 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Most of the information in this articles was copied, without permission from here. The article should be reverted back to the state it was before the significant add. Lizrael 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A large body of material has been inserted into this article within the last few hours. It included some numerals, making me think that part of a book was scanned and inserted complete with the page numbers, which were then removed. It's interesting reading, but completely unsourced, and highly suspect. J S Ayer (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This large body of material, now returned with sources, forces a question: What group is it that still accepts Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah as the Imam in succession to Imam Husayn ibn Ali? I was under the impression that this point of view was extinct. J S Ayer (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have all these footnotes, how about tying them to the text? Do you need help? J S Ayer (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not good; we seem to be falling into an edit war here. Please link footnotes to the text (help is available; ask here), explain why you removed my two sober and properly sourced paragraphs, and make up your mind that you do not own this page; others will give it some needed structure and other improvements. Otherwise you will probably find this page locked in a short version and yourself locked out. J S Ayer (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ba-Qashir clan from Hadramaut, Yemen WHAT?
Claims descent from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, perhaps? J S Ayer (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First we were told that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah had escaped from Karbala by sea, although Karbala is in the middle of the desert and Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah wasn't present. Now we are told that Ali was one of the Umayyad Caliphs of Damascus. In fact Ali and Muhammad and their family were Hashemites; the Umayyads were their enemies, sometimes their murderers, and privately scoffed at Islam as a trick of the Hashemites to get political control of Arabia. This is fundamental to Shi'ite piety, and I don't understand how a publishing house called "People of the House" in Tehran could get so far from the facts. Perhaps an early Muslim did reach northern Burma (I don't know), but his identification with Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah is then a case of mistaken identity. J S Ayer (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the rudimentary infobox because that bot would obviously keep objecting to it. I tried to make an infobox or persondata box, but couldn't. I will try to find out what I was doing wrong, but hope someone else will do it first. J S Ayer (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the subject was born in Umar's era, but also that he was born in about 633 A.D., when Abu Bekr was caliph. J S Ayer (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A contributor put this remark in the text of the article: "Strange that ali Ibn abitalib is approachable by so called apostate. Why did they refuse to pay Zakat?" They had again submitted, so were no longer apostates. As explained in the article Ridda wars, many Arabs who had submitted to Muhammad as the prophet of God felt no duty to Abu Bakr, who was but a man like themselves. J S Ayer (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a recent objection: Ali had Zeinab, Hasan, and Husayn BY FATIMIH, daughter of Muhammad. After her death he remarried, and had other progeny by other wives. One of these was the heroic al-Abbas ibn Ali. Another was in fact Muhammad, the son of the Hanafite woman. J S Ayer (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just deleted a statement that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was one of the People of the Cloak. According to tradition, Muhammad spread his cloak to enfold his daughter Fatimih, her husband (Muhammad's cousin) Ali, and their two sons Hasan and Husayn, and spoke a blessing on them. Those five are the People of the Cloak. The People of the House are variously interpreted, so the statement that someone is of the People of the House must be explained with a definition. I am entranced by the discovery that the Kaysaniyya have apparently reappeared. Could we please know more? J S Ayer (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now you have falsified the article on the People of the Cloak, and are trying to use one falsehood to support another. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Iranica defines the People of the Cloak. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/al-e-aba-the-family-of-the-cloak-i J S Ayer (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what was falsified was the definition of the People of the Cloak in the article on the Ahl al-Bayt. J S Ayer (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have a son Abdel Fattah?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the first Imam of the Shia Muslims" is almost certainlty worng to the majority of Shia muslims, as unless i'm terribly mistaken, our two largest splits/sects do not view Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah to even be an Imam (AS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PointyPenBoy (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y It's Ali ibn Abi Talib who was the fourth caliph and first Shia Imam. I've copy-edited the sentence to avoid this confusion. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]This statement was placed here in response to the statement that Muhammad ibn al-Hanifiyya was the first man to be known as the Imam in occultation. I was obliged to remove this statement as ungrounded, but record it here as a reminder of what is widely believed:
The author did not sign his name. J S Ayer (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
