Talk:Ali/Western quotes

Western quotes

Statement of unbalances western quotes is made

It is neither biased nor un-neutral to claim that manny western scholars praised him to the heavens. What is unbalanced about that information? Is it unbalance scholars since some scholars downplaying his role or character? Which scholar? I have not seen any such scholar. In what way does it unbalance to present that he is highly praised among western scholars? --Striver 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't. You're cherry-picking quotes. The academic material I read is neutral vis-a-vis Ali. Even Madelung, who often takes the Shi'a viewpoint, does not praise Ali to the heavens. As for the older Western scholars -- Madelung regards them as generally prejudiced against Ali. Lammens, he says, describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable". I am darn sure that I've read more academic material than you have and I regard those quotes as serious misrepresentations of the academic viewpoint. Zora 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Lammens, he says, describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable". Good, thats one quote. That makes it like 20 praisequotes vs 1 anti quote and x neutral quotes. Give me a few more neutral quotes... We are making progress. --Striver 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now when i think about it, you stated: "Even Madelung, who often takes the Shi'a viewpoint, does not praise Ali to the heavens."

Then, what it this?

Wilferd Madelung:

"In face of the fake Umayyad claim to legitimate sovereignty in Islam as God's Vicegerents on earth, and in view of Umayyad treachery, arbitrary and divisive government, and vindictive retribution, they came to appreciate his honesty, his unbending devotion to the reign of Islam, his deep personal loyalties, his equal treatment of all his supporters, and his generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies." ^{The Succession to Muhammad pp. 309-310}

If that is not high praise, then what is? It is things like this that make me conclude that many things you say are based on nothing more than your personal views, explaining why you so seldom give counter evidence in arguments. Im "cherry-picking quotes"? Your own favorite author is a perfect example of my stance!--Striver 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this quote does not belong in the article. "Favorite author" has nothing to do with it; this is hagiographic material. Please do not insert.BrandonYusufToropov 17:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with his legacy and the impresion he has made on the world. That is the importance. Not to mention that he is praised for his virtues among the majority of the neutral scholars is to ommit facts relevant to him. --Striver 17:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still disagree with you on this one, Striver. BrandonYusufToropov 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that we have a "Shia view" and a "Sunni view", but having a "Secula view" is not acceptable? Peace! --Striver 18:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as silent consent, unless you give a answer soon. Peace, brother in Islam! --Striver 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that is a silent way of saying you have no more objections to the issue.--Striver 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO it is not. You write copiously, move material, copy material -- it is very hard to keep track of what you are doing. There is NO @#$%$ silent consent to any of your edits. Zora 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Then dont be silent! This is a talk page, not a silent page! So, you belive there should be a "shia view", a "Sunni view" but no "non-Muslim view"? Why? Motivate. --Striver 04:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding unbalances western quotes is refuted