From Talk:Ali/Archive2[edit]

Ali being a scholar[edit]

Statement of the of Ali is being a scholar is being evaluated.

Zora wrote:

Striver, please stop inserting the "academic line" bit in the Ali article. I have a suspicion that this is all part of a plan to link the Shi'a ulema directly to Ali and Muhammad, through an unbroken line of scholarly transmission, and it just won't do. Ali was not a scholar, he was not a member of the ulema. The ulema as an institution evolved slowly over the course of the Umayyad dynasty, instead of springing full-blown from the head of Muhammad, as Athena is said to have sprung from Zeus. Zora 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you mean bt "ulema", i dont care much for that word. There is no such thing as "uelma" in Islam, It is "Quran and Ahl al-Bayt", not "Quran, Ahl al-Bayt and the Ulema".

However, Ali was a scholar. Ibn Abbas was a scholar...

He is considered to be the most knowledgeable of the Sahaba in tafsir. A book entitled tanwir al-miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (Beirut, n.d.) is a complete tafsir of the Qur'an. all explanations of which are said to go back to Ibn 'Abbas. [Ibn_Abbas#Legacy]

..., and Ali was a greater one, and that is undiputed. As evidence of Ali being a Scholar, i bring forth:

Nahj al-Balagha

A whole book dedicated to Alis teachings: his sermons and letters.

Ibn Abbas being a scholar, and Ali being more knowladgeble than Ibn Abbas:

And Ibn Abbas said, "My knowledge and the knowledge of the Companions of Muhammad(saw) is but a drop in seven seas if compared with Ali's knowledge."

And this is what Imam Ali said about himself, "Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me about the Book of Allah, because by Allah there is no [Qur'anic] verse that I do not know whether it was revealed during the night or the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or on a mountain." [90]

[90]

al Riyadh al-Nadirah, vol 2 p 198

Tarikh, Suyuti, p 124

al Itqan, Suyuti, vol 2 p 319

Fath al-Bari, vol 8 p 485

Tadhib al Tadhib, vol 7 p 338

ref

We also understand that the Shiites gathered around Imam Ali, who was the gate to the city of knowledge, and he used to say to them, "Ask me about anything, for the Messenger of Allah taught me about one thousand [doors] of knowledge, each one of which opens one thousand more doors." [117]. But the non-Shiites gathered around Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan who knew little about the Prophetic Tradition.

Tarikh Dimashq, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 484

Maqt al Husayn, al Khawarizmi, vol 1 p 38

al Ghadir, al Amini, vol 3 p 120

ref

And of course, the famous one:

The Prophetic tradition: "I am the city of Knowledge and Ali is its gate."

This tradition [88] alone should be sufficient to indicate the example that has to he followed after the Messenger of Allah (saw) because the educated man ought to be followed.

[88]

Mustadrak al-Hakim, vol 3 p 127

Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol 7 p 358

Ali was a scholar of Islam, that is, the teachings of Muhammad. --Striver 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's a perversion of the term to apply it to Ali. Zora 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why is Ali not a scholar, but Ibn Abbas is? Or do you belive a Sahaba can not be a scholar? Explain, talk, motivate! Dont just state your oppinion and act as it matters. Oppinions do not matter to WP! --Striver 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Writing letters and giving sermons does not make one a scholar. Is everyone who gives a khutbah a scholar? The term, as used in English, refers to someone learned in reading and writing, familiar with written literature, skilled at comparing competing traditions, etc. Al-Tabari was a scholar. Ibn Ishaq was a scholar. Al-Bukhari was a scholar. Ali was a figure on the stage of history, not a historian or exegete.

I understand that both the ulema and the Sufis want to trace back to Ali (or Abu Bakr) to establish their own legitimacy, but in doing so, they distort the past. Zora 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If in nothing else, he was a scholar of reading and writing eloquent Arabic and Quran exegis. Shia or Sufis wanting to trace their scholars to Ali has nothing to do with it, they can do it no mater what you call or not call Ali. You didnt answer, is Ibn Abbas a scholar, yes or no? If yes, why is Ali not a scholar?

No it isn't. I contest it. Moreover, none of the Islam-related books in my library calls Ali a scholar. Zora 11:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to uppdate that. You did not answer the question, is Ibn Abbas a scholar? Isn't he a scholar in tafsir? --Striver 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still waitning for an answer, is Ibn Abbas a scholar or not? --Striver 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas the man was not a scholar in any ordinary sense of the word scholar. There is a great mass of scholarship that carries the name of "Ibn Abbas" on it - but it doesn't go back anywhere near 'Abdullah's time (see John Wansbrough "Quranic Studies" passim). It might be the work of some unknown single person (for instance, Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna) but more likely it is the work of many hands collected in one place. Kleinecke 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali being a scholar of Islam is discused.

CUT[edit]

Ali as member of the ulema? Not![edit]

Striver, please stop inserting the "academic line" bit in the Ali article. I have a suspicion that this is all part of a plan to link the Shi'a ulema directly to Ali and Muhammad, through an unbroken line of scholarly transmission, and it just won't do. Ali was not a scholar, he was not a member of the ulema. The ulema as an institution evolved slowly over the course of the Umayyad dynasty, instead of springing full-blown from the head of Muhammad, as Athena is said to have sprung from Zeus. Zora 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]