Talk:Hasan ibn Ali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. note:the project includes non-Muslim scholars.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I have seen people change this page to include that Hasan was poisoned. This is not a proven theory. It may have occured, it may not have. Also remember to keep a neutral POV. I understant that Hasan is especially important to Shiite Muslims, but Wikipedia is written with a neutral Point of View, and it must be maintained

DigiBullet 20:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we need a disambiguation page for al-Hasan, as with most rulers with a regnal number, as there were a Louis I in france and a Louis I Holy Roman Emperor for example. Kingsean1 16:51, 6 March 2005

Except that he was not a ruler. He accepted the authority of the Umayyad caliph, was paid a pension, and retired, renouncing all claim to the caliphate. Any disambiguation or regnal number would have to derive from his position as a Shia Imaam.--A. S. A. 18:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to include that aisha didnt let him to be buried next to his grandfather. --Striver 16:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you can cite a credible non-partisan source, why not.--A. S. A. 18:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move

Ali is listed as "Ali ibn Abi Talib", yet, when we come to this name, despite the page being called "Hasan bin Ali", we end up having to have the name bolded as "Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib". I think we should move this for consistency's sake since it seems ibn is the more popular in scholarly, and well, most literature I've seen recently. gren グレン 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adamcaliph's edits

Adamcaliph, your edits seemed very Shi'a POV to me, and claimed as fact some things that secular and Sunni historians regard as rumour only. I have revised in an attempt to make clear what is commonly accepted and what is Shi'a POV. Zora 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine. What I'm trying to do is to introduce a standard for the articles on the twelve Shia Imams. I wanted to structure the articles so that they follow a particular format:
His birth and family life
His titles
His death
Succession
His sayings
Then, anything of particular significance to the Imams would be included in between, e.g. the numerous discussions of science and religion conducted by Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, or the massacre of Imam Husayn at Karbala. Adamcaliph 4 October 2005, 00:40 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposed format will work out. I'd like to see something like:

X, dates, son of Y and Z, accepted as the Xth imam by X Shi'a Muslims. (Particularly notable points re X).

Biography
Historical significance, controversies
Titles
Succession, according to X Shi'a Muslims
Sayings

However, I'm not sure that this will work for all Imams. Frex, there's a long section in Madelung on Hassan's marriages (he thinks Hassan has been maligned). If there's controversy re Hassan's marriages, they probably deserve a section of their own.

How about just working on the best articles you can for all imams and seeing if a structure emerges? I've noticed that one is emerging in the Bollywood film actor articles. We have a short into, career, personal life, trivia, awards, filmography, external links. Not universal, but more and more articles fall into line. Zora 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we really have a succession box for Shi'a imams?

I am somewhat fuzzy on the details, but I believe that some Shi'a do not accept Hassan as an imam. The succession box gives the impression that all Shi'a do so. The problem is going to get really acute after the fifth and seventh imams. I think we should specify WHICH Shi'a accept which imams. Zora 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Edits

Zora, i do appreciate this edit, but i dont understand why you insist on removing all references while doing so. That really bothers me. --Striver 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's this obsession with Muawiya II and Al-Zubayr?

Striver, it is pointless to mention just TWO of the hundreds of men who have claimed to be caliphs throughout history, and who controlled some territory in which they could enforce their claims. I don't know why you are insisting on sticking those two names into the article. Zora 13:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Easy: to give two examples. Whats wrong with that? --Striver 12:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Oh, and i am linking to Nikah Mut'ah, since it is hard to understand what he was accused of without the link. --Striver 12:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali, Hasan and Muawiya

Aladdin, I don't think it's right to say that Muawiya won the civil war -- he had certainly gotten the upper hand, but Ali was far from finished when he was killed. It's also not right to declare that Hassan was NOT a caliph and that there's not doubt about who was a caliph and who wasn't, when in fact even Sunni historians differ on the matter. History is not tidy. Please, let's try to walk the razor's edge between pro-Sunni and pro-Shi'a, since that's where NPOV will be found. Zora 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have asked you before NOT to insert my handle into section titles, and to use properly descriptive and relevant titles pertaining to the subject matter at hand. Now, it is a valid point to say Muawiya had the upper hand (by far) when Ali was assassinated, rather than to say Muawiya won outright, with that I agree. But it is POV to revert to the previous version which seems to imply that Muawiya seized much of the empire form Ali in the manner of a usurper. Though highly controversial, Muawiya won the arbitration and the military conflict, so if you can find an NPOV way of presenting this, change the wording accordingly.
It is absolutely right to say that Hasan was not caliph. Pepsidrinka started a discussion section regarding this issue on my Talk page which I have quoted below. It states my position concisely. --AladdinSE 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hasan as a caliph

You seem pretty adamanat about removing all references to Hasan ibn Ali as a Sunni caliph. Yet, in the Hasan ibn Ali article, it is stated that several notable Sunni personalities have accepted Hasan as the fifth caliph. Whether you want to believe those claims is another issue. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is pure nonsense. The order was: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and then the Umayyad Dynasty and then the Abassid Dynasty and so on and so forth. Hasan is limited solely to the Shiite Imamate. A short lived claim with no substantial state-wide backing, no actual rule, does not a Caliph make. He did not rule, his claim was short lived, and he resigned said claim. Quod erat demonstrandum. --AladdinSE 00:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine that you feel that it is nonsense. I also feel that the order you mentioned is correct. However, our role is not to decide what the order was, but to convey it. And since a handful of notable Sunni scholars feel that he was the fifth caliph, we should mention it to maintain a NPOV. Pepsidrinka 00:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, mention it by all means, but what you are doing is altering the historical consensus and replacing it with what a "handful of scholars" have said. We cannot say "Hasan bin Ali was the fifth Sunni Caliph." We can only say, in a relevant subsection, that "a handful of scholars consider him to be the fifth Sunni Caliph, even though he never ruled, was never installed, and himself resigned any claim etc etc."--AladdinSE 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the Sunnite and Shiite lies in wether Hasan Ibn Ali was a Rightly Guided Caliph, not a Caliph like all others in respects to history as far as im aware of. It's a known fact that he did hold the head-of-state position whereby he administered the affairs of all in the empire, although his caliphate was brief. We should be very clear about what a "Sunni Caliph" is and an actual "Caliph". I'll adjust it unless you can show me the contrary since all of the sources im aware of prove otherwise then your hard-headed censorship thus far.--Paradoxic 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not the difference. The majority of Sunni scholars believe the last "Righly Guided" Caliph was Ali, period. Most Sunni historians, along with a vast, overwhelming international consensus, do not count Hasan as Caliph. Any rebel can "rule" in the area where his supporters obey him, and "claim" any title he wishes, and command an army. What makes a recognized caliphate is sustained rule legitimized by military victory, treaty and acclamation of a majority of the state. This then translates to consensus historical recognition over the ages, which you must agree, Hasan does not have. Ali does have that pan sunni, shia, and international recognition because he had state-wide backing for years until Muawiyah rebelled and gained the upper hand militarily and through arbitration. --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We're supposed to outline the dispute, not take sides in it. Both sides should be mentioned and given equal billing. How about moving the whole argument to the bottom of the article, and giving more detail , instead of trying to make one or two words bear the weight of the controversy.

We cannot obliterate the historical record every time a factional POV makes an objection to the majority consensus. Yes we can mention all historical controversies, but not alter generally agreed upon history. --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me one of those historical moments that comes in shades of grey. Hassan WAS acclaimed as caliph, DID rule for several months, DID control territory and an army ... and then he gave it up to prevent yet more strife and dissension. It's not clear to me that this abdication nullifies all previous events. He didn't control the whole Islamic empire, but then neither did his father Ali, and Ali is recognized as a caliph. Arguing about black and white (was/was not) doesn't do justice to the complexity of events. Zora 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See above --AladdinSE 18:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sayings, rumors re marriages

The sayings are badly translated and not all that brilliant. If you're going to have sayings, pick three GOOD ones and make sure the translations are in idiomatic English.

As for deleting the section on the marriage controversy -- we give both the rumors AND point people to Madelung's academically well-regarded book, which dismisses them. That's giving both sides. Since people might have heard the rumors before reading the article, it's just as well to discuss them. Zora 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death, sayings

Salman, that bit you added was pure Shi'a legend, full of hatred against the Umayyads. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. The sayings might be worth including if they were in good English, but the translations you gave were atrocious. If you can find the Arabic originals for those sayings, see if you can find someone who can re-translate them for you. I was thinking of trying to reword the translations to make them better, but that's really not honest if I don't have the originals and can't read them. Cunardo19 can translate Arabic. Zora 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora I am going to be honest with you, each and everything I do on wikipedia, you think I am doing it from a Shi'a POV. As far as the saying is concerned, instead of deleting it why don't you fix it, you know what I mean. All right I will add another section under the death section, where I will state that according to Shi'as (I am going to add that section). Shi'as POV should be expressed too. Firstly, you told me that I can only put 2-3 sayings and when I selected only 3 saying now you are telling me that they can not be on the page. Secondly, then you told me that I can not just post sayings of Imam Hassan AS without telling where I got the sources from. I even added the source and reference to the website where I got the sayings from. When everything that you wanted was there now you are telling me that the sayings cannot be there because the English is incorrect. Well then try to correct it instead of deleting it. Imam Hassan AS is a Shi’a Imam we know more about our Imam then anyone else in this world. We wouldn’t do and say anything he didn’t do or said. Thank You Salman
Salman, I think the issue is verifiability. For quotes on someone from the 7th century a website is not a good source. I am not familiar with the Shi`ah hadiths or where they come from, but I assume somewhere there is a compilation of sayings that explicitly say who originally wrote down the Hadith. You should be quoting a published source, and mention who originally began recording the hadith. I've seen this done with sayings of Muhammad, but I'm not familiar with the Imams' sayings. Many hadiths are just made up by people as a type of folklore over time, and every time a hadith is changed, a little piece of Islam is destroyed.
If you have really well referenced information, and write good articles, then people will leave you alone. It takes effort, and if you rely on dubious websites and link to them as sources you will have a hard time on wikipedia. Thank You Cuñado - Talk 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Salman, I'm not objecting to the sayings you quoted just to be mean -- if I were a devout Shi'a I would object to them, because they make Hasan sound like an idiot! The point of including them is to let other people see what Shi'a see in him and that is surely not someone who can't express himself clearly. A bad translation does him no favors. That's why I suggested finding the Arabic originals and re-translating. If your Arabic is rusty (if you're from Iran I presume you had Arabic in school, but languages learned in school are often not our strong points!) you could look for Shi'a sites where you could contact learned Shi'a (say from Iraq) who would be happy to help you. Zora 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora's recent edits

An anon who clearly wrote English as a second language replaced the old account of the death of Hasan with a long Shi'a diatribe. I have completely rewritten that section, summarized the Shi'a story, and added copious links to various Shi'a websites. I hope that the Shi'a will accept this as sufficient coverage. Zora 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. One thing to note on your say: "A Shi'a scholar, Ali Muhammad Sulabi, claims that these Sunni traditions are calumny." First, Dr. Sulabi is not Shia :) Second, the original statement " and found all of them to be unreliable." is more accurate because his study involved deep analysis of the isnad of each tradition. --Islamic 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasan or Hassan?

The title and opening sentence of this article don't match. Which is the preferred spelling? Is the letter doubled in the Arabic name? If there is a dispute in how to render it, can that be explained in the article? Rigadoun 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic version of his name included here is clearly not the same as the name given in the introduction; it seems to include more generations. I think the same name should be given in both languages (i.e., it should just be a transliteration); I don't know which would be more appropriate but either the English should be expanded or the Arabic condensed. Rigadoun 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source

Salafi web blog that referes to Hasan (as) as Caliph [1] --Striver 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article also has been turned into Shi'a hagiography. It is written by a Shi'a for Shi'as, and it is completely POV. I'm swamped right now. I'll rewrite if I can, but would appreciate help from someone else. Zora 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora if you want to rewrite this article, then before rewriting anything please indicate on the talk page about what you are going to edit and why. I don’t really understand why Shi’ahs (I am a Shi’ah too) will ruin the neutrality of this article since there is a separate page for Hassan ibn Ali, which contains truth things about Imam Hassan ibn Ali. Thank You Salman 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, you shouldn't use the term Prophet Muhammad, especially in worshipful fashion, without a "the." Those of us who are non-Muslims do not accept him as a prophet. There are more problems ... dang, I would need to rewrite the thing to show you what's wrong. It would help, Salman, if you would read something like Wilferd Madelung's book Succession to Muhammad, which is an academic treatment of subjects you hold dear, and fairly kind to Shi'a, BUT, it is academically rigorous. You seem not to be familiar with academic writing standards. Zora 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right Zora, I am not familiar with academic writing standards. My point is that Muslims consider Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) a Prophet, and I don’t understand why non-Muslims would have any problem if I write Islamic Prophet Muhammad. I hope I am not messing around with anyone’s religion this way because I added Islamic Prophet Muhammad not just Prophet Mohammad. Thank You Salman 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing cruft

I removed a number of honorifics (WP is a secular encyclopedia, doesn't do honorifics), a Sunni argument embedded clumsily in a reference, and an ad for an Iranian TV series. Zora 09:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article created

Hi, someone just created an article at 'Biography of imam hasan', which I have turned into a redirect to this page. I'm mentioning it because there might be some useful info in the history of the new article here. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I dunno when this happened ...

Some !!!! started replacing all the instances of "Hasan" with al-Hasan. The accepted, common, form of the name in English is just plain Hasan. Or Hassan. Changing it to something that I presume is closer to Arabic usage is not helpful. It just confuses English-speaking readers.

I made a few other changes, mostly wording tweaks and in a few instances, Shi'a claims presented as fact. Zora 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

WHY are some of the dates in AH? This is not an islamic encyclopedia! Zazaban 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/s/Talk%7EHasan_ibn_Ali_5342.html"