From Talk:Ali/Archive1[edit]

Thought Abu Bakr was first male to embrace Islam?[edit]

Other than the Prophet, of course. Or is this (as might be expected) a controversial point?

Nop, ther is no controversy, it was Ali. --Striver 01:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no controversy. Al Sideeq (Abu Bakr) was the first male convert, it's quite famous. Also, Muawiyah I is the universally accepted fifth Caliph of Islam, not Hassan (by any stretch of the imagination). Rival claimants, like anti-popes, are not universally accepted. Such is the case of Hassan, who did not even seek the office, but is termed Caliph or Imaam by some Shi'a devotees. Similarly, from 929 onwards, the Umayyad Caliphs of Cordoba were not as accepted as the Abbasids of Baghdad, though claiming the title. --A. S. A. 19:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this claim that Abu Bakr was first or second male convert to Islam. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Bakr was around 20th person to accept Islam. Were all previous 20 converts women? I suggest we remove that claim of being first convert. It's clearly disputed in some sources OneGuy 19:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A valid suggestion. Speaking for myself, I will research the subject further and introduce findings in Talk and article edits hopefully on Feb 13 or 14.--A. S. A. 19:44, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to Ibn Ishaq (per Guillaume's translation) "'Ali was the first male to believe in the apostle ... he was a boy of ten ... Zayd the freedman of the apostle was the first male to accept Islam after 'Ali. Then Abu Bakr ... ". There is a hadith in which Sa'd ibn Abu Waqqas claims to have been one-third of Islam for a while (but it does not name the other two). Kleinecke

First Converts to Islam (consensus knowledge among both Sunni & Shia scholars): 1) First women convert = Khadija w/o Prophet. Then the only wife of Prophet. 2) First child convert = Ali ibn Abi Talib. He lived under Prophet's guardianship. 3) First male adult convert = Abu Bakr Al Sideeq. Prophet's closest friend. These converts were also in the order as mentioned above. I am not sure if these were the first 3 converts.

--Atif.Hussain

Just deleted an absolutely absurd and illogical comment which was posted without reference or signature. --Ishq Ali 14:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Ali/Archive2[edit]

Ali first to convert?[edit]

Statement of Ali being the first male to convert is disputed. NOTE: This was not stated in the reverted version made by Striver.

Ibn Ishaq gives two stories, one putting Abu Bakr first and one putting Ali first. Since none of these traditions were written down until Abbasid times, it is really IMPOSSIBLE to decide which story is true. That's why "one of the first" is accurate -- it doesn't decide on priority. Zora 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aside the fact that you are incorrect (and I dont have time to teach you why), the point is that at least a statement should be mentioned that the Shi'as believe it to be true. Your suppression of this amounts to suppression of the Shia view, which is unacceptable.--Zereshk 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acctualy, if there is no way to establish it, it should go to the "Shia view" article. However, SOME Sunnis agree that he was the first male, no matter the facts. Further, the ibn Ishaq version needs to be looked at in detail. For example, if one is about the famouse dinner hadith, and the other simply states that Abu Bakr was fisrt grown up, then that would put Ali as first male, no conflict. However, that needs to be looked at to determine. Conclusion: Ibn Ishaq having two versions does not necesarily mean a contradiction. In either case, i repeat: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VERSION MY VERSION! If no further points are raised, then please revert back to my version. --Striver 03:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unanimously agreed by both Sunni and Shia that Ali was first. What Zora is pushing as fact is a view in overwhelming minority, pushed by some malicious modern Sunni revisionists. There are 4 lines of evidence that Islamic scholars both Sunni and Shia have given to prove Ali was first. There are literally hundreds of sources supporting it. In fact, Ali himself says that he was first, in one of his sermons where he says: انا عبد الله و اخو رسول الله‏و انا الصديق الاكبر، لا يقولها بعدي الا كاذب مفتري ولقد صليت مع رسول الله قبل الناس بسبع سنين و انا اول من صلى معه‏

And also it's in Nahj al Balagha, I think it is Khutbahs #187 and #127. What Zora is saying is that either Ali is lying or that the Nahj al Balagha is inaccurate.

So does Mohammad when he says: اولكم واردا على الحوض‏اولكم اسلاما علي بن ابي طالب

The late Allama Amini of Najaf in fact wrote an entire chapter listing sources supporting this fact in his الغدير See pages 191-213

Furthermore, Nasr and Tabatabaei support it in Shi'a Islam (Book), p191.

Nasr is the ultimate source on Islamic subjects, in the modern academia. Zora has no case here. Period. --Zereshk 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nasr ultimate source? Zereshk, that is SO wrong. I just checked -- of the fifteen academic works I have that MIGHT mention Nasr (as in, they were published after he started publishing), fourteen have NO mention of Nasr whatsover. Not in bibliography, not in index. Just one book, Esposito's Encyclopedia of Islam, mentions him on page 297, as a Persian philosopher. He's just one of a list of dozens of names of current Islamic thinkers. He may be recognized as a philosopher of sorts, but he is certainly nonexistent as far as historians are concerned.

Of course Shi'a thinkers would support this claim. Of course Ali would advance this claim. Your hadith (untranslated, unsourced) may or may not be useful evidence. If you cite in a language other than English, do you really expect to "win" on the grounds that you can read it and I can't? Ibn Ishaq dates from the early Abbasid period when both history and hadith were first being written down; if he gives two stories, then it's to be expected that there would be a number of hadith supporting BOTH stories. Zora 05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora: You are POV pushing BIG TIME, and you know it. You are ignoring what The George Washington University calls "one of the major intellects of our time."[1]

So, a press release advertising a lecture proves anything? A quick Google brings up numerous other people advertised as "major intellects of our time" or "greatest intellects" etc. How about Mindy Fullilove, Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Richard Dawkins, Rabbi Siegel Adin Steinsaltz, and Leonard Bernstein? Sorry, rep in the field is usually proved by citation indexes, not by press releases.

No Zora, you are wrong. In Islamic studies circles, Nasr is considered a super heavyweight. Everyone knows that. He has 500 published articles alone. Im not going to debate you on this. Your ignorance insults my intelligence.--Zereshk 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It CLEARLY says Ali was the first to embrace Islam on page 133 of Expectation of the millennium: Shi'ism in history / edited, annotated, and with an introduction by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr. 1989.

Well, yes, that's a Shi'a source, it gives Shi'a dogma.

To begin with, your desparate polemic proves nothing. I can name a dozen sources that do not mention your authors likewise. It proves squat. When Nasr says something, you'd have to have a lot of nerves (or an agenda) to refute or ignore him. He has in fact written many books on the history of Islam.

None cited in major works of Islamic history.

His PhD was on the History of Science in Islam. His title is "Professor of Islamic Studies", not "professor of Philosophy". PBS [2], or The UN selects him as an Islamic scholar, not a Shia one, to lecture on Islam at the UN [3][4], and you give yourself the arrogance to ignore him? His biography alone blows away the accomplishments of all your authors COMBINED.[5] There are entire books written in honor of him [6],

Yes, that's called a festschrift. It's an academic tradition. Many many scholars have had festschrifts dedicated to them.

entire conferences in honor of him [7]. --Zereshk 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many scholars, living and dead, have been the subjects of conferences. Zora 21:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No more wasting time with Zora[edit]

Ali was the first to convert. No ifs, ands, or buts.

In addition to Ali having stated it himself in his own Nahj-ul Balaghah, and Nasr (which Zora amusingly dismisses as unrelaible), it is even stated by Zora's own references:

It is clealrly stated by Ibn Ishaq in p114 where he says: "Ali was the first male to beleive in the apostle of God, to pray with him, and to beleive his deivine message..." This is given in p153 of Muhammad and the Origins of Islam by Peters, F. E, 1994.

--Zereshk 23:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" You shall inform my nation about the truth and what they dispute after me": Sunni reference:

al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112, who wrote this is an authentic Hadith according to the stipulation of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim). [This would mean that the chain of narrators are considered to be authentic as stipulated by Bukhari and Muslim]

al-Hakim also narrated that:

Salman al-Farsi said that the Messenger of God said: "The first one of you to drink from the Basin on the Day of Judgment is your first Muslim, Ali, the son of Abu Talib." Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112

Ibn Hisham recorded that:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the first male to believe in the Messenger of God and that he prayed with him while he was only ten years old. Sunni reference: Biography of the Prophet, by Ibn Hisham, v1, p245

The famous Sunni Historian, al-Tabari also wrote:

The first three to offer prayers were Muhammad (PBUH&HF) , Khadija and Ali (AS). Sunni reference: History al-Tabari, v2, p65

Also Khateeb al-Baghdadi, in his book quotes Imam Ali that:

Ali said: "I was the first one to accept Islam at the hands of the Holy Prophet." Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v4, p333

Despite overwhelming evidence, Zora still refuses to give up. And I just used resources at my personal disposal. I havent even used our library yet. Thank God for American public schools. Truly a blessing. Enough for today. I'll let Striver hold the fort now...

--Zereshk 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the Sunni Partisan editing[edit]

For any arbiters,

I dont have time to go around and debate in cycles. Sources claiming Ali as being the first male to convert to islam FAR outnumber sources claiming otherwise.

So please tell these partisan editors to stop messing with the page.

I've outlined some sources:

Ibn Ishaq in p114 clearly says it. And he is considered by western academics as one of the safest reporters. I can quote, if needed.
Peters, F. E says it in p153 of Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, 1994.
Nasr asys it in Expectation of the Millennium: Shi'ism in History.
Karen Armstrong says it in Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.
Betty Kelen says it in Muhammad: The Messenger of God.
The Sunni reference al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p112, says it.
The Sunni Ibn Hisham records it: Vol1, p245
The Sunni Tabari says it: Tarikh al-Tabari, v2, p65
The Sunni Khateeb al-Baghdadi says it, in: Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v4, p333
Ali says it himself in his own Nahj-ul Balaghah in 3 places.
There is a whole bunch of other hadith that I can provide from the Shia side. But the aforementioned shouyld suffice.

However, if needed, I can continue quoting more academic books again and again and again and again and again, until the page overflows with references.

So this is clearly not a mere Shia argument.--Zereshk 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of argument irrelevant for reversal to previous version.

It is has been proven that Ali was the first male in Islam.