, then why that is so needs to be made clear; if not, they should be removed. Finally, even the imamate section could do with a little more analytical stuff; currently it has a lot of facts, seemingly from encyclopedias and books seeking to give an overview. A little more specificity might be good. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello Vanamonde93. What do you mean by saying "those two sections that I commented out need to be dealt with. If they are relevant, then why that is so needs to be made clear; if not, they should be removed."
Got it. I found the sections you commented out. I will rewrite the "Religious views" section and "Imamate" section so that they won't have the problems you mentioned. Thanks. Hadi (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ja'far al-Sadiq. 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:
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw the mention of "all Shia sects" but it seemed to me that Jafar falls after the split from the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. Can someone confirm if this is correct, and instead we should say Jafar is recognized as an imam by "the Sevener (Ismali) and Twelver Shia Muslims, but not the Fiver (Zaidiyyah) sect"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Contributor 103.255.6.68 posted the letters 'Slwt' which is probably 'Salawat' (greetings of respect to Prophet Muhammad and his holy progeny). https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Salawat
Posting that 'Slwt' was breaking the rules on POV. On one's own blog or on a Muslim website the Salawat would be allowed, not on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral POV. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The source given for Sadiq's date of death (Gleave's article in Encyclopedia Iranica) does not specify a month, let alone a precise date. Neither does the French translation of Gleave's source (Masudi's Meadows of Gold). I suspect that the various specific dates which have been inserted into the article are merely traditional assignations with no more claim to authenticity than December 25 as Jesus' birth date. Unless a proper source can be cited for any specific date, Wikipedia should not be giving one as if it had been authoritatively established. David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Being the "Grand-sheikh of Sunni-Naqshbandi order"
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is regards to this edit where the article subject is attributed the title "Grand-sheikh of Sunni-Naqshbandi order". Though 3 sources are cited for this title (though only 2 are reliable), none of them actually mention it, only either saying how he is claimed by the order or stating his place in its spiritual lineage. As per Wikipedia's original research policy, any content added to an article needs to be directly supported by the cited source. This means that a reliable source needs to directly state that the individual holds this title. Alivardi(talk)10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Alivardi that the term "Grand-sheikh" should either be reliably sourced, or removed without prejudice (I wouldn't at all be surprised if prominent and reliable scholarly sources would mention this). I've checked both Algar 2008 (in EI) and Farrer 2009, and of those, Farrer 2009 does refer to the members of the Naqshbandi Golden Chain as "Shaykhs" at p. 153 (though seemingly from a contemporary and not from a historiographical perspective), and does include Ja'far al-Sadiq as the fifth member of this golden chain on p. 273. I am ignorant of the reliability or prominence of Farrer 2009 in the scholarly literature.
It should also be noted that the Twelver Shi'ite and Isma'ili claims on Ja'far al-Sadiq are not entirely dissimilar to the Naqshbandi claim, all of them being unverifiable in historical primary sources, which only start to appear in the late 9th century (talking from the perspective of original research here). We should present these claims in proportion with their prominence in reliable secondary sources, which I think includes stating the Shi'ite claims first, and also carefully checking whether we are not ignoring significant claims from other Islamic schools of thought (as would be present in the secondary literature). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Copy-edited the text and addressed a range of issues (mainly failed attribution), some of which are listed below:
Used basic transliteration whenever possible per MOS.
Removed those factions of Shia that are not extant from the list of successors in the info box (see the section 'Succession').
Change the spouse name to Hamida Khatun to match the source and removed the broken link.
Removed the description 'may be legendary' for Jabir. This is a statement that seems more appropriate for the dedicated wiki article about Jabir (and it's already linked).
The sentence "The traditions recorded from al-Sadiq are said to be more numerous..." is noticeably different from the source.
Al-Sadiq was not only a Husaynid but also a Hasanid descendent of Ali and Fatima.
Changed al-Sadiq's age to 'about thirty-seven' from Momen instead of 'thirty-four or thirty-seven' from Jafri given the various dates for al-Baqir's death.
Citing Gleave for the sentence "Prior to al-Sadiq,..." seems to be a typo. Similarly, citing Taylor for "The end of the Umayyad dynasty and beginning..." seems to be a mistake.
Al-Nafs al-Zakiya's uprising was mentioned under the Umayyads period by mistake, see page 188 of Jafri.
The accurate citation for "Al-Sadiq's Imamate extended over the latter half..." is the Iranica article by Gleave (and not Jafri).
Replaced the references to al-Mufid's work for "This conscious position of neutrality..." with a reliable secondary source after rewriting those two sentences.
"The transition period from the Umayyad dynasty..." and its next sentence don't seem to be in the given source, which is now replaced with similar content from Tabatabai.
The page number for the Historical Dictionary of Islam was wrong.
Added a source for the claim "Wasil ibn Ata, founder of the Mu'tazila school,..."
Added a source for the Abbasid's suppression of their former Shia allies.
"The new Abbasid rulers,..." and its next sentence don't exist in Campo.
"Following his wife's death, al-Sadiq purchased..." considerably differs from the source, which was corrected.
"Al-Sadiq was arrested several times by the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs..." from Mufid (a primary source) was replaced with similar content from Tabatabai.
Removed the sentence "Al-Sadiq's death led to uncertainty about the succession of the imamate" since it's redundant. (Succession is discussed right after 'Death'.)
The sentence "The Shi'ite group had begun to split during the lifetime..." doesn't exist in the source and doesn't seem correct either.
The sentence "A final group believed that al-Sadiq had been the last imam, and that the lineage had not continued." was not in any of the given sources.
The divisions after Musa al-Kadhim are really not relevant here (and probably also not in the given sources) and were removed.
The sentence "It is narrated in hadith that Ja'far al-Sadiq has said..." from al-Kulayni (a primary source) was unrelated to its context and removed.
The sentence "In one hadith, Abu Hanifah once said" is a from a primary source and can be safely removed without affecting the narrative.
Citing Campo for the sentences beginning with "According to Ya'qubi it was customary..." seems to be an error.
In the sentence "Shia thought starting with Sayyid Haydar Amuli,...," the last part "specially al-Sadiq" doesn't exist in the source and was replaced with "including al-Sadiq".
The sentence "Like Sunni law, Ja'fari jurisprudence is based on the..." is not correct; the Shia pillar of 'aql is missing from the list. This was fixed.
The sentence "Unlike the Sunnis, Shias give more weight to reasoning ('Aql), while Sunnis only allow for a kind of analogical reasoning (Qiyas)" is not in the given sources and was replaced with similar content from elsewhere.
The section 'Theology' is largely about al-Sadiq's views about free will plus some comments about al-Sadiq's students' contributions to theology. It seems much more reasonable to change the title of the section to 'Free will' and collect (from various sources) al-Sadiq's views about this issue here.
The sentence ""Ketāb al-jafr", an early mystical commentary on the Quran (Tafsir), is also attributed to al-Sadiq" is incorrect. Rather the Shia belief is that Al-Sadiq inherited the book, see Al-Jafr (book).
The quote from Amir-Moezzi about taqiya is on page 26 and not on pages 64-65, 139.
"Practicing Taqiyya also had an esoteric significance for those who believed that their teachings..." is noticably different from what the source says.
"Thus Ja'far either distanced himself or did..." was covered earlier in the article and doesn't seem to fit under the theolegical discussion of taqiya.
It's apparently Amir-Moezzi rather than Moezzi.
Citing Takim's article in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World for taqiya seems incorrect.
The link to Devin Stewart's lecture notes is broken and, in any case, is not an appropriate source. This was replaced with better sources.
"The doctrine was developed by al-Sadiq..." is not exactly what the source says and taqiya was likely introduced by al-Baqir and later adopted by his son, al-Sadiq.
The attribution of al-Jafr to al-Sadiq in "Ketāb al-jafr is a commentary on the Quran which,..." is again incorrect, see above.
The section 'Works' seems superfluous. It's already said earlier that probably none of the works attributed to al-Sadiq are authentic and the rest of the material can be safely moved to other sections, e.g., the appearance of al-Sadiq as an authority in al-Tabari's works can be moved to the Sunni section. The reference to Nosayris is not in the source (or in Gleave's article about al-Sadiq's teachings) and the rest of the sentence can be moved elsewhere.
In the section 'Sunni Islam', Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ and Al-Tuhaf Sharh al-Zulaf (both in Arabic) were cited to support contradictory claims. Both sources were removed.
Citing Corbin to support the sentence "'Attar's attributed sayings..." is apparently a mistake.
Citing Corbin for "Whether these stories are any most than myth..." is also incorrect.
The sentence "Al-Sadiq holds a special prominence among Sufi orders due to his claimed connections to some of Sufism's earliest theologians." is incomplete as it only gives one of the few reasons given by Algar for the prominence of al-Sadiq.
Citing Taylor for "Given his large following and established school (madrasa),..." seems to be incorrect.
Citing 'Attar for "Perhaps, as claimed by 'Attar, this included..." is incorrect.
Citing Taylor for "This verse shows us that Ja'far..." is almost surely incorrect.
Citing Corbin for "Whether these stories are any most than..." is incorrect.
There doesn't seem to be any mention of Kalābāḏi in Taylor's article!
Much of the section 'Sufism' seems to fail attribution after spending some time. Not being able to find the sources, most of the section was rewritten with similar content.
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi GenoV84! Thank you for your edits to this article and Musa al-Kazim, among others. Hope you'd consider the guidelines set by WP:MOSAR, which, whenever possible, recommends using basic as opposed to strict transliteration. Another factor is consistency as the rest of this (and similar articles) use basic transliteration throughout the text. Speaking of consistency, Shia (noun, adjective) seems to be more common nowadays than Shi'ite and Shi'i and other alternatives. There are also other departures from WP:MOSAR, e.g., the manual recommends Kazim instead of Kadhim. Hope you find this manual helpful for your future edits. Some of what's listed in this comment about your edits might be incorrect and the articles already had numerous inconsistencies before you edited them. But hope you see my point here... Thanks again for your edits. Albertatiran (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello Albertatiran, thank you for pointing this out; I completely forgot that I had also edited al-Kāẓim's biography some time ago. Over the years, I have always used the Romanized transliterations than can be found on the official website of Brill Academic Publishers for Sanskrit, Pāli, Persian, Hebrew, and Arabic languages. Regarding the WP articles that contain Arabic script, I usually check the Encyclopaedia of Islam as a general reference for citations and Romanized transliterations. I'm not entirely sure about what you were referring to when you said basic as opposed to strict transliteration, could you please explain it to me? GenoV84 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Brill uses ẓ for ظ (see, e.g., here). For strict transliteration, we generally use a system very close to Brill's (but it's always better to refer to our own). 'Basic transcription' is an interesting little system that has developed organically on Wikipedia only, in which basically the dots of ḥ/ṣ/ḍ/ṭ/ẓ are omitted, long vowels are written like short ones (a/u/i not ā/ū/ī), both ayn and hamza are written with a straight apostrophe ', and initial ayn is not written (Umar not 'Umar, Ali not 'Ali).
It appears that this wiki-only system developed from a need to use only characters appearing on a keyboard in article titles (see WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS), but there's a case to be made that the 'basic transcription' system is also easier to deal with for editors who don't know Arabic. You won't hear me complaining though when you use strict transliteration throughout, because I personally believe it's preferable.
One more thing: in transliterations, "ibn" is lower case if it's not the first part of a name (Jabir ibn Hayyan, though Ibn Khaldun). In medieval Arabic names, the first is written بن(جابر بن حيان) while the latter is written إبن (إبن خلدون). Spellings like جابر ابن حيان are modern and should be avoided.
And finally, a few tips on template use: {{lang|ar|جابر}} renders جابر, while {{langx|ar|جابر}} renders Arabic: جابر. Options include {{langx|ar|جابر|link=no}}, which disables the wikilink to Arabic (Arabic: جابر), while {{langx|ar|جابر|label=[[alchemist]]}} changes the label entirely (alchemist: جابر) or removes it: {{langx|ar|جابر|label=none}} is equivalent to {{lang|ar|جابر}} and simply renders جابر. When using transliteration tags italics can be disabled: where {{transliteration|ar|Jābir}} would render Jābir, {{transliteration|ar|Jābir|italics=no}} renders Jābir (using transliteration tags for non-italic proper names ensures that they too are pronounced correctly by screen readers). ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)17:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ǧaʕfar ṣ-Ṣādiq is a key figure in the formative period of Islamic scholarship preceding the age of the great complilations, the formation of methodological schools, etc. He is central to the Shi'i/Sunni schism, and his history enjoys little consensus.
The article presents only the Shi'a history of the figure and presents it as accurate. These sources are also possibly more recent than other primary sources. Other sources deny the attribution of many works, practices and views to him, not the least of which, is his involvement with the imammate-theology.
The alternative histories should be included in the body of the article, both being only summarily mentioned in the introduction with more focus on the differences given their historical and sectarian importance.
Adding the Sunni perspective and reformulating (parts of) the article as a comparison is not only important for the article as a summary of the historiographical primary sources but also its value as addressing a point in sectarian history. 2A02:908:2811:8F80:102A:7C5A:65CF:9FF0 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nearly all the sources in this article are academic and reliable, following the guidelines in WP:RS and WP:PST and MOS:ISLAM. If there are any indications of source bias, please be specific and list them here for discussion. I say "nearly all" because of some recent additions to the article, largely under "Works," which might be open to debate. Albertatiran (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Apaugasma, regarding this edit, the sentence in question in Lewis' EI2 article is: The numerous traditions in which ʿAlids reject and denounce the claims of their own supporters (e.g. Ibn Saʿd, v, 77, 158, 235, 238) are almost certainly due to Sunnī propaganda, and a more accurate reflection of the political views and claims of the house of ʿAlī will be found in the letter written by the Ḥasanid pretender Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh [q.v.] to the Caliph Manṣūr in 145/762 (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 209 ff.), and in the verses of such pro-ʿAlid poets as Kumayt and Kuthayyir. Lewis doesn't add much as to what these views are (and it's not relevant here) but we know that he refers to their legitimist views. To account for the Ghulat and the ex-communicated and such, I mended my sentence by adding 'moderate' in parenthesis. Feel free to edit, please. This is good to add, in my view, considering how often I have to revert disruptive edits like this one today which are based on the same inauthentic Sunni hadiths. Albertatiran (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rule no. 1 in articles which get a lot of disruption: do not edit the article in direct response to the disruption. Explicitly negating what disruptive users come here to positively claim will almost certainly add something undue to the article, because by doing this we adopt their agenda.
We should not discuss Ja'far al-Sadiq's role in early Sunnism in term of claims that he did or did not denounce Shi'ism. Sources do not do this (Lewis EI2's context is about the Imams' own political stances, which is different), because they do not seriously entertain the possibility that Ja'far denounced Shi'ism (adding this to our article in this way actually makes it seem as if it were a serious hypothesis).
Moreover, doing this kind of thing easily disrupts the existing structure of the article and confuses readers. The added sentence does not fit with what directly precedes it, and raises more questions than it answers. What traditions? Where and when did these originate? What was their purpose? As I already mentioned in my edit summary, it's also confusing because Ja'far did in fact renounce some of his Shia supporters such as Abu al-Khattab. Adding 'moderate' helps very little, or makes it worse: average unknowing readers will ask, why only moderate? Even if understood, it unduly and misleadingly reinforces the idea that the ghulat were somehow 'immoderate', which may be inherent in their name but is not the scholarly view.
So, first, the fact that people come here to disrupt the article does not in any way oblige us to add anything to it. But, second, if we do add something (and these Sunni traditions may in fact be helpful to mention) we should make sure to do it on our own terms, in the right context, and with the right context. This belongs in a much longer section focusing on the Sunni views themselves, providing information about what exactly these traditions were saying, who promoted them, and why they may have done so. If you don't have the wherewithal to write up something like this, which would be very understandable, revert to the first principle: we're not obliged to write something, and it's no good making the article more disorganized, confusing and misleading just to refute disruption. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Apaugasma, to be honest, I fear that this may quickly become what I'd consider an unproductive argument. Instead, I've rewritten the sentence in question. Feel free to do as you please if you don't find it satisfactory. Albertatiran (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
You will be warned and blocked for attributing sects to Prominent Islamic personalities and hurting the feelings of muslims world wide Ms855 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your edits constitute unexplained removal of sourced content (in the body of the article). So, no, I won't be warned or blocked for reversing your edits, per WP:REMOVAL. You're welcome to reach a consensus here for your proposed edits by supporting them with reliable sources; see WP:CONS and WP:CITE. Otherwise, your edits would be considered disruptive and repeated disruptions have consequences on Wikipedia; see WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Albertatiran (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Imam Jaffer Al Sadiq followed pure Islam like his ancestors and did not endorse or encourage followers of Ibn Saba (followers of Ibn Saba laid foundations of modern day shia sect)
You can discuss with any Sunni scholar or visit a seminary to learn if you are really sincere.
Neither of these is a reliable source. You can see what counts as a reliable source in WP:RELIABLE and its subpages. I'd also suggest reading some of the reliable sources cited already in the article. Albertatiran (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Adding Visual Appeal to Jafar-Al-Sadiq's Wikipedia Page
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Hello fellow editors! I hope you're all doing well. I'm interested in making a suggestion to enhance the Jafar-Al-Sadiq Wikipedia page. I believe that adding a calligraphy image would be a valuable addition to the page, and I wanted to discuss this idea with you all. What are your thoughts on this?
Calligraphy of Jafar-Al-Sadiq
1. Visual Appeal: This image adds a visually captivating element to the page, making it more engaging for readers.
2. Cultural Representation: The image showcases the beauty of Jafar-Al-Sadiq's calligraphy, reflecting the rich cultural heritage and artistic traditions.
3. Educational Value: Including this image provides readers with a visual example of Jafar-Al-Sadiq's calligraphy style, enhancing their understanding and appreciation of his teachings.
4. Authenticity: This image accurately represents Jafar-Al-Sadiq's calligraphy, ensuring a faithful portrayal of his artistic legacy.
5. Visual Representation: Including the calligraphy image would provide a visual representation of Jafar-Al-Sadiq's teachings, making it more accessible and engaging for readers.
6. Educational Value: The image can serve as an educational tool, allowing readers to better understand the art of calligraphy and its connection to Jafar-Al-Sadiq's teachings.
7. Diversity and Inclusivity: Adding the image would showcase the diversity of Islamic art and highlight the cultural significance of calligraphy in Jafar-Al-Sadiq's legacy.
I understand the guidelines, but I believe the calligraphy image adds value to the article. Is there any possibility of reconsidering its inclusion? The Editor690 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's also a standing principle on Wikipedia that images should not be added solely for decoration (see WP:DECOR); instead, the images themselves should be substantive and not simply user generated. An example in this context would be an image of the subject's name rendered calligraphically on an ancient building, which would be an encyclopedically enriching image that would demonstrate its use. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your insight regarding the principle of not adding images solely for decoration. However, I believe that the user-generated calligraphy image I proposed can still be substantive and contribute to the article's content. It showcases the artistic aspect of calligraphy and its relevance to the subject. Can we discuss potential ways to make it more encyclopedically enriching? The Editor690 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello again, I hope you're well. I wanted to check if you had a chance to review my previous message about the calligraphy image for the Jafar al Sadiq article. I'm eager to continue our discussion and collaborate on this matter. Your insights are important to me. Thank you. The Editor690 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's not much to add beyond the point in the first response here about MOS:CALLIGRAPHY, which was recently introduced into the guideline and specifically rules against user-generated calligraphy. I would suggest either looking for a real-world instance of the calligraphy, or trying to think of some other way to illustrate the subject. But suitable images are not always available for a subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your guidance on adhering to the guidelines. I'm genuinely invested in enhancing the article's depth through an image that resonates with Jafar al Sadiq's teachings. My aim is to encapsulate the historical significance of his legacy in a visually engaging manner. I believe a well-sourced, historically relevant calligraphy image could achieve this balance while maintaining the integrity of the article. Your expertise is instrumental in shaping this discussion, and I'm hopeful we can collaborate to find a solution that upholds Wikipedia's standards while enriching the content. The Editor690 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've found a non-user generated calligraphy image that adheres to the MOS:CALLIGRAPHY guideline and seems to align with the historical context of Jafar al-Sadiq's teachings. I'd appreciate your expert opinion on whether this image could be considered for inclusion in the article. Your insights would be valuable in shaping this potential enhancement.
Hi The Editor690, if you found this image on a news website, then it's probably protected by copyright laws. As already mentioned, the easiest solution is to take the photo yourself. There is more info about copyright matters in WP:CFAQ. Hope this helps. Albertatiran (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, thank you for your response. I appreciate your input regarding copyright matters. The image I've come across is not from a news website and is available under a suitable license for Wikipedia use. It adheres to the MOS:CALLIGRAPHY guideline and seems to align with the historical context of Jafar al-Sadiq's teachings. Before proceeding, I'll ensure that all necessary permissions and documentation are in place. If you have any further guidance or suggestions, I'd be grateful to hear them. Thank you for your assistance. The Editor690 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago24 comments4 people in discussion
Hi. My edits were reverted by a user named User:Albertatiran. His claim is that my edits are "poorly sourced." They are of the highest quality sources, and I just added another via an academic journal - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gopsbad/issue/59715/815609. I cited the Encyclopedia Iranica. Parts of my edits are not even new -- they are on the Nader Shah page already, and were put there long ago and thus, what I added is partly not even a new thing, they were already accepted on Wikipedia long ago. If you want to discuss, do so here. Drive-by reverting, please avoid. Because the reversion reason is thus proven false, and I added another new top-quality source (academic journal), I reposted by edits with the new source (complaint was about sources, issue resolved, enough said). Note that my citations include Sunni, Shi'a, and academic sources -- some already used and accepted on other Wikipedia pages -- thus, the claim that my edits are "poorly sourced" are proven false. All requirements of WP:CITE have been met. Thanks. Please refer to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. DivineReality (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
this is debatable. It's your personal opinion. It contains nothing against the actual WP:RS policy page, actually it's a good quality source. It is irrelevant anyways because I cited several sources. Even if we do delete that source, nothing changes. Since the pretense of reverting is unfounded (doubting one source when there are many sources anyways), shall I consider this reversion discussion concluded? As for the new NPOV claim, I argue that this article is lacking in sunni views and only exclusively presents Shia views. So actually it's in favour of my edits.
If you argue that mahajjah is biased and therefore violates WP:RS because it is a sunni website and not shia, realize that
1. wikipedia.org itself is not purely a shia website
2. You can present sunni and shia views by simply stating they are
3. That's what i did
4. Here's a direct quote from WP:RS:
"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate..." my example here is "sunnis say X. Shias say Y."
@DivineReality In short, none of these are my personal views. On Wikipedia, we don't degrade the quality of our articles with sectarian polemics when there is no shortage of top-tier academic sources about the subject matter. However, first, to facilitate the discussion, please quote below your proposed changes, ideally in a different color, like green. Albertatiran (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The quality is vastly improved with my edits. It currently only presents shia views and claims sunni views that are not sunni, theyre just shia claims that sunnis disprove. E.g. that he taught the two imams of sunni fiqh, this is incorrect.
A valid reason hasn't really been given for the reversions done here other than Shia bias. All sources are biased and multiple sources with Shia bias are used. An inclusion of a source which mentions the Sunni narrative is fine. Abu qut 2347 UTC Monday, October 21, 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuqut (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Abuqut Which sources have Shia bias? Be specific and name at least one such source, backed up with hard evidence.
To see why I oppose these proposed edits, let's look at this example: the proposed edits contain the following sentence, quoted from a sectarian website: Both Sunni and Shi'a scholars have written that the "Ja'fari School", named after the imam himself, is actually mostly the opinions of later Shi'a scholars. First, the claim about Shias is obviously false. Second, the is no mention here that this sentence is the Sunni view sourced from a Sunni source; it's stated as a fact. Albertatiran (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
hey bro. I understand your contention now. Look at my sources. I actually cite shia books. Shia ulama actually do write this. Can you read arabic? This school was started during the reign of Nader Shah. Read his own page about it abs the Encyclopedia Iranica about him. Read my actual citations. I cite shia books in arabic.
I don't think you read the WP primary sources. "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
And mos Islam:
"In Islamic branches with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. "
So yes i can quote a shia scholar or more as an example of what they say.
None of your objections are valid up to this point. I'll change what you disagree with to "some Shia scholars." And we'll consider this consensus. Don't revert my edits again. Thank you. DivineReality (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exanple: Ramiz Rizq of the Imamiyyah sect states:
من المسلم به والمتفق عليه بين علماء الإمامية أن أحدا من الأئمة الإثني عشر لم يترك كتابا في الفقه يمكن العودة اليه وما ينسب من كتب لبعض الأئمة لم تثبت صحته وجرى الجدل حوله دون أن يتوصل المتجادلون الى نتيجة علمية واضحة لذالك فالحديث بداية عن اهمية الأئمة و دورهم في نشوء الفقه هو شيء طبيعي ولكن التأكد من صحة ما نسب إلى كل إمام منهم يظل مسألة نسبية حسب صدق رواة الحديث و عدالتهم
It is an accepted and an undisputed fact, amongst the Imamiyyah scholars, that none of the 12 Imams left behind any book on Fiqh which one can resort to. As for those books which are attributed to some of the Imams, their authenticity is not proven. The controversy surrounding this has continued without the disputing parties coming to a clear intellectual conclusion. Therefore, the discussion about the importance of the Imams and their role in the emergence of Fiqh is a normal thing. However, to ascertain the authenticity of all that which is attributed to the Imams, is a relative matter, dependant on the honesty and integrity of the narrators.
This is one additional citation I use to indicate that indeed some Shi'a scholars say this. That is all, this is acceptable to WP:PRIMARY as an example, and I still use another source anyways. You can also logically just think for a moment: This school was only started a few centuries ago, how could they retroactively know all of the rulings of the original school? It's been extinct for 1,000 years, this is impossible.
@DivineReality Being a secular encyclopedia, Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, does not allow editors to promote sectarian views through primary or unreliable sources and editorial bias. That's the gist of those Wikipedia pages I shared with you. But you don't seem to get it. If you continue your disruptive edits, I'll take the issue to ANI and, if we get lucky, they may also block your account indefinitely. Albertatiran (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not promoting sectarian views. They are mainstream views. Maybe you are the one being disruptive. I am using encyclopedia Iranica. It's a good source. Simply stating common Shia views and common sunni views is not promoting sectarian views, it's just presenting the facts. As for this personal threat, it's very inappropriate. DivineReality (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DivineReality As discussed before, Iranica is a reliable source but some of your sources are not. To reiterate, our task is to summarize reliable and academic research about al-Sadiq. If you're not willing to do that, then Wikipedia is really better off without your "contributions." Again, your only way forward is to propose your changes on the talk page, one by one, discuss them there and address other editors' concerns until a consensus is reached. Albertatiran (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
they are all 100% academic sources. Read them. They are the citations of scholars in their field. Including shias and sunnis. You're the only one disagreeing with me. If I add sources, including a primary source to other sources, this is acceptable as I already stated earlier because i dorectly quoted a shia scholar as an example of a viewpoint. Do you read the policies? I only stated in one part of one sentence what some shia scholars say and I proved it with a valid source, quoting a shia book.
As for the ad hominem attack that wikipedia is better off without my contributions, and insulting me with your quotations to belittle my work, this is again inappropriate. I never spoke to you this way. Respect should be reciprocal. DivineReality (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DivineReality No, they are not academics. They are religious scholars and clerics. You should look at what Islamicists, the likes of Gleave, Kohlberg, Madelung, Ayoub, Haider, Mavani, have written about the topic. Just have a look at the current references and you'll get the idea. What you're doing right now is taking up the time that I don't have to explain to you something that's already clear from the current article and the policy pages. Considering all that, I think I've been fairly respectful to you. Albertatiran (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have many references just read the variety. That's one single source. Not a big deal and only used for one tiny part.
If i change this to just sunnis are you satisfied?
"Both Sunni and Shi'a (change to just Sunni scholars) scholars have written that the "Ja'fari School", named after the imam himself, is actually mostly the opinions of later Shi'a scholars." DivineReality (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DivineReality Find a reliable source for it and I'd be ok with that particular sentence. But be aware that that's the wrong approach. It works the other way around. I'll wait for your new proposal on the talk page and we'll discuss the remaining issues. Albertatiran (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DivineReality In our context, a reliable source should be published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and quality. Mshajjah is a partisan website with polemic content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I'm going to leave this discussion now because it seems that we're going in circles without any progress. Albertatiran (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright I'll separate Mahajjah out for the time being and just use Encyclopedia Iranica etc. for now. The rest can be discussed separately, since you appear to agree up to this point; consensus considered reached to this point. DivineReality (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
While the article's lead mentions Ja'far as a "Shia scholar", some may argue that this label assumes too much. In fact, the best reliable sources often highlight the uncertainty surrounding his teachings. For instance, Matthew Pierce, who is writing a book about Ja'far, notes:
The doctrinal approach is hindered by the fact that the teachings of the scholar-imams Muḥammad al-Bāqir (the fifth) and Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (the sixth) are an unverifiable basis for the distinctiveness of Shiʿism. There are major historical uncertainties about what these imams taught in their lifetimes, and much of what they are reported to have said is not at odds with the four major Sunni schools of law. (Twelve infallible men, 2016, p.222)
I think the lead should stick to undisputed facts. I suggest something similar to Hodgson's EI2 article: "was a hadith transmitter and the last agreed-upon Shia Imam between the Twelvers and Isma'ilis." Wiqi5502:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wiqi55 So, to rephrase, I think you are suggesting that the lede should reflect the academic consensus about al-Sadiq, if I understand correctly. I think I can help here: I'll try to collect below in the coming days various academic views about this. Albertatiran (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We already have two notable sources expressing great uncertainty about his teachings (EI2 and Pierce). Both noting that his teachings can't be described with any certainty using sectarian terms. So clearly there is no academic consensus on that. I'll go ahead and make the lead in line with EI2 for now. Wiqi5515:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wiqi55 Having the lede match the EI2 article is not a bad idea (for now, anyway). But I still plan to revise the article soon and also look into this matter a bit more. Albertatiran (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Check Encyclopedia Iranica entry on Nader Shah - https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nader-shah. This is Iranians writing about their own history. They state where the current Jafari madhhab began -- during his reign, and detail why.
e.g. this paragraph (please read entire Iranica entry, there is more than just this, it's just a teaser:
"Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations. Safavid legitimacy depended on the dynasty’s close connection to Twelver Shiʿism as an autonomous, self-contained tradition of Islamic jurisprudence as well as the Safavids’ alleged descent from the seventh Imam Musā al-Kāżem (died between 779 and 804). Nāder’s view of Twelver Shiʿism as a mere school of law within the greater Muslim community (umma)glossed over the entire complex structure of Shiʿite legal institutions, because his main goal was to limit the potential of Sunnite-Shiʿite conflict to interfere with his empire-building dreams. The Jaʿfari maḏhab proposal also seems intended as tool to smooth relations between the Sunni and Shiʿite components of his own army. In addition, the proposal had economic implications, since control of a ḥajj caravan would have provided the shah with access to the revenue of the lucrative pilgrimage trade.
...(skipped several paragraphs)
In spite of mounting problems, in 1741 Nāder sent an embassy to the Ottomans to resubmit his 1736 proposal for a peace treaty. But Maḥmud I had just won wars against Russia and Austria and was not receptive. The sultan rejected the shah’s claim to Iraq (a claim based on Timur’s earlier control of the province). Then the Ottomanlegal authority, the šayḵ al-Eslām, issued a fatwā (legal opinion) formally declaring the Jaʿfari maḏhab heretical. In response, Nāder besieged several cities in Iraq in 1743, with no results, and in December of that year he signed a ceasefire with Aḥmad Pāšā, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad (d. 1747; cf. EI2 I, p. 291). Subsequently, Nāder convened a meeting of ulama from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia in Najaf at the shrine of ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (d. 661), the fourth of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the first Imam. After several days of lively debate on the question of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the participants signed a document which recognized the Jaʿfari maḏhab as a legitimate legal school of Sunnite Islam. The Ottoman sultan, however, remained unimpressed by this outcome."
Please read entire Iranica entry. Thanks. The conclusion is obvious -- the "Ja'fari Madhhab" today was created by Nader Shah and he just used that title for political reasons, not because it actually is his original madhhab. DivineReality (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been following this discussion and thought I'd add my perspective. Regarding the source[2] by DivineReality, it does not seem to claim that Nadir Shah created the Ja'fari school as a new sect or invented its jurisprudence. Rather, he just aimed to politically reframe it in an effort to gain Sunni acceptance and reduce sectarian tensions. I think the mainstream narrative is still that Ja'fari school existed long before his reign, with a well-established body of jurisprudential and theological works and a lineage tracing back to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq. Shah only sought to position it within a broader Muslim context, aiming to minimize sectarian differences without altering the inherent principles of Ja'fari jurisprudence or doctrine.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png)
