Talk:Ali/Born in Kaaba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] From Talk:Ali/Archive1

[edit] Born in the Kaaba

Shaneabbas added a sentence to the effect that Ali was born inside the Kaaba. I seen this story elsewhere, but I have never read it in any reliable source. It seems to be a pious folktale.

I recently set up an article called Islam and veneration for Muhammad to hold such material for Muhammad -- there's a great deal of pious folklore about Muhammad, or folk practices venerating Muhammad. Since this is also true of Ali, how about setting up an article called Shi'a Islam and veneration for Ali? That could be linked to both this article and the Shi'a article. The "born in the Kaaba" story would be relevant there. Zora 6 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Actually, sunnis also claim that somebody was born in the kaba, but they cant agree on whom:

You can read a bit more about it here:

Fatimah bint Asad was circumbulating the Ka'ba when she was carrying Ali (a.s.). The wall of Ka'ba cracked to create an opening and she entered it to give birth to Ali (a.s.). Al-Mustadrak 3:483.

no when they put the cloth up, u can still see the crack. I have seen it, its on the opposite side of hajr-e-asvad, you can see it when we are doing tawaf,

apparently the wahabis try to fill the crack up but it no matter what they do the crack still shows up! if abu bakr or umar were born there they would have put a sign post there!!

Well I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali as.gif and our HAzrat Ali ra.gif born in holy Kaba... It is right and it shows the dignity of Ali ra.gif


Maybe you have never been there. Ask anybody who has been there. And the crack is still very visible.


Does it really matter if the crack was there or not? I personally spoke to many Saudi Shias who say that the Wahabi establishment used zinc to cover up the crack since that area keeps on breaking mysteriously - so some are claiming that Allah wants this miracle to live on even if the actual building was destroyed twice in history (after the birth of Imam Ali). Be this a miracle or not is a matter of personal opinion unless some photographs can be presented.


fortunately it is still there. When they put the covers up, and you are doing tawaf, many people go and do masah of it. and lukily for me, out of the 100 times i went 50% of the covers were up

^ ok guys I remember once getting an email which had pictures of the crack, i would see if i still have the email saved I would put the pictures here ( but dont count on that though)

Hazrat Ali razialahutalaanho He is the personality who given the name sherekhudafrom ALLAH.And he is the personality who won the battel of khaiber,and took the roots off that door called darekhaibar.And he has one more speciality that is he accept islaam in his childhood. He was born in the KABA> (sunni site)

History has recorded that he is the only person who was born inside the Kabah itself.: HAKIM IBN HAZM


Zora, both Shia and Sunnis agree that somebody was born in the Ka'bah. Nobody says that nobody was ever born in the Ka'ba. Remmeber the number of Sahaba thing? (sunni site)

Peace!, --Striver 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)


No offense but it seems like sockpuppets are in play on this page. I am a Sunni and u said that our Imam Ali. As far as I know, Sunnis refer to Ali as "caliph ali" and not imam ali, I could be wrong but since they hold him on the same level as Abu Bakr et al, I have never heard of imam Abu Bakr or imam Uthman. As for the crack in the kaaba being there or not, they kaaba's been destroyed many times since the birth of Ali so I don't know how relevant it is... --GNU4Eva 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Sunnis saying Ali (AS) was born in the Kaba : [1]
Sunnis sayingHAKIM IBN HAZM was born in the Kaba : http://anwary-islam.com/companion/s_hakim-ibn-hazm.htm
Sunni saing "imam Ali" : When Umar bin Khattab (ra) appointed 6 people to elect a khalif, one of the six was Imam Ali (ra). His uncle Abbas criticised him for this, to which he replied :Ali replied to Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, after the latter criticised him for participating in the council : "It is one of the mighty affairs of Islam and I did not think I should be excluded from it". Sunni site : [2][3]
Both Shia and sunni agree that someone was born in the Kaba, but they dont agree on whom. To say nobody did it lacks sources and is personal pov, irrelvant for an npov encyclopedia. Saying that the crack is due to it being destroid is conjecture. It might be true, it might not. If it is, bring forth one source that claims such. Otherwise, keep personal pov out of the article.
--Striver 7 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)

This is absurd. The entire Ka'ba was destroyed in the Qaramita's time. Any crack in the current Ka'ba has nothing to do with anything that happened before then. A chat room is not a reference; quote an actual respected historian or jurist's works. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

God can do anything (do you agree?), mabey it's just a miracle (trying to be hidden by wahabis)

[edit] Cut

[edit] Insertion of Shi'a traditions as fact

Striver, nooo reputable historian of Islam accepts the stories that you are trying to insert. Those stories aren't in the earliest texts and they show every sign of being later fabrications. You are trying to insert them as if they were fact.

We give enough links to Shi'a sites that if a reader wanted to explore further, he/she would certainly read those stories and hear those claims.

It is not up to me to show that they are fables, it is up to you to show that they are not. Cites from Peshawar Nights are particularily problematic, since the text has been shown to be a Persian forgery. Zora 19:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Talk:Ali/Archive2

[edit] Born in Kaaba

Statement of Ali being born in Kaaba being Shia only pov is made.

The born in the Kaaba part is not going anywhere, since both Shia and some Sunni belive in it, ie, its not a Shia only view.

I finaly found a source listing Sunnis beliving in it: [4]. That changes it from "some Sunnis" to "manny Sunnis belive he was born in the Kaaba" --Striver 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Yes, he was born in the Kaaba. This should be mentioned at least as what Shias believe to be true. Furthermore, as far as Im concerned, the majority of western academia are ignorant about the Shia. Their view DOES NOT always equate to fact, as Zora is forcefully trying to impose. That's why I wrote Misconceptions about The Shia, to point just that.--Zereshk 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a Shi'a source claiming that various Sunni scholars believed that. Frankly, all such Shi'a claims are suspect. If the earliest sources we have don't make such a bizarre claim, then it's unlikely that later ones would be more reliable. Zora 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: Zora claimed Shias are unreliable, even when they refer to Sunni scholars that hold the same opinion.

Incorrect. The sources listed there are there for people to check. You have no jurisdiction on making judgements. You simply cannot call Shias liars and push your anti-Shi'i agenda. You cannot suppress the Shi'a voice.--Zereshk 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Further, it should be noted that Sunnis have no problem in belivin SOMEONE was born in the Kaaba, as their next-most trusted Hadith scholar says in his collection that the other guy was born there. How DO you dare to say "all such Shi'a claims are suspect" ?! --Striver 03:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The website Striver points to [5] is in fact very legitimate and reliable. Zora is trying to change history by claiming Shi'a sources are unreliable. She claims that the site, which is endorsed by these sources, i.e. 100 million Shia, is "frankly suspect". Interestingly, some of these soures are not even Shi'a.
Mas'udi does in fact say Ali was born in the Kaaba in his book مروج الذهب on page 2 of Vol 2. So does Sheikh Mofid in his ارشاد on page 2 Vol 1. The same is written in السيرة الحلبيه in Vol 1 page 139. The Diwan of سيد حميرى which has been edited by شاكر هادى شكر and printed in Beirut even says it where he says: ولدته في حرم الاله و امنه و البيت‏حيث فناؤه و المسجد on page155. Also written in: مناقب Vol 2p174 by محمد بن منصور سرخسى.
Even شيخ محمد على اردوبادى has written an entire book discussing Ali's birth in the Kaaba.
I can bring at least 10 more other sources by historians that corroborate this. This page is inaccurate if at least the belief that he was born there is not mentioned. No ifs, ands, or buts.--Zereshk 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
One: What language do you think should be used to express this point?
Two: Building consensus on the language will be more difficult if we persist in this courtroom-debate format, which I personally find not only stilted but slightly arrogant. BrandonYusufToropov 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems like a "courtroom style" debate to you, because of unilateral edits that entirely disregard other opposing viewpoints. When some editors try to impose their version of things, you can always expect reactions like this. We're not even talking about "language". We're protesting the complete censorship of this info from the text.--Zereshk 16:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement is refuted

[edit] Cut

[edit] Born in Kaaba

Well, my work is here (diff), and that is what complaints where made against and then was reverted (accutaly, before the complaints). The accuracy of the article was challenged, and in the above separate sections i defended the balance and accuracy of my article. Regarding the Kaaba, it says:

Shi'a Muslims and some Sunni believe that he was born inside the Kaaba, the Muslim holy place. -Striver

[edit] dichotomy

Now here's my question for you -- so many of these conflict-heavy discussions with other editors break down to this repetition of Shia vs. Sunni beliefs. Is that dichotomy absolutely essential? Are we quite sure we wouldn't be serving the article better -- and preventing future revert wars -- with something like the following?
Some early traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this view is not unanimous.
????????????????????????
BrandonYusufToropov 19:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
So far as I know, there are no EARLY traditions claiming Ali's birth in the Kaaba. The earliest written texts we have re Islamic history say nothing about this. It seems to me that if it had happened, it would have been noted by authors such as Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. The tradition seems to be a late invention. Therefore I object strongly to BYT's proposed compromise. Zora 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay -- easy enough to revise:
Some traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this view is not unanimous.
Question still stands for Striver -- is it essential to posit Shia vs. Sunni in this and other controversial passages, or would we be perhaps serving the article better with a formulation like the one above? BrandonYusufToropov 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I could live with that. I can elaborate on the Shia and Sunni view article. --Striver 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


On second thought, i take that back. First fo all, there are no traditions of him being born elsewhere, second, nobody refutes him being born there. "Some traditions relate" imply that others relate a alternative version and "this view is not unanimous" implies that somebody refutes it or does not accept it. I have not heard any scholar refuting it, all scholars i have heard of either accept or keep quite about it. --Striver 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What about this:

All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although non Muslim contemporary academic historians choose to not mention it.

--Striver 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zora

Striver, they aren't keeping quiet about it. It's too silly to refute. Anyhow, here's one Sunni site that claims Ali was born in his father's house, as one might expect: [6].

You're operating from the assumption that any claim is true unless refuted. OK, I claim that I can levitate. Nobody has refuted that. Therefore I levitate. Hmmmm? Zora 20:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is YET another case where you see things you want to see, like demanding archealogical evidence for people pasing by a pond. Have you even read what you linked to?
It is an undisputed historical fact recognized by all historians that the Holy Ka'bah is the birthplace of Ali bin Abi Talib (A.S).


All traditions and historians are unanimous in saying he was born in Kaaba. You calim they are wrong, the burden of proof is upon you to prove them wrong, they have the evidence in their history.
As for "It's too silly to refute", we still have one direct quote from a admited western historian that agrees to it- Yet again, Zora pov strikes! Zora, pleace, i beg you, stop with your orginal research! Give us sources, not random oppinions!
All you have presented is that you have have not read a modern historian give a opinion about it. That means absolutely nothing. For all we know, there can be plenty of modern scholars agreeing to it.
Even if not a single modern scholar mentions it, it means just that, nothing more, nothing less, any interpretation of their silence is up to the reader to decide not you.
You not reading about it does not mean that they belive its a fable. It only means that YOU have not read about it. It being a fable is a assumption from your part, original research, and has no value what so ever to WP. --Striver 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Regarding:

"Some medieval Muslim traditions relate that he was born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam, although this is not accepted by any contemporary academic historians.
  • "Some" is false, it "All".
  • "medieval" is missleading, as it gives the impression that earlier traditions do not. Zora claims no early traditions recount it, but its her oppinion and that has no weight in WP
  • "not accepted" is false, no one claims it to be false, we only know that those Zora read do not mention it. Nothing more, "Not accept" is Zora pov presented as facts.
  • "any" is false, she has not presented proof of that, not even proof of "manny". And we all know how accurate Zora can be, i can right away show tree occasions where where Zora has accused Sunni sites of being Shia sites.
  • Further, it is biased to Zora pov to not mention the one AND SINGLE quote we have from western scholars regarding the matter, the one explicitly saying he was born in it.


Zora, im starting to get enough of your non-sens. Persist and we will have someone someone decide whom of us is not using due prosses, logic and sourcing. I have warned you before, DO NOT PERSIST IN YOU UNSOURCED ZORA POV PUSHING!

--Striver 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: Striver is officaly warning Zora with Arbitration, starting with RFC, for the second time.

[edit] the topic

Ok, back to the topic:


All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam; however, non Muslim contemporary academic historians choose to not mention it. One historian, Simon Ockley, retold it as a "strange" narrration History of the Saracens page 331.

Are their any relevant and sourced arguments against having that line? Zora, you have been warned! --Striver 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Re: "You have been warned" -- this is provocative, totally unproductive language. Make two rakaats or something, then come back to working on the article, ok?
We are trying to work content questions out as people who respect each other's work. If you plan to file some kind of administrative action against me or User:Zora, I for one would urge you to do so and stop talking about it here, because any such action would have very high entertainment value, and would only illustrate your propensity for instigating needless conflict.BrandonYusufToropov 16:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to that here -Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no challenge against the fact that Ali [as] was born in Ka'aba.

[edit] Another approach

BrandonYusufToropov wrote somewhere else:

OK. Another approach. Forget whether Kaaba thing is true, would it be encyclopedic if it were?
To address that question, let's consult:
PRINCETON
http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/ali.htm
COLUMBIA
http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/Ali.html
BRITANNICA
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354999
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ORIENT
http://i-cias.com/e.o/ali.htm
BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I reply:


First of all, al four are both POV and inaccurate, none of the have WP standard and would be slaped with a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag i no time and warrant a total and complete rewrite. None of them are acceptable ny any means:

This is POV:

With the death of Muhammad in 632, the Muslim community was for a short period without a leader, and without clear indications on how to chose the new leader


And this is inaccurate:

In 658, Ali gave in to Mu'awiyya's criticism, and established an investigation committee.

More Inaccuracy:

For most groups of Shi'is, the hope of a just ruling elite inside Islam, i.e. a just Islam on earth, disappeared after this.

Read: Mahdi

And that is only found in one of the four articles.


Second, they omitt information between themselves, they cant even agree as to what is relvant. Considering that, it is uterly non-sense to evalate if something is encyclopedic by seeing if they have included it or not.


Thirdly, our article have already information not included in any of them:

Ali was also prominent on the battlefield of Uhud. He is said to have received seventeen wounds in the battle.
"Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me."
All Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a alike, agree that Ali deserves these titles:


Now, after having refuted what you sugestion of consult those sources:


I take your sugestion as a way of diverting the issue, something not very uppright. I now that you did not mean anything bad. You know vey well that a persons place of birth is relevant to a biography, specialy when he is reported to have been born in such a unusual place. --Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100% sunni

Then, as to prove the contrary, i quote witness-pioneer.org, a 100% sunni site:

Birth of Ali
Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother.


The Name
Fatima wanted to name the child "Asad" after the name of her father. Abu Talib wanted to name him Zaid. When the mother and the child came home, the Holy Prophet, and Khadija came to see the newborn child. Since his birth, the child had not opened his eyes, and that worried Fatima and Abu Talib. As the Holy Prophet took the child in his lap he opened his eyes. The first person that Ali saw after his birth was the Holy Prophet. When the Holy Prophet was asked whether he approved of the child being named as Asad or Zaid, he said that as the child was born in the House of God, he should be named Ali, the word Ali being a derivative of Allah. Ali had thus the distinction of being named after Allah. No person before him had ever been so named. The name acquired further sanctity as it was proposed by the Holy Prophet.


So, having that said: i repeat my question:


All Muslim traditions describe him being born inside the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam; however, non Muslim contemporary academic historians choose to not mention it. One historian, Simon Ockley, retold it as a "strange" narrration History of the Saracens page 331.

Are there any relevant and sourced arguments against having that line? --Striver 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No more objections to this issue? The line is aproved by silence? --Striver 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] CUT

[edit] ?

Striver,

When you delete my discussion statements, you are basically removing me from the debate. I assume that by doing so, you are able to handle the debate singlehandedly. All the better. :) --Zereshk 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear brother, when did i delet any of your statments? I did move some of them, if that is whay you are refering to, you will find them higher upp, in appropriate section of the debate, i did that to keep the topics from spreading, to keep focus on the debate :)

--Striver 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess was referring to this. BTW, tell these people that Ali1980 is not a sock puppet. Since all muslim admins are Sunni, I put a request on a Shia site, to have people come and help us out. My academic schedule is very busy these days. I dont have time to fight these revisionists.--Zereshk 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is a Sunni source, regarding the birth of Imam Ali in the Holy Ka'ba:

Hakim in his Mustadrak and nuru'd-din Bin Sabbagh maliki in his Fusulu'l-Muhimma, Fasl 1, p.14, say: "No one before Ali was born in the Ka'ba. This was a distinction given to Ali in order to enhance his honor, rank, and dignity."

<Above comment posted by User:Ali 1980.

You know, we don't often get the same people who just vandalized the article trying to contribute to the discussion immediately afterwards. Do you have anything you'd like to share about why you just deleted all of the content not only of the article, but of the talk page you are now trying to contribute to? 23:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali is quoting from Peshawar Nights, Persian forgery, see this refutation [7]. A quote from this refutation:

"Books besides the Sahihayn are all subject to scrutiny of their isnads to determine to what extent they conform to the criteria of authenticity. There never has been a claim, neither by the authors of these works, nor by anyone else, that these works incorporate exclusively authentic material. Muhaddithin like al-Hakim, the author of al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Hibban, the author of at-Taqasim wal-Anwa‘ (commonly known as Sahih Ibn Hibban), have attempted to follow the example of al-Bukhari and Muslim by documenting only authentic ahadith, but their criteria, as well as the extent to which they abided by those criteria left a lot to be desired, and consequently came under censure from later muhaddithin.
Indiscriminate quoting from these works would therefore only occur if a person suffers from one of two defects: ignorance of the science of hadith; or a Machiavellian attitude of the end—-in this case the conversion of the Ahl as-Sunnah—-justifying the means. Either of these defects is sufficient to disqualify anyone as an objective polemicist."

Not that I accept hadith, or the science of hadith, as authoritative unless accepted by those academic historians who study them (which is not all historians). Accepting 12th century evaluations of tradition is like accepting 12th century science or medicine: pointless and retrograde. Still, quoting da'eef hadith doesn't prove a thing. Zora 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CUT

[edit] OK. Another approach. Forget whether Kaaba thing is true...

... would it be encyclopedic if it were?

To address that question, let's consult:

PRINCETON http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/ali.htm

COLUMBIA http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/Ali.html

BRITANNICA http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354999

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ORIENT http://i-cias.com/e.o/ali.htm

BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it would be, this isn't like another encyclopaedia, most articles here have more depth that the websites above which is why wikipedia is great 87.194.54.232 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Talk:Ali/Archive4

[edit] a mistake

This sentence is wrong. "The Kaaba is said to have cracked open so that Fatima bint Asad, Ali's mother, could enter, then closed behind her." Ali's mother like others entered from the door not the wall.--Sa.vakilian 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong, that concept comes from Shi'a ahadith traditions and you can see some an an example -xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 04:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph is showing the extreme mythical stories that have been created. See Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib for references. Obviously the Kaaba didn't crack open, and he didn't come out of the womb speaking, but we put those in to comment on the phenomenon of myth-making that Shi`ah have participated in about Ali. Cuñado - Talk 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)