Talk:Lists of maraji/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial discussion

Should we put dates/years? Dates of birth and death for the Deceased ones? Or Dates from which they have been considered Marjas for all? I don't know enough about this topic to be able to decide.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

First things first: we need to alphabetize the living ones by the Roman transliterations of their names (ignoring "al"). Then we need to make sure we have articles for all of them (A lot of them do, and I've created some links, but I really should be studying right now). The article should have at a minimum, birth and death dates, followed by date when they began to be considered ayatollah and marja.

Here's a hypothetical article introduction example (this is not a parody; I mean no disrespect to any of the living or departed marjas, I'm just trying to show what I think a standard article intro should contain, so I'm making up a "John Smith" type-example):

Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husayn Irani (1845/1261 AH-1943/1362 AH), Ayatollah from 1903, Marja (Grand Ayatollah) after 1921, was an Iranian cleric, Islamic jurist and spiritual leader for Shiite Muslims.

See how that sums it all up nicely? You would of course have all the CE dates linked so that they would show up on Selected Anniversaries, and you would link to the terms "ayatollah" and "marja" (I didn't do that here, because I don't want my example linking to genuine articles). That would be a good standard intro format, and you could have all the detailed information below it. If you didn't have time to start a detaield article, that could at least be a good placeholder stub for someone to work on. We could even start a Wikiproject for Ayatollahs or Shiite clerics or, more generally, Muslim clerics, to divide up the work and set up acheivable mini-tasks so that one overworked person doesn't havet to do it all.

If we're going to add dates to this list, I would just add the birth and death dates, and leave the other dates for the article itself. Otherwise, the list will look too cluttered. One alternative would be to have a table with the headings "Name", "Birth", "Death", "Considered Ayatollah", "Considered Marja", but I think that would just make the whole thing too complex.

--Jpbrenna 03:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Things needed to be done:

1. Alphabetize by last name
2. Almost 85% of these guys are all Grand Ayatollahs. We should correct the lists to reflect that.
3. cross-check and add deficiencies (if needed) from the 3 following equivalent lists:

• List of Marjas
• List of Ayatollahs
• Qom

--Zereshk 16:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I know we use "Grand Ayatollah" in English, but what is the "real" (Arabic/Farsi/etc.) term? Ayatullah Al-Uzma?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Correct.--Zereshk 19:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

to have the 2 lists united in one list called Shi'a scholars better i think .. please link to our list in the arabic wikipedia [رجال_دين_شيعة] --Hani el ba7rani 16:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nasr is a Shia scholar. But he's not a Marja. See the difference? That's why the lists are separated.--Zereshk 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Saanei

How come His Eminence Al-Saanei isn't on here?

classification according to school

Please classify each person as to his associated school. Also specify the website or source for your information. Gerash77 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Syed Naveed Asghar Shamsi

Someone has added this individual Syed Naveed Asghar Shamsi to the list; this learned person must be an Ayatollah, and the one who has added this name may not be aware of the difference between Ayatollah and marja. Please verify Syed Naveed Asghar Shamsi as a marja, by referring to his website, or his resalah, or add his name to list of ayatollahs. NEDian (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sortable Data

I have put all the names of current Marjas into a sortable table format, so that the information becomes more useable and customizable for the readers. Please add more relevant columns for this table, create the same for deceased marjas. NEDian (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Adress?

How comes that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marjas I get similar, but slightly longer list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.37.2 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ayatollah mesbah yazdi is not a marjah. he was no known risaleh, he is only an alim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.9.128 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "self-proclaimed marjas"

Don't delete the marjas, which you think are "self-proclaimed marjas" because none among us is to decide who is self-proclaimed and who is not. To adopt Neutral Point of View, initially it was decided that

All Marjas who published a resalah, irrespective of the number of their followers, will be included in this list.

Please take a look at [1]. Then, I arranged the article into a sortable table format. If you think that certain individual was not added correctly, please discuss his deletion from list on the Discussion Page of the article. If you don't discuss such issues with other authors, it will turn into an edit-war. NEDian (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of Names: Alphabetical OR Influential

The names of the Marjas were ordered alphabetically, because there is no standard to prove superiority of one marja over another. Possible standards and their flaws are:

1. Adopt the list issued by Hawza Elmiye Qom, however it is not popular in Shia's outside Iran.
2. Arrange the marjas according to their age, but more age doesn't necessarily mean more learned.
3. Arrange the marjas according to seminaries, but one seminary is not more important than other.

So all authors stuck to alphabetical listing of the names of marjas. I am sorry to say that one of our learned friends re-ordered the list without mentioning his criterion, and placed his favourite ones at the top. I am startled that he placed Ayatollah Hussain FadlAllah at the top, while keeping influential ulema like Taghi Bahjat & Vahid Khorasani low on the list. Please don't do this, let the list be alphabetical. NEDian (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't give importance to one marja over another. Someone has kept Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah's image at 200x200px, while others images are at 150x150px. Please be neutral... NEDian (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Serial No. for the list

I put the serial no. for the list, to help other authors about the current no. of marjas on the list. Let's suppose someone deletes one marja from the list due to any reason, how can we trace who was deleted. So, please keep the S. No. on the page. NEDian (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I arranged the list by alphabetical order, and I removed Zanjani, Mesbah-Yazdi and Malakouti; the former two because they have yet to declare themselves marjas and Malakouti because his website is out of service and apart from his Wikipedia article, I haven't found a source that calls him a marja or a grand ayatollah. I also made Fadlallah's picture bigger because at 150x150, it looks smaller than the other pictures. LahoreKid (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

---

First discuss, then make the changes.

1. You have alphabeticized the list on the basis of the last name, which should have been discussed with other editors. You should better search for an official wikipedia policy on this matter, Muslim names are. Then make the change. (It seems to me that you want to give one individual importance, no one before had the idea of arranging list in this weird manner :-) No offense meant off course!)
2. Please keep all pictures at 150x150 px. This is wikipedia standard for lists of persons. You better get a clearer image of Fadlallah Sb to resolve this issue.
3. I am not sure about Mesbah Yazdi and I didn't add his name, his name was in the list since the article was started by an editor. Ask that person about it, or bring some proof before deleting his name.

Don't delete Malakouti just because his site is down these days. Don't be too hasty in deleting individuals.

By deleting Zanjani, you have showed your ignorance and hasty nature. Moosa Shubairi Zanjani was nominated as the 6th most knowledgable marja by the Jamia Modarassin Hawza Elmiye Qom before the death of Fazel Lankarani and Jawwad Tabrizi. The list was:

1. Fazel Lankarani
   1. Taghi Bahjat
   2. Ali Khamenei
   3. Hossein Vahid Khorasani
   4. Jawad Tabrizi
   5. Moosa Shubairi Zanjani
   6. Naser Makarem Shirazi

File:BayanModified.GIF

So I am reverting the list back to where I left it, and where others were agreed upon. Make the changes when you are sure about these matters. Wassalam NEDian (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I have fixed the picture of Fadlallah Sb, now it looks the same size as picture of Muhammad Hussain Najafi. Happy? NEDian (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will put Zanjani back. Think twice before sabotaging Fadlallah's picture. It will stay of the same size. LahoreKid (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't impose your interpretation on others, I didn't sabotage the picture. I just resized it to look like others' pic, as was your wish. Why should I think twice, when you don't even think once when deleting reputable marjas like Zanjani without giving any reason and just saying that I don't know him. Be humble, man. Don't show your attitude, we are not here to bear you. NEDian (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Deletion of Marjas without any discussion by LahoreKid

I have no hesitation in saying that the individual LahoreKid has spoiled the list altogether in the name of removing false marjas, although he didn't mention what his criterion for identifying a false marja is. Someone would have to spend a lot of time in restoring the names which you have deleted in your haste. He has reduced the list from 40 to somewhat 20, looks like some conspiracy.

1. Why was Ghoraifi Najafi was deleted, while his websiteOfficial Website clearly calls him Al-Marja ad-dini?
2. Why was Qorban Ali Kaboli deleted, while he is the only marja on Afghani soil?Official Website
3. Why was Ahmad Hassani Baghdadi deleted? Official Website
4. Why was Esa Ahmad Qasim deleted, while his name was even included in the very first list in the section Seminary of Bahrain?
5. Why was Jannati deleted? Official Website
6. Why was Yaqoobi deleted? Official Website
7. Why was Jorjani deleted, while his biography at al-Shia.com clearly refers to book about his life "Al-kokab al-durri fi hayat al-marja al-alavi" (look at the bottom of the page)?
8. Why was Abdollah Jawad Amoli deleted, while his Farsi website's top section "Istiftaat" clearly shows that he is issuing fatwas.

NEDian (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed marjas from the list whose status was not based on references. You insist on adding people who don't even call themselves marjas, such as Mesbah-Yazdi and Jawadi Amoli. As for the others, I don't think clerics like Khamenei, Sistani and Fadlallah should be disrespected by being compared with other self-declared marjas who have very few followers, and most of the time are not recognized by their peers. Jawadi Amoli hasn't even declared himself marja, and there is no reference to the word marja or ayatullah al-udhma in either his website or his entry in the Persian wikipedia.

I also think it is quite sad the way you reported me, and distorted facts by claiming that I was uncivil and that I attacked you unprovoked, while you were the one who told me, after being extremely polite and civil to you: By deleting Zanjani, you have showed your ignorance and hasty nature. LahoreKid (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I leave I want to point out to two lists which should be used as references, [2] and [3], which mentions the names of the most prominent marjas after Sistani. LahoreKid (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if my words provoked you, but I didn't call you an idiot, and never resorted to say that this list was first created by me in this sortable table format, I had to spend lots of time in collecting the information and you are wasting my time, like you said to me. I have done lots of editing on wikipedia in the past three years, but never tried to say that you are a newbie and should refrain from editing seriously. Deleting Zanjani was a serious mistake, you should admit it humbly. No one here is insincere to the cause, so please stop showing your superiority and sincerity over others. No offense meant, cheers :-) ...NEDian (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the 7 names from the list I mentioned above (leave Jawad Amoli for the time being), as there is no obvious reason for keeping them out of the list. NEDian (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jawadi Amoli

Please correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know "Marja Taqlid" has the honorific title of "Grand Ayatollah" (ayat-allah al-uzma) and that this title is reserved for Marja Taqlids.

Now, if what I just said is correct, Jawadi Amoli's persian website says he is "ayatollah" and not "ayatollah uzma". In any case, we need clear reliable sources for identification of these people as Marja. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certain individuals who don't tend to use the title Grand Ayatollah for them, e.g.

1. See the Official Website of Fadlallah Sb where you won't find this title Grand Ayatollah, instead you will find Allama, Religious Authority, etc.
2. The case of Mousa Shubairi Zanjani is obvious from the discussion between me and LahoreKid on this page. You won't find the title Grand Ayatollah with his name anywhere, but have a look at the letter from Hawza Elmiye Qom (also on this page) which recognizes him as the 6th most knowledgable marja.
3. Have a look at that letter again, and you will find that the title Grand Ayatollah is used nowhere in this list. Does that mean that noone among them is a marja. This is not that easy...

1. Have a look at the List of living Shia Ulema at al-shia.org. The title Grand Ayatollah is used no where. This list is maintained by Ayatollah Sistani's network, and they have kept Jawwad Amoli at # 19 above many reputable marjas. I don't think that Jawad Amoli is not a marja.

Apparently, it seems that Jawad Amoli is not a Grand Ayatollah, but the Istift'at section on his Arabic and Persian website confuses me, so I tend to keep the name on the list until we reach some conclusion. If you guys are agreed that his name should be deleted for the time being, I have absolutely no problem. What my concern is that if we delete individuals on such bases, any new editor would come and delete the names which he thinks were falsely added. NEDian (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most influential marja in Iran?

Sorry for my ignorance, but who would you say is the most influential and/or experienced/learned marja in Iran? And who would you think would succeed Ali Khamenei as Supreme Leader of Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-ordering of Living Marjas without discussion

Dear All, it was agreed upon by the authors of this article:

1. The list would not be re-ordered, and any names will not be removed without giving references or discussions.
2. The order of the list for living Marjas would be alphabetical, and for deceased Marjas would be reverse chronological, until all agree on a better standard.

The two things which require clarification/discussion are:

1. The list has been shrunk from 24 to 18 without any discussions and references. The removal of reputed marjas like Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Qorban Ali Kaboli, etc requires some justification. Please clarify/discuss.
2. The list has been re-ordered with apparently no standard at all, e.g. Ali Khamenei was moved to last. Please clarify/discuss.

NEDian (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just revert the article to its best state? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of such activities on this List as I'm just an occassional editor of this page and don't keep track of it. The suggestions are quite acceptable; Pashtun Ismailiyya's suggestion is also quite workable but only restoration may not work and some editing/restructuring may be required.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for anyone else interested in joining us, or one of us would do as per pashtun ismailiyya's suggestion. NEDian (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has FadlAllah disappeared ?

I am not a specialist of shi'a islam, but I think one cannot forgot or dismiss FadlAllah as marja'. He is the most influential marja' in Lebanon, and is very important too in the Gulf. So why isn't he on the list anymore ?

Iago098 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

source of list

I suggest modifying list of current marja'as with list of al-shia.org. only reliable and complete source about this topic (Persian and Arabian).--همان (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sayyed Musa al-Sadr was never a marjaa taQleed

This is a very nice list. I hope people can keep updating by adding marjas from before 1900 as well as update whenever new ones become prominent. One quick mistake I noticed regarding Sayyed Moussa Al-Sadr (may Allah have His mercy on him whether he is still alive or martyred). Sayyed Moussa was a charismatic, pragmatic political leader if Lebanese shia in the 60's and 70's. He was never a marja' taQleed though. Nobody has ever claimed such a thing or that even he had the title of Mujtahid MuTlaq... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.239.125 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bro, welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with you that Sayyed Moosa as-Sadr was not a marja, but deleting content from wikipedia in a hasty manner is not a good practice, especially there have been conflicts on hasty deletions from this list. If we follow this practice, almost everyone from this list will be deleted, so please have discussion before deleting content. Best of Wishes NEDian (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for pointing out. I hope I'll be more diligent in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abumohammad (talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

some names in the list are prefixed with the Sayyed title; others are not. I think the list should be consistent in that regard with the correct title for all. One way is to add a prefix column before the name to indicate Sayyed vs Sheikh. Either a small font or an abbreviation (Syd/Shk) should work. Another way is to simply add the title to all the name fields in the same cell as the name. This won't enlarge the table because the pictures already create the extra space. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abumohammad (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ALI KHAMENEI IS NOT A MARJA!

AFTER ALL THIS INCIDENTS HAPPENED,AND HAPPENING NOW, IN IRAN , IM ASKING YOU ALL : WOULD YOU CONSIDER A LEADER OF A SELF-CLAIMED ISLAMIC COUNTRY, A MARJA?WOW... HOW RIDICULOUS! A MARJA CAN WATCH POEPLE OF HIS COUNTRY IS DIYING BY THE FORCES UNDER HIS CONTROL? A MARJA CAN WATCH POVERTY AND PROSTITUTION SO EASILY AND SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT AND ACT LIKE HE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING? A MARJA SUPPORT A CANDIDATE WHO POEPLE HATES HIM SO MUCH? A MARJA SUPPORTS THE FRAUD IN ELECTION? A MARJA OPPOSES MAJORITY OF PEOPLE'S WILL? A MARJA LOOKS AT EYES OF POEPLE AND SAYS YOU STOP PROTESTING OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES ? OH AND DOES A MARJA SAY THE DECISIONS AND RIGHTS OF "VALI FAQIH"(SUPREME LEADER) IN ALL THE MATTERS THAT CONCERNS ISLAM AND MUSLIMS,IS ABOVE THE WILL AND DECISION OF THE WHOLE NATION??? PLEASE REMOVE HIM NOW! THISISME! 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To be a Marja(& Mujtahid) one has to publish a resalah(regardless the number of followers they have). And this basic requirement is fullfilled by Aqa-e-Khamnei. Although I am not adherent of Vali-e-Faqih school of thaught, but in general Vali has more right on an individual then oneself(If you remember words of Prophet(sawa) on day of Ghadeer-e-Khum "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?" People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God.").

Although I'm grevious about present conditions in Iran but it should be remembered that this page has to do nothing about Iranian political conditions and Iranian/Persian enthusiasts should refrain from editing this article on basis of their political stand.

Any Marja(& Mujtahid) will continue to be adhered as such until group of Maraja'e(& Mujtahideen) pass an edict/decree against him.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

with all the respect ,this does not have anything to do with politics ,neither iranian, but im pretty sure it does have something to do with humanity ,with religion,with the face of islam for those who are reading this article and know his level ,know what actions he takes,and what do they think of this school of religion? what do they think of Islam? what do they think of Shia society?... you say: "Any Marja(& Mujtahid) will continue to be adhered as such until group of Maraja'e(& Mujtahideen) pass an edict/decree against him." please don't tell me that there are not Marjas who have not done that,yes there are,it's that we just don't know about them and their statements that much because the media under the control of Ali Khamenei and his forces are censoring the media and keeping those Marjas at home by force so that people would not be able to hear them saying the truth. please read this, paragraph as Supreme Leader ,carefully! all these Marjas are well knows among Shia muslims and this,this end of the page paragraphs, and wiki itself article [Ali Khamenei] section 4.2 , after all even me know that a person who does not know anything about human rights and fairness is not a Marja ! well it doesn't take a genius.THISISME! 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i will remove Ali Khamenei from the list if there is no more reply to this section 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycarcomed (talk • contribs)

I'm so disappointed. what do those people who just remove and add the name of Marjas without even referring to the talk page think? have you people got any idea about the concept of talk pages? how about some respect? if i wanted to just remove the name of Ali Khamenei without any notice i would do it earlier! what's the point of just removing his name one day, and the other day someone else comes and undo the edit and call it a vandalism! users : Faizhedar,70.180.205.119 and Syed.Nedian please discuss in talk page or else it will turn into an edit war. thanks :D 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycarcomed (talk • contribs)

I was on wikibreak till today, will respond tomorrow(if you can wait till then). There is already an edit war on this article underway. And plz sign your comments(or you have outsourced this work to poor Sinebot).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your response ,yes i can wait ,like i've been till now, and i swear i signed my comment but God knows why i can't see any signature now!Ycarcomed (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned above about Aqa-e-Khamnei if any point is unexplained plz point it out. Arabic Wikipedia maintains similar list here at [رجال_دين_شيعة] and it also includes him. Neither democracy prevails here nor personal choices & preferences but we should adhere to facts. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

please read your 1st reply on this section that you mentioned : "Any Marja(& Mujtahid) will continue to be adhered as such until group of Maraja'e(& Mujtahideen) pass an edict/decree against him." i provided links regarding your statement, now i guess you did not even read them and again you direct me back to the same issue.there are Marjas who have criticized him and issued fatwa against Ali Khamenei and pronounced him Illegitimate and paid a pice for just saying the truth ,Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the most senior cleric living in Iran, and one of the top two Marjas in Shia Islam issued several fatwas against him,Grand Ayatollah Alavi Gorgan has been a critic of Ali Khamenei and other senior Grand ayatolallhs who i provided in those links above. please read them all and search a little bit on google yourself.some more you just set one condition for somene to be Marja which is just publishin Resalah... there are several requirements for a cleric to be a Marja and i guess we already know them all. oh and democracy does not prevail here? well Wikipedia is all about democracy!Ycarcomed (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You have provided 4 links of which :

• first i.e. this is transclusion of wikipedia article,
• second i.e. this belongs to group which is one of the opposers of present Iranian system & regime,
• third i.e.this belongs to presumed neutral party,
• fourth i.e. Ali_Khamenei#Appointment_as_Supreme_Leader this is an wikipedia article

According to wikipedia policies you can't quote wikipedia as primary reference; hence, first & fourth are out of race. Also if you have noticed there is a neutrality notice on this article on Wikipedia i.e. wikipedia identifies this article not to be neutral.

As second link is of opposition group it can't be neutral; hence, although it will be considered as point of view but is not point of judgement(e.g. case of Prophet Muhammad ^ص article, if consider point of view of oppsition group and formulate article on that basis it will be totally anti Prophet & Islam)

Fourth link is of presumed neutral institution and is worth considering; but in the article itslef Aqa-e-Khamnei is reffered to as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and there is seperate article on same website with heading Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei which you can find here]. The article further states "he was introduced as Marja-e Taqlid (religious authority followed as source of imitation) by the Qom Theological School." further "more than 70 leading ulema in Iran declared Ayatollah Khamenei as being qualified for issuing fatwa on 'ifta' on controversial or complex points of points of religion."

All the articles although are crtical of Aqa-e-Khamnei's poltical & administrative domain but no article questions his religious domain far from challenging his status of Marja-e-Taqlid.

There may be individuals who are misquoted or actually anti Khamnei but until group of Maraja'e(& Mujtahideen)(i.e. a joint statement from them or from seminaries e.g. Najaf or Qom, etc.) pass an edict/decree against him he'll be considered as Marja-e-Taqlid.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

those links have references to websites and articles which are absolutely reliable and neutral because all of them are quoted referring to the statements of Grand Ayatollahs so maybe the websites which cited them are political or confusing but the words originally come from them who are Marjas themselves

alright then,so the statements from Grand Ayatollahs like Hussein Ali Montazeri, Mohammad Shirazi, Hassan Tabatabai-Qomi ,Yasubedin Rastegari ,Mohammad Alavi Gorgani... are nothing because Qom called him Marja :) time will reveal!

God bless.Ycarcomed (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that means that this topic is closed? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

why it should be closed? we wait, maybe someone got somethin' to say.Ycarcomed (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just asked and as per my experience nothing is closed on wikipedia. I'll wait and watch. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 09:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Ycarcomed (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear brothers, my humble opinion is that to be a marja,

1. One has to be a Mujtahid, i.e. possesses ijazah's of ijtihad
2. His verdicts are published as a resalah (not a necessary condition though)
3. A group of recognized marja's haven't issued a verdict against him

These conditions are the basic criteria of making one marja. As far as I know:

1. Ayatollah Khamenei was awarded ijazah by late Ayatollah Taqhi Bahjat (a cleric comparable to Ayatollah Montazeri in stature)
2. He published his resalah long ago
3. No marja, except Ayatollah Montazeri, has denounced his marjaiyyat. If any other marjas (e.g. Ayatollah Rohani, Ayatollah Saanei, etc) have gone against him, they have issued verdicts against his government policies as a whole, NOT his marjaiyyat.

You may contest his position as the Supreme Leader (on the relevant wiki page off course), and may quote these marjas or his policies to prove your point. But deleting him from List of Marjas is inappropriate, as none of the actions you aforementioned could be reason to annul his marjaiyyat. This is like: if the Chief of a Medical Association is found guilty of corruption, you say he is no more a doctor!!! Or if the Attorney General misuses his powers, you say he is no more a lawyer. Please make distinction between Ayatollah Khamenei as the Supreme Leader and as a Marja, they are two separate issues, please don't intermingle them. Regards, NEDian (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Syed Nedian for briefing up the conversation andd adding your points but regretfully all these conversations and efforts on Talk page have not stopped vandalism of the list. Any suggestion to stop that? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 11:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Brother Sayed Faiz, one way to prevent this vandalism is to ask for protection or semi-protection of this article NEDian (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Info About Ayatollah Taleghani

Dear admins, thanks for all the info you guys have worked hard to post on wiki. I read these articles and related ones very often and just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this work, it is especially essential for Iranians who do not speak, read or write in farsi and can indulge themselves in learning about it in english.

I just wanted to ask if it was possible to find a section for Ayatollah Taleghani. I understand he was not a marja and there were only a few at his time (and its unfortunate that his life time saw many great marja's hence he wasn't able to be one), however I think he is one of the most important clerics in Iranian history, and for the most part, most Iranians love him and remember his name more than any other.

Thanks and God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions, Suggestions, Consensus & Decisions (regarding ordering of lists of Living Maraji & Deceased Maraji)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the Suggesstions (for ordering of list of Living Maraji & Deceased Maraji). Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

Discussions

Firstly, I think the marji should be arranged either by year of birth or alphabetically. It is the Surnames that should be listed alphabetically not the first names! It is unprofessional to leave them in random order. Secondly, I think the spellings of their names should be universalised. For example, For Sayyid Khamenei, his Sayyid name is spelt 'Hosseini' whereas it is spelt 'Husaini' for Sayyid Sistani. I propose using the standardised arabic transliteration. So for that name it should be 'Husayni'.--IsaKazimi (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the table is sortable so you can sort by any column you wish. The only point to discuss is what should be the default sort column; all the editors had agreed on the name column. Now you are suggesting to sort on surnames. I think it's better to discuss this issue before going for changes (which you have done by the way), because in future some other person would like to see the list in some other order and he would make the changes that way. Anyways, my personal opinion is that we should not switch to Surnames, as many marjas don't have a surname (e.g. Ayat. Hussain Fadlallah, Ayat. Ishaq al-Fayyad, etc).

On the second point of universalizing the spellings, I would say it's better to use that spelling for the name of an individual which is being used by their official websites. For example, Ayatullah Fadlallah's Website spells "Muhammed" and Ayatullah Najafi's Website uses "Muhammad"; the former uses "Hussein" and the latter "Hussain; so I think we should standardize according to these websites' spellings. In case there is no English page of a marja's website, like that of Ayatullah Bayat Zanjani, we may use some agreed upon standard to spell their names. NEDian (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i should have discussed first. You are free to undo my changes if you feel it necessary. Although the last names of marji are not always their family names 'e.g. al-Sistani' it is the name that they are recognised by. For example, 'Ali al-Sistani, is known as Ayatullah al-Sistani, not Ayatullah 'Ali. Same with Sayyid Khamenei. The middle names are usually either their family (sayyid) name of apart of their first name. I think you are right about about the spellings of names however. Another suggestion is that we should include the title 'Sayyid/Mirza' when necessary because that is apart of their name. Also, we should maybe include the arabic text of their names in the name column. Just a suggestion.--IsaKazimi (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its better to arrange list asper the names (& not the full names) of the marji because as Syed Nedian has pointed out that few of them don't have surnames. Few of them have complex naming e.g. Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini the full name of Ruhollah Khomeini, in this Sayyid & Mousavi are both surnames & Khomeini (apparent surname to Westerners) is name of the place to where his family came from (after migration) while his name is Ruhollah which appears to be middle name; its better to set aside surname.

Regarding your suggestion about including the title 'Sayyid/Mirza' is quiet acceptable. We can add a separate column before/after name for this.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept that their last names are not surnames as we know in the west. However, these are still the names that we all identify them by. So we knew Sayyid Khomenei as Ayatullah Khomeini, not Ayatullah Ruhullah or Ayatullah Musavi. Thus the name Khomeini becomes his de facto surname although it is not his family name. We must make the page readable to non-Muslims also, who may be ignorant of the naming system amongst both Persians and Arabs. For example, not many people actually know Sayyid Khomeini's forename. So if they were to check the list alphabetically, they would search for the name 'Khomeini' not 'Ruhollah'. That is merely my point. I do not think another column is necassary to add their title. If you see the table of deceased marji, you will see that Mirza Jawad Tabrizi is called such without the need of an extra columm--IsaKazimi (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Deceased Maraji has agreed standard of Date of Death as auto-ordering criteria. So there name/surname/title are not that important.

Now regarding List of Living Maraji:

On this Talk page once it has been agreed to exclude titles(Syed, Sayed, Sayyed, Mirza, etc.) from the list and to have forename as ordering criteria.

Now if we tend to make common name as ordering criteria, it can be done as it is more practical & rationale. But then we must not use prefixes like Al, Agha, Aqa, Syed, Mirza, etc as they differ regionally, no one calls Ayatullah Sistani as Ayatullah al-Sistani in Indo-Pak region rather he is called Ayatullah Sistani or Aqa-e-Sistani or Sistani Sahab which may be different from the case in Central Asia & West. We can have two columns one of Common Name (or something like that) which has name of Marja as he is known to general public without any prefixes e.g. Sistani, Najafi, Montazari, Khamnei, etc. and other having Full Name e.g. Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini' with all titles, prefixes & suffixes. Default ordering will be according to Common Name while all other columns could be ordered at will.

Apart from this we can have dual ordering criteria, i.e. based on no. of followers of each marja(for prominent maraji for whom verifiable estimates from sources are available) & then common name(for lesser maraji for whom exact data can't be obtained). I think this will be more logical & rationale as importance of marja is based on his following. This ordering will do more justice to list. If this ordering criteria is agreed, I'll try to gather verifiable & reliable sources to support ordering.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 11:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you make some good suggestions brother. As I have always said, you are free to undo my changes that you feel are inappropiate. Yes, a seperate column for their full name is a good idea, preferably with a standardised transliteration and with accompanying arabic text if possible. However, I still do not understand why their common name would be used as a basis for ordering criteria. I go back to my previous examples...Ayatullah al-Sistani is never known as Ayatullah 'Ali. Neither is Ayatullah Khamenei known as Ayatullah 'Ali. We known our marji first and foremost by their 'last names'. Thus they should be ordered as such. The official websites of marji usually have their last names contained within the URL which proves this. As for the terms 'Aqa/Agha', they are completely different to the terms 'Mirza/Sayyid'. Agha is used as a sign of respect and is not officially apart of the names of the marji, whereas 'Sayyid/Mirza' are. Also, although the Shi'a on the Indian subcontinent may not say 'Ali al-Sistani', the brother above said it was best to list their names as is said on their official websites. And why did you add 'Sheikh before the names of certain marji? It is obvious they are Sheykhs because this is a page for marji. In the same way that the page that lists all the popes doesn't need the title 'Pope' or 'Holy See' preceding their name.

Finally, I think that the list of deceased marji should be flipped around. So it should begin with the marja that died the earliest and finish with the most recently deceased. That is usually the standard way when listing as such.--IsaKazimi (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had another idea. Should we include the year of the Islamic calender in which the marji were born/died?--IsaKazimi (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By Common name I mean, the name by which they are commonly known. I think you have mixed up what I said & meant. In previous discussion I meant not to include prefixes & suffixes to common name. While their full name should be in the proper style(may be as stated on their websites). I think there is some difference on use of 'Sheikh' across regions, here in India 'Sheikh' are those who belong to Banu-Hashim but are not from progeny of Ali^a.s. &/or Fatima^s.a. & websites of all maraji do not use 'Sheikh' as title.

What about my second suggestion about ordering?

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding ordering of list of deceased maraji, I think it has been agreed as before; but definitely open to better suggestions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your second suggesstion, if you can get viable links to show the number of followers each marja has, then great. Obviously it is disputed, so it is imperitive that the links are from some kind of neutral site.--IsaKazimi (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to gather information about the number of followers each marja from some neutral sources. Regarding your suggestion to include the year of the Islamic calender in which the marji were born/died, there is one problem which I have noticed that of Shamsi & Qamari Hijri dates.

As seen now List of Living Maraji does not have any default ordering, I'm reverting changes done to this list to last ordered state. Once this discussion reaches any conclusion regarding ordering of the list we can start ordering it as agreed by editors. I'm leaving List of Deceased Maraji as it is now(i.e. in according to year of death in increasing order). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 08:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To make the list below was a good idea. It seems however, that only you and I are debating on this. So i guess it will you and I who decide the final outcome. Agreed? As for the hijri dates, I think Qamari is most appropiate since that is comman practice amongst marji.--IsaKazimi (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have invited few editors of this article for participation in the discussion till then we can continue the talk show ;). I see Syed Nedian has shown his presence by editing the headline. I think we should give others 24 Hrs from now(considering global nature of editors). If they don't turn up till then we'll decide the matter(with all turned up editors) for now.

As for Qamari dates usage I think you should go ahead with collection of date of Birth/Death, once you have dates for all maraji on the list we will include it in the list. Meanwhile I think its better to leave the lists as it is.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 10:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Insha'llah. I will try to find the dates of birth/death. It may be difficult for some of the lesser known marji however. Also, I think the above contents on this talk page should be archived because the page is becoming tediously long in my opinion. Also, if we are to order the marji by last name then maybe we should list the name in register style e.g. Khamenei, 'Ali Hosseini or Rohani, Sadeq.--IsaKazimi (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You two brothers have carried out a really good, meaningful discussion masha Allah. I will write my humble opinion in a day or two, so please don't close this discussion in 24 hours or so. Since so many things have been discussed, give me time to write about them. In short, all the new ideas and refinement of old ideas by your two are really appreciable. May Allah bless you NEDian (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alhamdulillah, yes do not worry brother. The 24 hour deadline is by no means fixed. Take all the time you need. I believe that this article has the potential to become a featured article and the same quality as the Twelve Imams article.--IsaKazimi (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nedian! thanks a lot for your appreciation. We'll wait till your response. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I will lay my cards on the table regarding this:

1. I think the Picture column should be the second column. The picture usually precedes the other information when such lists are made. See list of popes or list of presidents of the United States.
2. I now agree that a seperate column to state their title of heritage (Sayyid/Mirza) is better then including it with their actual names because confusion is avoided, i.e. A person ignorant to the meanings of the titles may think that Sayyid is their first name.
3. The living maraji should be naturally ordered by last names. If neccassary for convieniece, the names should be in a register style format. So the last name should be listed first, followed by other names. For example, Khamenei, 'Ali Hosseini. The prefix 'al-' should be ignored when alphabeticising names. So 'al-Sistani' should be treated as 'Sistani', same with al'Hakim. For this column the names should be spelt as their official websites state, if they have no official website, then we should maybe consider regional spelling. So if the marja is question was Iranian, then we can substitue an 'o' for an 'u', an 'e' for an 'i' and a 'gh' for a 'q' etc. If they were Arab, then the standardised arabic transliteration would surffice.
4. I do not think another column is neccassary to include the arabic text and in brackets, a standardised transliteration.
5. The year of birth/death should be given in gregorian and islamic dating. (within the same column)
6. If viable date can be found to give estimates for number of followers, then a seperate column can be added for that. For the lesser known maraji with whom no viable data is obtainable, we should just write 'unknown' for them.
7. The list of dead maraji should be ordered as they are, in order of earliest deceased to most recent. Another column should be added that states their age at death.
   

That is all I have :-) (By the way, I am IsaKazimi, I just felt like a change of name =D)
--عيسى (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated some new suggestions from my side and a few from brother Isa's list above into the Suggestions List below. Let's build up the suggestions list, then we can have discussion/loose-voting on each point in the list.

A few things I would like to add to this general discussion section, to get your feedback, before we proceed towards agreement:

Sayyid/Shaikh/Mirza as a Title: The use of Shaikh as a title for a Shia scholar is not to show that that scholar is a marja or mujtahid, rather it has become a tradition to use Shaikh to show respect to any non-Sayyid Shia scholar (like Shaikh Mohsin Najafi of Pakistan is not a marja nor a mujtahid, or like Ayatollah Shaikh Murtaza Mogtadai is not a marja, still they use Shaikh for them). For Sayyid scholars, no extra title is used other than the word "Sayyid" itself. For this reason, we have Shaikh Suduq, Shaikh Kulayni, Shaikh Tusi, Shaikh al-Hur al-Amili (an akhbari scholar) and in the other camp Sayyid Baqir Majlisi (not Shaikh Majlisi), Syed Naimat ullah Jazairi (an akhbari scholar), Sayyid Abol Qasim Khoei, Sayyid Ruhullah Khomeini, etc. As far as Mirza is concerned, I don't think it used as a title, rather the non-Sayyid Mirza scholars are also called Shaikh (e.g. Shaikh Mirza Jawad Tabrizi [4]). My suggestion is to use the two titles "Sayyid" and "Shaikh" only, as they distinguish between Sayyid and non-Sayyid scholars. Awaiting your feedback ...

Common Names: I strongly agree with the point that common names of the marjas should be listed in the list, but beware of the fact that some common names are simple to identify like Khomeini, Khoei, Sistani, Khamenei, Lankarani, while others have associated complexities like (1) What is the common name of Nasser Makarem Shirazi? Some say Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, others Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, and some Ayatollah Shirazi (while there are other Shirazi's as well). (2) The marja of our times Mirza Jawad Tabrizi was known as Ayatollah Tabrizi, or Ayatollah Jawad Tabrizi, yet there were three Jawad Tabrizi's in the previous century Mirza Jawad Maliki Tabrizi, Sayyid Jawad Tabrizi (teacher of Mufti Jafar Hussain and Muhammad Hussain Najafi) and the Mirza Jawad Tabrizi who died recently. (3) Mousa Shubairi Zanjani is known as "Mousa Shubairi Zanjani", rather when someone says "Zanjani" it commonly points to Abdul Karim Zanjani or other past Zanjani's (4) Ayatollah Najafi is used for both Basheer Hussain Najafi and Muhammad Hussain Najafi.

This brief list is to point out the difficulties involved, and that we would have to examine each individual case

Solar Hijri Calendar: This issue arose when this list was built first time, or individuals were added later. Many marjas' websites provided their year of birth in Islamic Hijri calendar, so we translated those dates to Gregorian dates but strangely, some sites provide Solar Hijri (Iranian) Calendar dates (e.g. the recently added Bayat Zanjani) and some provide both (Mousavi Ardebilli and Asif Mohseni). Since it's an issue of authenticity, I would suggest including the Solar Hijri year for those marjas whose sites use this calendar. NEDian (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not see the title Shaykh in the same category myself. Although, we all use the titles (Sayyid, Mirza and Shaykh) as a mark of respect, the former two have significance for geneological reasons. Sayyid and Mirza are also officially apart of the Marja's name, whereas Shaykh is not. Let me give an example also, if there was a marja whom we reffered to as 'Shaykh' but he then became a kafir, the term Shaykh is no longer applicable. If he was a Sayyid, then although we would not call him it as a mark of respect, he would nonetheless still be a Sayyid/Mirza.

Yes, I think the list should be ordered by their common names, although I do no think a seperate column is needed. The common name should appear with the rest of their name. As I say, this is easier in a register format. So we will have this structure: (common name, first name, family name) e.g. (Khamenei, 'Ali Hosseini). The common names should just be treated as last names. So when it comes to the same common name, e.g. Muhammad Hussain Najafi and Bashir Hussain Najafi, then we refer to their first name to decide who is alphabetically higher then who (in this case, Bashir Najafi). Also, to list anyone as an 'Ayatollah' is unneccassary on this page because it follows that a marja is automatically an Ayatollah. As for the calander dates, if all marjari have the solar hijri date on their website, then we should go with that. Even for those that have both, because it is best to be universal when do this.--عيسى (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we have to go for genealogical names, then we may find others like Mir (e.g. Mir Muhammad Momin, Mir Muhammad Saleh, the famous Mir Muhammad Baqir Damad, Mir Faiz Ullah (See Chapters #71, #72, #78 and #151 of Qasas-ul-Ulama)). Let me clarify my point again. Sayyid is used for dual purpose: 1. It is the genealogical name 2. It is the title of respect for the scholar (not necessarily a marja). That is why we often call Ayatollah Sistani as As-Sayyid Sistani, does that mean we are calling him by his name only without any titles of respect? We all know that the title of respect here is Sayyid. Shaikh is used only as a title of respect for all non-Sayyid scholars (not marjas necessarily), it has no genealogical backgrounds in this sense. That is why we call Shaikh Suduq, Shaikh Mufeed, Shaikh Tusi, Shaikh al-Hur al-Amili, Shaikh Fazil Lankarani, Shaikh Muhammad Taqi Bahjat, etc. Do you think all these scholars belonged to Shaikh family??? They belonged to different "non-Sayyid" clans, but they were called Shaikh as a title of respect.

You say that the title Shaikh is used for any marja, Sayyid or non-Sayyid. Could you please cite reference of a single instance in which a Sayyid scholar is referred by the title of Shaikh. Have you ever heard Shaikh Baqir Majlisi, or Shaikh Khomeini, or Shaikh Khamenei, or Shaikh Khoei, or Shaikh Sistani??? But you would have heard Shaikh Basheer Najafi, Shaikh Morteza Moqtadai (a non-Marja), Shaikh Mohsin Ali Najafi (famous scholar of Pakistan, but not a marja, not even a mujtahid), etc.

I know this division has no shari'i/fiqhi basis, but it has become a tradition, like wearing of black turbans by Sayyid scholars and wearing of white turbans by non-Sayyid scholars has become a tradition in Shia societies, and we have to follow these traditions.

By the way, you are insisting on including Mirza as a title of respect; how many Mirza's do we have on our list??? 1 or 2... And please have a look at tabrizi.org to know that even late Mirza Jawad Tabrizi was called Shaikh Mirza Jawad Tabrizi. I have explained my point in detail, if u still have doubts please try answering my questions in the previous paragraphs - that would clarify the issue...

As far as Solar Hijri Calendar is concerned, it's an issue of original dates. We don't know the Gregorian or Islamic date of birth of Ayat. Bayat Zanjani, we know only his Solar Hijri date of birth, and we are presenting his Gregorian & Islamic date of birth in our list, both of which will be obtained after conversions, and sadly both would be unsourced. So why not include the original sourced Solar Hijri date in this case??? When the official website uses only this calendar, why should we leave it? NEDian (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother, I think you have misread my points:

• ' That is why we often call Ayatollah Sistani as As-Sayyid Sistani, does that mean we are calling him by his name only without any titles of respect? '- I said we use such titles for respect, if you had clearly read my point. As you say, there is an ambiguity when it comes to Sayyid. Wikipedia doesn't permit names given out of respect. This is why I mean we should only include 'Sayyid/Mirza' for geneological reasons.
• ' You say that the title Shaikh is used for any marja, Sayyid or non-Sayyid. '- I did not once say that. I said a marja is automatically an Ayatollah.
• ' By the way, you are insisting on including Mirza as a title of respect '- No I am not, I am not for any title of respect on the page. In my opinion, it contradicts Wikipedia:NPOV. I am only for 'Sayyid/Mirza' because it is officially apart of the names of maraji in question.
• ' So why not include the original sourced Solar Hijri date in this case??? '- I said we should use that calender. You have clearly misread all of my comment.

--عيسى (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I got you right. Initially, I thought you both were discussing to include a separate column for "title of respect", and that you were suggesting to limit it to 'Sayyid/Mirza' only and exclude Shaikh from the list as Shaikh is a title for all marjas (like you said It is obvious they are Sheykhs because this is a page for marji. --IsaKazimi (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

Anyways, let's discard it as miscommunication, a few on your part and greater on my part - that is all this discussion is about ...

I am totally with you on this point that titles of respect should not be included to maintain neutrality. But now, I am a little double-minded about using a separate column for genealogical titles, that might give the reader an impression that this is sort of some 'title of respect'. Secondly, many marjas don't have a pre-name genealogical title like Hossein Noori Hamedani, Hossein Vahid Khorasani, Bashir Hussain Najafi, etc. Will we keep the title column for these empty??? Or should we include Shaikh in this column, as is done by their official websites, and we may give a footnote clarifying that "the title Shaikh is used with all non-Sayyid shia scholars as a tradition." I am a little confused about all these issues.

I didn't misread your point about 'Solar Hijri Date'. You said: As for the calander dates, if all marjari have the solar hijri date on their website, then we should go with that. --عيسى (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC) And I was arguing this very point that we should use this calendar, even if websites of all marjas don't use this calendar, , and it is obvious from the beginning that not all websites use this calendar. My point was that we should use it for those marjas whose websites use this calendar, especially for those who use only this calendar like Bayat Zanjani and Noori Hamedani.

NEDian (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem brother :-) Regarding my earlier point about the title 'Shaykh', that was a misunderstanding. I use Shaykh just to mean someone who is a scholar, but without a higher rank (i.e. Hujjat al-Islam, Ayatullah). Yes, I accidentally placed my tick for the seperate column idea, I changed that to the above row. As I say, 'Sayyid/Mirza' are actually apart of the marja's names, obviously for geneological reasons. You're a Sayyid yourself brother, and you can testify to that. Whereas 'Shaykh' is a title that is given to people. So Bashir Najafi, wasn't born Shaykh Bashir Najafi. 'Ali al-Sistani was born Sayyid 'Ali al-Sistani. Regarding the solar hijri dating, yes I agree with you. --عيسى (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother, you said: I now agree that a seperate column to state their title of heritage (Sayyid/Mirza) is better then including it with their actual names because confusion is avoided, i.e. A person ignorant to the meanings of the titles may think that Sayyid is their first name. --عيسى (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC). This is a real valid point.

And the other idea is 'Sayyid/Mirza' are actually a part of the marja's names, obviously for geneological reasons. --عيسى (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC), i.e. separate column is not needed. This is also true.

I have put my tick for the latter one, and now you are also voting for this 2nd option. My reason for not going for the 1st option is that I am not sure of what to fill in this column for those marjas who don't have pre-name genealogical title. But I think there should be some other idea which solves both these problems. I request you two wise brothers to bring up a better idea (as you have brought many genuine ideas lately) to cope with this issue. NEDian (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I changed my opinion again since I wrote that, after reading some of your points. As I say 'Sayyid/Mirza' is officially apart of their names and thus, should be list as such. I think that a note can be made above the table that briefly explains the meanings of both titles. I am curious however, why do you want the list of dead maraji to start with the most recently deceased? That is not really standard practice.--عيسى (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brothers! I missed lot of the conversation(over 50 hrs) due to weekend syndrome and have to read above conversation many times before answering a reply to it.

Title: I don't think separate column is needed for it. Don't include any title whatsoever (that does not include use of Genealogical titles)

Common Names: I think separate column will be of no use except for reference, we can keep it. But full name (as stated on individuals website without titles of respect) have to be there without alteration in English in Arabic.

Solar Hijri Calendar: I outrightly oppose using Solar Hijri Calendar on this page. Reasons for this opposition is that Solar Hijri has nothing to do with Islam. Using Solar Hijri and giving justification for this that its being used by websites of Ulema is no justification. Then probably if any Ulema uses some other calendar e.g. Saka era or Vikrami era or Eastern Orthodox Calendar or some other calendar we'll have to use them. I propose to use Lunar Solar Calendar due to its Islamic importance and Georgian Calendar because its English Wikipedia.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but do you still want it ordered as it is? By first names? If so, why? I originally agreed with the Qamari Hijri dating also, I just thought there is no use if we cannot get the same type of dating for everyone. I also agree with the use of horizontal lines within columns.--عيسى (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if we want to order list as per First Names then list will be in same shape of ordering as it is now; otherwise I also support options of DoB & Dual ordering criteria which will change list with great effect. Conversion of Shamsi Hijri is quiet easy to Gregorian & Qamari. Actually I'm more concerned about Name, ordering & (now) DoB as probably these fields will be basis of ordering of the list; regarding formating, we can discuss it once we are settled with current issues. By the way you took quite time to reply, were busy or what? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 12:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry brother! I have been quite busy, coursework doesn't do itself lol. Anyway, I think it is inappropiate to order the list by first names. These are not the names they are recognised by. I think it is more appropiate to order them by their last names or 'common' names. If this comes to a stalemate, I would consider ordering them by DoB. Also, we forgot to add Sayyid Mahdi Shirazi to the list of deceased maraji.--عيسى (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Common Names will also do but if you see the previous discussion, flaws of using common names were listed (e.g. more than one one common name, two maraji with same common name, etc.). List of deceases maraji is severely incomplete and needs expansion.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 07:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that problem is the same for first names. How many Ali's are there on the list? Or Husayns?--عيسى (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For first name sequencing we can have dictionary listing method.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the dictionary listing method (forgive my ignorance).--عيسى (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary listing method means ordering in Alphabetical sequence. If there are two names e.g. Ali Husseini Sistani & Ali Husseini Khamnei, then Khamnei will come before Sistani because although Ali Husseini part of the name is common but the third part of name decides order; as K comes befor S in English alphabet so Khamnei will come before Sistani. In case full name is common then we can have DoB as deciding factor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, that is a valid method I suppose. I am willing to accept it. How are you getting on with obtaining figures for the following of the maraji?--عيسى (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Suggestions

(I have made this into a table to make this easier. Since it seems the vote will come down to us three, I have assigned a column to each of us, anyone who wishes to join in is also welcome to add a column for themselves. I suggest adding a tick () to the suggestions we agree with. Obviously once we have established our preferences, we can then debate amoung ourselves before coming to a final decision)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia is not a democracy, as this polling may be challenged by any new editor in the future. Though polling is not prohibited, but it is consensus that should be achieved.

Yes, I should have phrased the above differently. When I say 'vote', I just meant the final dicision will most likely fall upon us three. The table is only meant to highlight our similarities (agreements) and differences, so we can come to a resolution on the differences.

To summarize above discussion at present we have following suggestions:

Suggestions	FaizHaider	NEDian	عيسى	Views Favour/Against	Consensus
Suggestions regarding Spelling of Names:
* spellings of their names should be universalized				0/2
* to list names as is said on official websites				3/0
* to include standardized transliteration of name accompanying Arabic text	With horizontal line in cell English above Arabic below			3/0
Suggestions regarding Titles:
* the title may be Sayyid or Shaikh to distinguish between Sayyid and non-Sayyid marjas	In case of genelogical importance only		Shaikh shouldn't be included because it is not officially apart of their names. 'Sayyid/Mirza' is all that should be added when applicable	2/1
* include the title in their name	In case of genelogical importance only			3/0
* add a separate column before/after name for this				0/2
Suggestions regarding Pictures:
* the Picture column should be the second column				3/0
Suggestions regarding Years of Birth/Death:
* include the year of the Islamic calender in which the marji were born/died				3/0
* include the Islamic year in the same column for Gregorian Year	With horizontal line in cell Gregorian above Hijri below	With horizontal line in cell		3/0
* include the year of the Solar Hijri calender in which the marji were born/died				1/2
* include the Solar Hijri year for those marji only whose sites use this calendar				1/2
* include the Solar Hijri year in the same column for Islamic year				1/2
Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Living Maraji
* should be arranged by year of birth			Only as a back-up option	1/0
* should be arranged alphabetically	as it is presently i.e. without any titles Genealogical or respectful			3/0
* Surnames should be listed alphabetically not the first names				1/1
* arrange list as per the names (& not the full names)				2/0
* make common name (name by which they are commonly known) as ordering criteria				3/0
* dual ordering criteria, based on no. of followers of each marja(for prominent maraji for whom verifiable estimates from sources are available) & then common name (for known lesser maraji for whom exact data can't be obtained).				1/1
Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Deceased Maraji
* it should begin with the marja that died the earliest and finish with the most recently deceased				2/0
* it should begin with the marja that died most recently and finish with the earliest				1/2
* there should be a column that states their age at death	there is no need of it as we are already mentioning DoB & DoD.			1/2

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) / IsaKazimi (talk 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC) / NEDian (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Consensus

Ok, we agree on quite a lot then. The most fundamental issue we must address it ordering criteria before anything else--عيسى (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To start with this activity I'm adding one more column to table below.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Ordering - List of Living Maraji

The most important one is in what way should we order it? Because I still think doing it by first names is inappropiate.--عيسى (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Table below we all agree only on one point for ordering i.e. should be arranged alphabetically. We had great discussion about this above. I think the dictionary method(which I mentioned in last part of above discussion) is most appropriate. Also, its better to show your disagreement with points in the table, so that we can have little clear picture. We may (if required) for one final time (for this season) change our views in table. By the way, is Nedian still celebrating Id-al-Azha.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but can't we do a kind of dictionary method with surnames? Like with the two Shirazis, Nasir Makarim will precede Sadiq Hussaini because Nasir alphabetically precedes Sadiq. Think of it like a register method. In a register, names are ordered alphabetically by surname. I don't see why we cannot apply that method here. I will make my objections clear on the table aswell. I asked Syed Nedian to join us in reaching a concensus, however I have no heard a reply.--عيسى (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look on table we have already reached consensus on Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Living Maraji , we all agree that :

• it should be arranged alphabetically and
• make common name (name by which they are commonly known) as ordering criteria

I think now we must do it accordingly, your suggestion regarding surnames may also be used but it will open new loop of discussion, we are already in this exercise for over 3 weeks and by the time we'll close it, I think we would have crossed a month. Regarding register method I don't think its a standard practice all across, at least at my place its not common; yes its used by few institutions/departments. I think you forgot to register your stand against point : arrange list as per the names (& not the full names) .

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have reached a concensus on common names, that is different to how it is currently arranged then. We cannot have the dictionary method if we do common names because the dictionary method only works for first names. I am still a little confused, from my understanding of the discussions we have had, common name is the final name i.e. Khamenei, Sistani. Because it also described as commonly know name, which is their final names, correct? As for my opinion on : arrange list as per the names (& not the full names) , I wasn't sure exactly what that one meant.--عيسى (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If we tend to make common name as ordering criteria, it should be done as it is more practical & rationale. But then we must not use prefixes like Al, Agha, Aqa, Syed, Mirza, etc as they differ regionally, no one calls Ayatullah Sistani as Ayatullah al-Sistani in Indo-Pak region rather he is called Ayatullah Sistani or Aqa-e-Sistani or Sistani Sahab which may be different from the case in Central Asia & West. We can have Common Name (which is name of Marja as he is known to general public without any prefixes e.g. Sistani, Najafi, Montazari, Khamnei, etc.) above horizontal line and below it Full Name e.g. Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini' with all titles, prefixes & suffixes. Default ordering will be according to Common Name. e.g.

Name
Khomeini | خمینی Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini روح الله موسوی خمینی

Dictionary method will be applicable here also e.g. take case of Bashir Hussain Najafi & Mohammad Hussain Najafi; while listing we'll use Najafi - Bashir Hussain & Najafi - Mohammad Hussain; so we'll place Bashir Hussain Najafi befor Mohammad Hussain Najafi.

arrange list as per the names (& not the full names) means names without any prefixes like Al, Agha, Aqa, Syed, Mirza, etc.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However we have a concensus on listing the names as they are spelt on their official websites. And the prefixes 'al-' and 'Sayyid/Mirza' are listed on the websites. However, I agree that we could remove prefixes for the sake of preventing confusion. We can include the full names underneath as it is on your box. So yes, I would be happy to go along with that. I will add my tick on to the table.--عيسى (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have summarised Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Living Maraji; if there are any variations we can discuss it or we can close this section and proceed to other.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am happy with that. So we can move on.--عيسى (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Positioning - Pictures of Maraji

As-salamu 'alaykum, I know this argument doesn't really concern me, but I think that the pictures column should be the second column also. That is how it is with all the other list pages. Also, i have fixed the licence on the pictures and they have been re-added to the list. Jazakullah Khayr.--Theverdict111 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wa Salam. No, this dicusssion concerns anyone that has an interest in it. Yes, you along with I and Syed Nedian agree with having the picture column as the second one but we must still reach a consensus with Sayed Mohammad. Thanks for you pictures they have helped the visuality of this article, Jazakullah.--عيسى (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Salam Verdict! Welcome to the discussion, you made some suggestions,

• pictures at second column position; I think it is well placed as it is now because although pictures add to visual enhancement of the list they don't constitute to essential info. At present we have pictures of all Maraaji in living section but in future there may be removal of some pictures or we add new Maraji to list & don't get picture for them.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that by placing the picture column as second column in any page makes means that it is essential info. However, it does seem to be standard practice. If you see, many of these pages are highly rated and even featured and they use this method. So since it makes little difference, i think it is best to have it as the second column. I agree with FaizHaidar, some people may be ignorant in recognising flags, so there is no harm in including the wording next to them. Yes, I think we should make the criteria clearer. Because Linux made some good points regarding Nassab, so we should maybe only include undisputed maraji. Hadi Modaressi is undisputed I believe, so i think he should be added. I am unsure as to the others.--عيسى (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I go with positioning of picture at second column.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Flag icon & Country name

Thanks. Since you ikhwan seem to be making suggestions...I think that there is no need to write the name of the countries next to the flag because the flag links to the country anyway. So if i click on the Iran flag, it links to the Iran page. So therefore, you don't need to write Iran next to it aswell. That is just my opinion though. Salam.--Theverdict111 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Salam Verdict! Welcome to the discussion, you made some suggestions,

• no need to write the name of the countries next to the flag; I think having flag and country name both serve a purpose because there are many people who don't recognise flags much and if we remove name of country they'll have to hover over flag to see the name of country which will be little inconvenient. We need to keep flag as it adds to visual enhancement of list.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FaizHaidar, some people may be ignorant in recognising flags, so there is no harm in including the wording next to them.--عيسى (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that discussion on flag picture & country name is also closed agreeing that both will be kept.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your assumption is correct. Verdict said it was only a suggestion that we could accept or not. We haven't and that is the end of it.--عيسى (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Deceased Maraji

I think list of Deceased Maraji should begin with the marja that died the earliest at the top and finish with the most recently deceased at bottom.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only Syed Nedian disagrees on this. But since the opposite would contradict common standards, I think this should be settled, and it should remain how it is now.--عيسى (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that means that list of Deceased Maraji will begin with the marja that died the earliest at the top and finish with the most recently deceased at bottom.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions regarding Spelling of Names

I think for this suggestion we should:

• list names as is said on official websites
• include standardized transliteration of name accompanying Arabic text
• Common names should also be listed (for purpose of ordering)

This will be arranged as following:

• With horizontal lines in cell, Common name(English | Arabic) at top then English in Mid & Arabic below

with this arrangement the Name column will look as:

Name
Khomeini - خمینی Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini روح الله موسوی خمینی

This will be applicable for both living & deceased Maraji. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however, wouldn't the standardised transliteration look more like Sayyid Ruhullah Musavi Khumayni? If we are to transliterate, I suggest also adding those special letters that are sometimes used. Like the a,i,u which have a line above to show it is streched and the h,t,s with dots underneath to clarify which arabic letter it is. Anyway, we can deal with that later, I think you you start constructing the new-look table on the page. I will leave it to you because your table-making skills are superior to my basic standard lol.--عيسى (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should start with simple transliteration(without Umlauts); we can add them add at later stage. With this I think we reach consensus on this topic(as explained by me above).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we have--عيسى (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions regarding Years of Birth/Death

We have reached a concensus about including the Islamic years to the year of birth/death. We have obviously not agreed on the type of Islamic calendar to use. Am I correct in assuming you and I agree on Lunar Hijri?--عيسى (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we'll be including Hijri years to the Year of Birth & Year of Death, with horizontal line in mid having CE year above and AH below. I support Lunar Hijri years and the reason for this has been specified in preceding discussion.

Format of Year columns will be as below:

Year of Birth CE AH	Year of Death CE AH
810 250	941 329

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine.--عيسى (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions regarding Titles

I think regarding titles we agree upon:

• include the title in their name
  • For full names: include genealogical titles (e.g. Sayyid, Mirza, etc) in their names leaving aside honorary titles (e.g. Shaikh)
  • For common names: include title(genealogical/honorary) if Maraja is known by them e.g. Shaykh Saduq, Shaykh-e-Bahai, etc.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that.--عيسى (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK! that means this matter is also settled.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Consensus summary

To summarize above discussion at present we have following consensus summary:

Consensus Summary
Consensus Summary: Suggestions regarding Spelling of Names Name column will: list Names as is said on official websites include standardized transliteration of name accompanying Arabic text (at start simple transliteration following by gradual up-gradation to one with Umlauts & Diaeresis) Common names should also be listed (for purpose of ordering) This will be arranged as following: With horizontal lines in cell, Common name(English | Arabic) at top then English in Mid & Arabic below with this arrangement the Name column will look as: Name Khomeini - خمینی Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini روح الله موسوی خمینی This will be applicable for both living & deceased Maraji.
Consensus Summary: Suggestions regarding Titles Eegarding titles it is agreed upon: include the title in their name For full names: include genealogical titles (e.g. Sayyid, Mirza, etc) in their names leaving aside honorary titles (e.g. Shaikh) For common names: include title(genealogical/honorary) if Maraja is known by them e.g. Shaykh Saduq, Shaykh-e-Bahai, etc.
Consensus Summary: the Picture column should be the second column The Picture column will be moved to second column position.
Consensus Summary: Suggestions regarding Years of Birth/Death We'll be including Lunar Hijri years to the Year of Birth & Year of Death, with horizontal line in mid having CE year above and AH below. Format of Year columns will be as below: Year of Birth CE AH Year of Death CE AH 810 250 941 329
Consensus Summary: Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Living Maraji arrange list as per the common names (& not the full names) means names of Marja as he is known to general public without any prefixes like Al, Agha, Aqa, Syed, Mirza, etc. Dictionary method will be applicable here to arrange similar/same common names, e.g. take case of Bashir Hussain Najafi & Mohammad Hussain Najafi; while listing we'll use Najafi - Bashir Hussain & Najafi - Mohammad Hussain; so we'll place Bashir Hussain Najafi before Mohammad Hussain Najafi. Year of Birth will be used as a back-up option for arrangement if in case there is no difference in the name altogether; in such cases person having earlier Year of Birth will be placed above another who has later Year of Birth. Format & Formating: We will have Common Name (which is name of Marja as he is known to general public without any prefixes e.g. Sistani, Najafi, Montazari, Khamnei, etc.) above horizontal line and below it Full Name e.g. Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini' with all titles, prefixes & suffixes. Default ordering will be according to Common Name. e.g. Name خمینی Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini روح الله موسوی خمینی
Consensus Summary: Suggestions regarding ordering - List of Deceased Maraji List will begin with the marja that died the earliest at the top and finish with the most recently deceased at bottom.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! November, December 2009 / IsaKazimi (talk Nov-Dec'09 / NEDian (talk) Nov-Dec'09 / عيسى (talk) Nov-Dec'09 / Theverdict111 (talk) Dec'09

---

---

Decisions

We have arrived on consensus after discussing suggestion and decided that new look of list will be as following:

---

List of Living Maraji

It will look like as follows:

S No	Image	Name	Year of Birth CE AH	Birth Place	Education	Residence	Website	Notes
1	File:Ali Khamenei,.jpg	Khamenei - خامنئي Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei السيد علي الحسینی الخامنئي	1939 1358	Iran	Iraq & Iran	Iran	Official Website	-
2	File:Ali Sistani.jpg	Sistani - سيستاني Sayyid Ali Husayni Sistani السيد علي الحسيني السيستاني‎	1930 1348	Iran	Iraq	Iraq	Official Website	-

List of Dead Maraji

It will look like as follows:

S No	Image	Name	Year of Birth CE AH	Year of Death CE AH	Birth Place	Education	Death	Website	Notes
1	-	Shaikh Saduq - شيخ صادق Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Babawaih al Qummi أبو جعفر محمد ابن علي ابن بابويه القومي	918 305	993 383	Iran	Iraq	Iran	Biography	-
2	File:KHOEI.jpg	Khoei - خوئي Seyyid Abu Qasim Musawi Khoei سيد ةبولقاسيم موسوي الخوي	1899 1316	1992 1412	Iran	Iraq	Iraq	Official Website	-

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 9 December 2009

---

---

Final call

This discussion is open for any new comments till 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC); after that this discussion will be archived and closed. Subsequent comments could only be made in a new section(that will means initiating new discussion). No further edits will allowed to be made to this section.

For any comments on any above Discussion, Suggestion, Consensus or Decision please enter your comment in this sub-section only.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As there are no comments from any one, this discussion is being archived. For any comments on any above Discussion, Suggestion, Consensus or Decision please start a new section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is an archived debate of the Suggestions (for ordering of list of Living Maraji & Deceased Maraji). Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of Maraji in lists: policy & requisites for adding new names & review of existing ones

Also, I think we have missed out some maraje on the current section: Ayatollah Al-Udhma Sheikh Hassan Amuli, Ayatollah Al-Udhma Sayyid Hadi Al-Modarresi, Ayatollah Al-Udhma Sayyid Al-Mar'ashi An-Najafi and Ayatollah Al-Udhma Sayyid Muhammad Wahidi. Forgive me ikhwan, my knowledge is a little weak. So maybe a few of the ones I mentioned are dead. I know Hadi Modaressi isn't though. Jazakullah Khayr.--Theverdict111 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Salam Verdict! Welcome to the discussion, you made some suggestions,

• we have missed out some maraje; Definitely we may be missing some Maraji from the list of living ones while list of deceased ones is severely incomplete. But the thing to be noted for adding names to list is that they should be Maraji-e-Taqleed & not just Maraja. Seeing present controversy with Nassab's entry, I think we need new policy & requisites for adding new names to list & need review of existing ones.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I thought that only maraji who were born or died after the 1900's can be included in both lists. So shouldn't Kulayni be removed? Or is the 1900's rule just for the leaving maraji?--عيسى (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should make the criteria clearer. Because Linux made some good points regarding Nassab, so we should maybe only include undisputed maraji. Hadi Modaressi is undisputed I believe, so i think he should be added. I am unsure as to the others.--عيسى (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think for now we should not open this Box of Pandora. We will start a new drive once we are finished with current one. Meanwhile we'll adhere to present guidelines(agreed previously). By the way whats this 1900s about? I'm not aware of any such restriction. Quiet contrary to this editors were asked to expand list with Ulema befor 1900s.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1900's rule comes from the introduction Because to list all maraji from the past would require a page in itself. Maybe in the future, the list of dead maraji should get its own page. But obviously it would need alot more work and additions.--عيسى (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep expanding the list of deceased Maraji & edit intro to reduce it to This article provides the list of maraji (plural of marja-supreme legal authority), both current and deceased. In later stages we can talk about split but not now.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I will remove that part from the intro.--عيسى (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Split of list

This article i.e. List of maraji has been split into two sub-lists namely List of deceased Maraji & List of current Maraji as of now their talk pages are redirected to present talk page of List of maraji (i.e. this talk page). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

About two-part last names of Iranian Maraji

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

Iranian last names usually have one part or two parts.

In the case of one-part last names there is not any problem to identify them with only one word. For example, I can mention to:

S No	Image	Name	Year of Birth CE AH	Birth Place	Education	Residence	Website	Notes
15		Jannaati - جناتی Mohammad Ebrahim Jannaati محمد ابراهيم جناتی	1932 1350	Iran	Iran	Iran	Official Website	-

For him, his last name is Jannaati and he is identified just with this one-part last name.

However, in the case of two-part last names the people cannot be identified correctly just with one of their last name parts. The two-part last names can be divided to two main categories. The first one and the smaller category is the case that two parts are connected to each other and it is not possible to separate them from each other. It is because just bringing one of them either has the incomplete meaning or has another meaning. For example, I can mention to:

S No	Image	Name	Year of Birth CE AH	Birth Place	Education	Residence	Website	Notes
8		Faqih - فقيه Mirza Mohammad Hassan Ahmadi Faqih ميرزا محمد حسن احمدى فقيه	1946 1365	Iran	Iran	Iran	Official Website	-

For him, his last name is Ahmadi Faqih and it is not possible to say that which parts of his last name is more important in his identification.

The second one and the larger category is the case that two parts are two separated words. Mostly in this case, the second part of the last name mentions to the place of birth of a person or his father. Therefore, the second part of the last name by itself cannot identify the person and the first part should also be included. For examples, I can mention to:

S No	Image	Name	Year of Birth CE AH	Birth Place	Education	Residence	Website	Notes
44		Tehrani - تهراني Mohammad Sadeqi Tehrani محمد صادقی تهراني	1926 1345	Iran	Iran	Iran	Official Website	-
46		Zanjani - زنجانی Asadollah Bayyat Zanjani اسدالله بیات زنجانی	1942 1361	Iran	Iran	Iran	Official Website	-

For these persons, Tehrani and Zanjani are not the main last name. Because these two words just mention to the place of births which are two big cities in Iran, Tehran and Zanjan. So, these names cannot be used alone for identification of the people; and there are thousand and thousand people with these names as the second part of their last names which does not help to identify them. As a result of this discussion, the last names of the persons in the two given examples are Sadeqi Tehrani and Bayat Zanjani.

In summary, in both categories of two-part last names, it is not possible to identify the people with just using one of the parts of their last names.

In order to prove my discussion about the Iranian two-part last names, you can ask some other people from Iran.

--Koroosh1986 (talk) (13:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Dear Koorosh,

Thanks for your info about Iranian last name. There has been extensive discussion on naming convention to be adopted for common names & ordering on this Talk page, plz refer to it. As of now we have agreed standard of mentioning common names (& not last names) for purpose of ordering. Remember that Wikipedia articles are for everyone and not for specific locale thats the reason we also agreed on standard Arabic transliteration of the spellings of name etc & not local transliteration(in absence of one used by Maraji's website). I once more request you to go thru foregoing discussion on common names, etc.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

Yes, I see. Just I am wondering about “common names”. By “common names”, you mean the name that a marja is famous by? Please confirm that if I am true. In this case, later I need to change some of the names.

--Koroosh1986 (talk) (11:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Addition/Removal from list

hey guys im new and im having big problems adding onto th page. the evidences i put should be looked into i put up those comments about some of the suposed maraja im sorry if i messed up the page though. there are as much as 20 more marjas that need to be added and 2 non-marjas that need to be removed i will bring evidence when people are ready to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachehjonoob (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bacheh!

No problem keep doing your job just adhere to policies agreed upon. If there are any formating related or other errors/mistakes they would be corrected. Regarding your proposal for removal and additions of names to list your evidences are welcomed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks bro, salaam alekum everyone, first of all i speak farsi and arabic so i can help alot in the lists of current maraji, first of all seyed aljaza'eri is NOT a marja at all he doesnt even claim to be he is the supreme leaders representative in the khuzistan provence and the website link given says that very clearly there is not even a resalat on his website. proof is that it says "nemayandeh vali faqi dar khuzistan" aka representative of agha khamenei in khuzistan and there is no marja that is a representative for another marja that doesnt even make sense, thanks ill keep adding as we go along. proof here this sgtates his offices adress on website and says "office of wali faqi representative in khuzistan" exactly translated: آدرس دفتر نماینده ولی فقیه: خوزستان، اهواز، بلوار آیت الله بهبهانی (ره)، دفتر نماینده ولی فقیه در استان خوزستان. http://www.moosavijazayeri.ir/farsi/contacts.aspx heres the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachehjonoob (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bachehjonoob,

You believe that “Sayyid Jazayeri” is not a marja. In the main page of his Official Website, http://www.moosavijazayeri.ir/farsi/index.aspx, he is introduced with the title of “Ayatollah Uzma” (Grand Ayatollah). As you know, this title is used only for an Ayatollah who is a marja. Do you think this title is given wrongly to him?

--Koroosh1986 (talk) (12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

he is a mujtahed but al-uzma doesnt necesarilly mean hes a marja per say...as i said there is NO marja who represents another marja becuase that negates the whole purpose of marjayat(aka being the rep.of the 12th imam)...did you even look at my links i put from his website?? im saying that even though it says al-uzma there is absolutly no evidence that he claims...HE claims hes a marja..sayid jazaeri is very prominnt in the iranians news and especially RASANEWS.COM but nowhere does it say hes a marja even if you look at official iranian websites the links to marja section do NOT include him NOR does the webstie of jamea almodareseen which is the most power group of scholars who monitor maraji qualifications. ps bring me evidence from ANY source that he or his followers say hes a marja?? also one more point...every marjas sight sayd "website of marja aliqadr ayatollah al-uzma......" with the emphasis on marja aliqadr being hes a marja his website does not say this while allllll other marjas do says this.....remove this man becuase although hes a sholar hes not a marja and this is missinformation. if you read the link i posted earlier you will se he is agha khameni rep. and marjas send thier reps. to all differant cities and provinces and countries....but the point in a marja is to be the rep. of 12th imam and NO LONGER REQUIRE TAQLID since he is the point of imulation now why would another marja be a marjas rep. becuase that would mean hes doing taqlid??? this is illogical and not to mention noone has brought official proof that he is a marja p.s. why was ayatollah shabiri zanjani removed he is a well known marja?????? ok salaam, wow im suprised people actually have been listening to my posts, now we have a list of correct marjas but...BUT there are still atleast between 10-20 more personalities which are marjas or pseudo-marjas that claim to be marjas regardless of the size of their followers and politicall views....ok so how exactly do you guys want me to post these peoples names or should i just give thier websites and info about them and then you guys can post them on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachehjonoob (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bachehjonoob,

You can post the websites of them here, in the discussion page, so others can observe them. Please, do not forget to put your signature in the end of your comments.

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

If you read my first comment in this topic, you will see that first I had the same idea as you about “Sayyid Mohammad Ali Moosavi Jazayeri”. But after that, I went through his Website and I could not find any statement or title for him as a marja. I mean nowhere in his website, you can find the word marja for him (You can check it yourself). In addition, I went through the different famous website with the list of Maraji and I could not find his name in any of them. Because of these reasons, I removed him from the list. However, if you still believe that his name should be kept in the list in Wikipedia, it is fine for me.

--Koroosh1986 (talk) (13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

ok thanks guys how exactly do we sign our names again??? thanks koroush no, leave him off the list i think weve proven hes not...ok over the next week i will post info and names of marjas and thier websites and proof from diff. sources thier marjas. guys i thought we proved he wasnt a marja even by korosh what is up here???? remove jazaeri from the list it does a dishonesty to muslims who dont know alot of marjayat. please remove him keep this list accurate and if you think hes a marja BRING EVIDENCE you cant just pick every sheikh and mullah with a turban and say hes something he isnt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachehjonoob (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually what you both are saying is correct that he is not being mentioned as Marja anywhere on his website but he is being referred by title Ayatollah al-Uzma which is used for Marja-eTaqleed. Also he is representing office of Wali-e-Faqih (which is different from Marjiyat). There is no negative evidence against him. Until such an evidence is established we may have to keep him in the list.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. --Koroosh1986 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yes you aare right and i agree BUT KHAMENEI IS A MARJA ALSO!!!! does anyone seriously say hes not?? there is not a single scholar in iran or iraq or lebanon who is taken seriously who doesn't accept him as a marja. yes wali-faqi doesnt have to be a marja but AGHA is a marja. but if you guys want to disagree with me you can but i really think hes not a marja at all and ive never ever heard anyone refer to him as one in iran and he surely doesnt claim he is himself you guys are only basing it on what his website says but no OUTSIDE sources have been available to suport his marjayat. anyways we should try to add the rest of the marjas to the list i will be putting their websites here and you guys can add them to the list.

here is list of marjas not on the list please korosh put these on the official list: http://www.shirazi-sa.ir/ he is a very well known scholar in iran but especially his father who was imam khomeini companion annd his father and he himself now run/ran one of the most famous howzes in najaf alashraf, http://www.marjaeyat.com/ this is a site as proof hes a marja they are posting his estefta;at, and reselat on the site. also this link gives option to "contact marjas" "tamas ba daftar marja taqlid" http://www.marjaeyat.com/fa/pages/content.php?id=86 and syed mohamad ali shirazi is on there. next is ayatolah khansari here is his website its down i really dont know much about him but i know hes a known scholar but hes kind of "underground" پایگاه اطلاع رسانی دفتر حضرت آیت الله خوانساری http://khansari.ir/. ayatollah hassanzadeh amoli hes also proominent and defffinatly a marja proof: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86%E2%80%8C%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%A2%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C here is clearly post dozens of his works including his resalat but im sure most people known of him. moe proof: http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/p.php?p=Miscellaneous&url=Ulama --Bachehjonoob (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bachehjonoob,

In summary you mentioned to three new names which I talk about them here and I express my idea about them.

1- Ayatollah Mohammad Hadi Khansari // My idea: I am quite sure that he is a Marja

Although there is a problem in his official website (http://www.khansari.ir/) and it does not open, but I could find his name in some other sources in the Net. In all of these following address, he is introduced with the title of Grand Ayatollah and also he is introduced as a Marja. The addresses are:

http://tomego-khosar.blogfa.com/cat-3.aspx (In the middle of the page in the subject with the title “حضرت مهدي (عج) موجود است نه موعود !” where he is introduced as “حضرت آيت الله حاج سيد محمد هادي غضنفري خوانساري از مراجع عظام تقليد کشور”)

http://forum.persiandown.com/thread86249.html (In the middle of the text by saying مرجع عالیقدر جهان تشیع حضرت آیت الله العظمی حاج سید محمد هادی غضنفری خوانساری مدظله العالی”)

http://www.mohaddesin.ir/news%20archive%20fa.html (In the middle of the page in the subject with the title “ديدار حضرت آيت الله حاج سيد محمد هادي غضنفري خوانساري” where he is introduced as “حضرت آيت الله حاج سيد محمد هادي غضنفري خوانساري از مراجع عظام تقليد کشور”)

2- Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Shirazi // My idea: It seems that he is a Marja

In his official website, he is introduced just as Ayatollah while his father (who is dead) as Grand Ayatollah (http://www.shirazi-sa.ir/). However in the website “marjaeyat” which is one of the famous websites in introducing the list of Maraji, his name is given as a Marja (http://www.marjaeyat.com/fa/pages/content.php?id=86). Also his biography as a Marja is presented in this website (http://www.marjaeyat.com/fa/pages/content.php?id=453).

3- Ayatollah Hasanzadeh Amoli // My idea: He is not a Marja

I know him quite well. Ayatollah Hasanzadeh Amoli is a well-known Ayatollah because of his numerous publications. However, he is not a Marja. Nowhere, you can find the title of Grand Ayatollah or Marja for him. In the two following address, you can find some more information about him (http://www.alame-hasanzade.blogfa.com/ and http://iraee.ir/page.php?3).

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

Please express your ideas about these three people. If you also agree with some of them, I can manage to enter their names and pictures in the Current list of Maraji and later I will create a page for them in Wikipedia.

----Koroosh1986 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

KOroosh thanks for the feedback koroosh good job, IM happy u agree with what i put up and hopefully theyll get put up asap. now the only thing is hasanzadeh amoli i really thought he was a marja based on one of the links i put it seems he has a resalat but maybe hes a mesbahyazdi type character who is very close to marjayat but people call him allama simmilar to javvadi amoli untill he anounced his marjayat only 6 months ago. i guess we can agree hes not a marja but the other 2 people i put are so they should be put up. while the bosses here try to put up the new marjas i will keep posting.... the next people im putting are mostly iraqi marjas that are self-proclaimed marjas(some of them) but non the less have lots of followers. the reason i say self proclaimed is because najaf is the decider of whos a marja and qom is in charge of iran and lebanon in charge of lebanon , what i mean is qom may not recognize them but sistani in iraq might and just becuase iran doesnt acept them doesnt mean they arent marjas it just means they were qualified according to najafi scholars, and also many of them declared their marjayat under saddam so they "behind" in terms of popularity unlike for example khamenei which is world known but non the less mot of these marjas are student of mohamad baqer al-sadr who over the last decade have declaired marjayat: http://www.yaqoobi.com/ student of mohamad baqir alsadr, a close ally of muqtada sadr and very close to sadrist movement http://www.wadhy.com/ hes an older less known marja not too popular http://www.alkhakani.org/ hes more known among iraqis http://www.husseinalsader.com/ more known marja hes form the sadr family http://al-hasany.net/ very controversial individual hes a young very firebrand marja who anounced his marjayat very early under saddam era, hes also a student of mohamad SADEQ al-sadr muqtadas dad(a marja). hes seems to get indorsment by agha sistani and eshaq alfayadh. hes a iraqi marja in qom and hes popular among iraqis and kuwaitis i believe he and ayatollah kadhim alhaeri are trying to train muqtada to be a marja http://www.almaleky.org/. hes a bahraini marja: http://www.ghoraifi-alnajaf.com/mag/index.php

the last 2 marjas left are both iraq one a student of muhamad baqer alsadr and is definatly a marja hes accepted by sayid fadhallah but hes anti sistani becuase hes involved with the resistance in iraq so hes very ignored or marginalized http://www.alsaed-albaghdadi.com/personalpic.html http://www.marjaiaa.com/ heres the last iraqi marja i know hes close of sadrist thinking i dont known any other info about him maybe you guys do. please review these and if theres any questions lets discuss them i cant hink of any other marjas at all that basically it.

http://www.kassimaltaai.org/ lasst one hes iraqi also involved wth sadrist movement he lived in iran for some time hes involved in resistance type activity. also seyed mohamad mahdi al-khalesi whos father i believe was murdered by the savak and his grave is in mashad iran he lived in iran for 30 years and just recently went back to iraq for the first time in 2003 heres his 2 webstites on in farsi and one in arabic: http://www.madeena.net/, http://www.khalesy.com/ hes also close to sadrist movement and thus marginalized by the more popular marjas like sistani etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachehjonoob (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bachehjonoob,

I agree with most of them. I also personally find some more Maraji which I need to put their websites in the discussion page. Is there anyone else that you want to add? If yes, please just put their websites here, so I can check them. And finally I can make a short summary of our discussion with all websites and put them here, so the others can easily observe them and express their ideas.

----Koroosh1986 (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

i have nothing to add we should get started adding them to the list. if you know more people let me know and lets begin the official list --Bachehjonoob (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

lol what did you do koroosh get in trouble or something for downloading pictures without permission??--Bachehjonoob (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)--Bachehjonoob (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the discussions in “Addition/Removal from list”

Dear Mr. Faizhaider and all others who may concern, I put the summary of the discussion between Bachehjonoob and I. Bachehjonoob suggests some new Maraji for adding to the “Current list of Maraji” and I also add some more. In summary the following persons have the qualification for adding to the current list. I put their names and their related websites here.

Please if you have some comments or disagreement about some of them, express your ideas. I wait for some days in order to receive feedback. After that I enter their names in the current list together with their pictures. Later, I will be able to make a separate page for each of them in Wikipedia, too.

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ شمس الدين الواعظي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.wadhy.com/arabic/index.php )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد محمد طاهر الخاقاني
  • ( Official Website: http://www.alkhakani.org/index.html )
  • ( Official Website 2: http://www.alkhakani.net/arabic/ )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ فاضل المالكي
  • ( Official Website: http://almaleky.org/index.php )

• آية الله العظمى السيد احمد الحسني البغدادي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.alsaed-albaghdadi.com/contactus.html )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ صالح الطائي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.marjaiaa.com/ )

• آية الله العظمى السيد علاء الدين الغريفي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.ghoraifi-alnajaf.com/oursite/index.php )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد اليعقوبي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.yaqoobi.com/ )

• آية الله العظمى السيد حسين إسماعيل الصدر
  • ( Official Website: http://www.husseinalsader.org/ )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ قاسم الطائي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.kassimaltaai.org/ )

• آية الله العظمى السيد علي الحسني البغدادي
  • ( Official Website: http://albghdadi.com/moallfaf.htm )

• آية الله العظمى السيد محمود الحسني الصرخي
  • ( Official Website 1: http://www.alhasany.net/ )
  • ( Official Website 2: http://al-hasany.net/ )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد مهدي الخالصي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.khalesy.com/ )
  • ( Official Website 2: http://www.madeena.net/ )

• آية الله العظمى السيد محمد علي الطباطبائي
  • ( Biography: http://www.14masom.com/leqaa/16/16.htm )

• آية الله العظمى السيد مرتضى فياض الحسيني
  • ( Biography 1: http://syaseb.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6167 )
  • ( Biography 2: http://nabdqatif.net/vb/showthread.php?t=1836 )

• آية الله العظمى السيد محمد علی الشيرازي
  • ( Official Website: http://www.shirazi-sa.ir/ )
  • ( Biography: http://www.marjaeyat.com/fa/pages/content.php?id=453 )
  • ( Relevant link: http://www.marjaeyat.com/fa/pages/content.php?id=86 )

• آية الله العظمى السيد محمد هادي الخونساري
  • ( Official Website: http://www.khansari.ir/ )
  • ( Relevant link: http://tomego-khosar.blogfa.com/cat-3.aspx )
  • ( Relevant link 2: http://forum.persiandown.com/thread86249.html )
  • ( Relevant link 3: http://www.mohaddesin.ir/news%20archive%20fa.html )

• آية الله العظمى السيد محمد باقر الشيرازي
  • ( Biography: http://www.imshiaa.com/vb/showthread.php?t=82943 )
  • ( Relevant link: http://www.alkafeel.net/news/view.php?y=142 )
  • ( Relevant link 2: http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/others/?mod=monasebat&id=405 )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد أمين المامقاني
  • ( Official Website: http://mamakani.com/ )
  • ( Relevant link: http://www.ansarweb.net/artman2/publish/93/article_3383.php )

• آية الله العظمى السيد تقي الطباطبائي القمي
  • ( Relevant link: http://www.saafi.org/farsi/news/ShowNews.asp?NewsID=1719 )
  • ( Relevant link 2: http://www.tatbir.com/index2/fatava/haeri.htm )
  • ( Relevant link 3: http://al-meshkah.com/maaref_detail.php?id=4024 )

• آية الله العظمى السيد عباس المدرسي اليزدي
  • ( Relevant link: http://www.ansarweb.net/artman2/publish/85/article_3303.php )
  • ( Relevant link 2: http://www.yazdfarda.com/news/15855.html )
  • ( Relevant link 3: http://www.bfnews.ir/vdchinkjldiljknlnglggfmhjfdgpfhklhlolnekonglicaphfgcabjbmbcbfbgoenonebmnhnooedohbhcnlpekolgbjhbibaaokknbenm.html )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ حسين المؤيد
  • ( Official Website: http://www.almaiad.com/home1.html )

• آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد إبراهيم الأنصاري
  • ( Biography: http://www.imshiaa.com/vb/showthread.php?t=86949 )

--Koroosh1986 (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ok korosh brother thank you good work,

ok pnly problem is this person ive never heard of and it would be pointless to put him on the list becuase theres literally no information on him and no picture ية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد أمين المامقاني so i htink its kind of pointless even though he might be a marja even though possibly unpopular.

next is آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد إبراهيم الأنصاري i have some reservations because he is a a known scholar in Iran but i dont think hes a marja and one of the links says hes a marja and the other an allamah so this is a contradiction and puts doubt on his marjayat سماحة العلامة الشيخ إبراهيم الأنصاري البحراني so i dont really think he should be put up. also on the same link it says الوكيل الشرعي لولي أمر المسلمين الإمام الخامنئي حفظه الله تعالى meaning sayaed ali khamenei official representative so i would seriously doubt that hes a marja let alone his own website does not claim hes a marja it can be found at http://al-kawthar.com/ where HIS own site refers to him as: محاضرات قيّمة لسماحة الشيخ الأنصاري ألقاها في العشرة الأولى من محرم aka SHEIKH which no marjas own site would refer to him as shaikh but as samahat ayahtollah almarja aldeeni.....

and LAST a definatly absolutly NO is this fake individual: آية الله العظمى الشيخ حسين المؤيد. hes is a self proclaimed marja but he differs with the rest of these self proclaimed marjas and that is he has NO support from other scholars and marjas and he has no proof of his marjayat whereas all the other here have some proof for example seyed al-hasany claims mohamad sadeq al-sadr reiterated his marjayat during the time of saddam whereas this guy just calls himself a marja and an imam and if you read his statements their actually rediculous he is living in jordan where shiism is banned while he makes fatwas against iran in every single statement and openly meets with arab government officials who openly stand against shiism. he seems to be some kind of concoction of sunni arab governments in the region to make some kind of antiiranian pro-arabist shiism that has no real support. now i know you said thier political vviews and suporters should matter but this individual seems very very suspicious as to his motives in his statements and just in general his religious education. another example would be many of the scholars we want to add are mostly unknown becuase of saddam era but mostly all of them are from the sadrist movement and were students of muqtadas father who after imam khomeini was the greastest marja of our modeern era so..they have legitimate credit wheras this individual is kind of a joke. he should NOT be considered a marja--Bachehjonoob (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bachehjonnob for your comments. About “آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد أمين المامقاني”, I find his official website and put it in the list; it might help you to change your idea. About two others that you mentioned, I agree with you about “آية الله العظمى الشيخ حسين المؤيد” and I become doubtful about “آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد إبراهيم الأنصاري”. Because of that, I moved their names to the end of the list. Let’s wait to get the feedbacks from others. Hopefully, they will do it soon.

---Koroosh1986 (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

i think we should go for it theres no need for anyone elses views for now if they object they an do that at anytime. i think you shuld begin adding to the list--Bachehjonoob (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)--Bachehjonoob (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have started working on the new list with the name and pictures of the new Maraji and also making individual page for each of them in Wikipedia. Hopefully I will be able to finish the task up to tomorrow night, and thereafter I will upload the new list.

---Koroosh1986 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

good job koroosh one other thing its kinda the same story with this guy ive never heard of him and theres no picture OR website so there literally no information try to find atleast soemthign on this guy or elts just leave him out FOR NOW but later jaybe we can add him otherwise it might be pointless but its totally up to you if u disagree. its this guy: آية الله العظمى السيد مرتضى فياض الحسيني and keep up the good work i hoping to see the last tomorrow night when i check--Bachehjonoob (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can go with above list as of now. Thank to both of you (i.e. Koroosh & Bacheh) for your research. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

one coment; i thoguth we decided to leave abriahim al-ansadri out because he was not a marja???? secondly everyhitng else looks good except......this man حضرت آیت الله العظمی یعسوب الدین رستگار جویباری im not going to argue his marjayat from a political view BUT please remove the link becuase it is made by anti govt people who have no interest in islam but merely use him as a tool to say hes against wilayat alfaqi so leave him on but put some kind of unbiased website or just nothign becuase it could be used by th enemies of islam to thier benefit. aka put an unbiased website but we should leave political websites OR fake websites made by thier SO CALLED suporters which usually are not thier suporters and the marja probably has no idea about what it is theyr saying about him--Bachehjonoob (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To Bachehjonoob,

Hi. About “آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد إبراهيم الأنصاري” I made one mistake. The mistake was that there are two different persons with a quite similar name. The first is “آية الله العظمى الشيخ محمد إبراهيم الأنصاري” (born 1936). You can find correct information about him at Mohammad Ebrahim Ansari. The second is “آية الله الشيخ إبراهيم الأنصاري البحراني” (born 1956) who is a normal Ayatollah (not a Marja) and a completely different person compared to the first one. You can check him at http://www.al-kawthar.com/ and http://www.al-kawthar.com/webmaster/webmaster.htm. I think these information will convince you.

But about “آية الله العظمى يعسوب الدين رستگار جويباري”, I found his name in many references in all languages (Arabic, Persian, English) and in all of them he was introduced as “Grand Ayatollah”. I put some of these addresses as the references and external links in his personal page in Wikipedia (Yasubedin Rastegar Jooybari). We cannot ignore all of these references. The point that his ideas are against “wilayat alfaqi”, does not mean that he is not a Marja. The similar case applied for Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri who was against the religious leader of Iran Ali Khamenei, and even he did not accept “Ali Khamenei” as a normal Ayatollah. But this disagreement was not a good reason to remove his name form the list of Maraji. (Written by Koroosh)

--129.241.143.41 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

if you read what i said brother i said leave him BUT remove fake links of his suposed suporters...the link you posted is made by a political group using him to further thier political goals and its not an actual official website about him or his works or speeches or aything. thats all i said becuase now more than ever iranian anti-islamic opposition groups are suddenly so interested in these ayatollahs against agha khamenei and are using internal differances of opinions to further their goals when in reality they do not at all care about islam. secondly i see what your saying about the abrahimi guy i didnt even really notice the differance.--Bachehjonoob (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see! It seems it was a misunderstanding from me. However, unfortunately the page (List of current Maraji) is now fully protected. Therefore, it is not possible to simply edit the contents of the page. (Written by Koroosh)

--78.91.64.251 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

All photos in this article (List of current Maraji) have to be in Public Domain, the page is now protected as all current images are copyright violations. If copyvio uploads continue then the protection will continue. feydey (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not fair to protect article due to copyright violations its better to intimate Users who are uploading these photos. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. Let's see if it is kept clean. feydey (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting the article. I'll try to maintain harmony on the list.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with images/pictures of Maraji

To Mr. Faizhaider,

Oh my God! I am wondering what happens to the pictures and article (Protection of the article). I got all new pictures from Maraji official websites. Later I edited all of them and together with their Web-address and choosing a proper License (based on my observations from many other Maraji pictures in the former list), I uploaded them in Wikipedia. However, it seems that the License of many other former pictures, which were placed in the list for a long time, was wrong. And because of the same License that I used both new and old pictures are deleted and my User account become blocked. What we can do now in order to unprotect the page? Is there any suggestion? (Written by Koroosh)

--129.241.143.41 (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Those pictures were destined to be deleted, I tried to fix few pics, and fixed that of Aqa-e-Khamnei. Regarding blocking of the article I have already raised my concern to the admin who blocked it. I think we'll have to wait till lock expires automatically. I'll try to upload images which are freely available. May be editors who reside in Iran can upload original photographs of Maraji with appropriate licensing. -Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

Thanks for replying. I have the picture files of about 40 of the Current Maraji, which I edited and changed their sizes to the appropriate one in order to be looked in the same size as other pictures in the list of Maraji (the ratio between width and height of each individual picture is quite similar to the others). I also have the exact Web-address (source) of each of them. I got them mostly from Maraji official websites and I know in many of them the copyright is free while mentioning to the exact web-address (source). However, it seems I am not familiar with the License system in Wikipedia and the point that, which kinds of License I should use for each picture. If you are interested, I can put all of these pictures in a zip-file together with a page mentioning to their exact Web-address and send it to you email-address. So, you will find a good way in uploading them together with an appropriate License. Please inform me whether you are interested or not? (Written by Koroosh)

--78.91.64.251 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Koroosh!

I can do the job if you send me the files but I'll only upload pictures which are acceptable according to Wikipedia standards.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It is fine. I will prepare the list and later send to your Gmail address that you mentioned in your Wikipedia profile. (Written by Koroosh)

--129.241.143.103 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK! No problem. But I may not be able to do job quickly as I will have to verify copyright status of all the images and check for appropriate copyright tag applicable on Wikipedia; and on top of that I have been busy since last 10 days and have stack of jobs till nect two weeks. But I'll try to do asap.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. No problem, you are the boss. There is no need to do it fast due to the fact that the page now is blocked and it is not possible to do changes simply. I sent you the file to your Gmail address. If you have any problem in opening that, etc. please inform me. (Written by Koroosh)

--78.91.64.64 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hay Budddy! no one is boss here everybody is equal here. I got the files and will first make them of equal resolution & then proceed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page (List of current Maraji) is now fully protected. Therefore, it is not possible to simply edit the contents of the page. (Written by Koroosh)

--78.91.64.251 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont get it why cant we fix it were the ones making the list whos in charge of this thing and who locked it?? anyways the list isnt even done yet theres no pictures or anything we cant leave a half job?????--Bachehjonoob (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The page has been locked by an Admin due to copyright violations on this page(use of non-free images) due to same reason Mitra & Koroosh got banned. This lock will expire. Then we can work on this list. But both of you and Bacheh should learn about copyright and other regulations on Wikipedia that will help you from getting into problems and saving you from garabging of your hard work.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

salaam, brother fayaz i only give my opinions here i havnt done anything on the page becuase i dont know how....anyways when will it be unlocked??? and how exactly qre we suposed to load the pics without getting in trouble???--Bachehjonoob (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did'nt meant anyone in specific. You must not take it personally, but we all should be acquainted with Wikipedia policies.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i know you didnt mean me i was just saying...anyways whats next guys how r we gona finish this project without korosh???--Bachehjonoob (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)--Bachehjonoob (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Korosh can make new account and be cautious with it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear both,

I will be still in this page. I will follow all the changes, and if I can, I will help. I prefer not to create a new account now due to Wiki rules. I will write my comments directly from my IP address with mentioning to my name. After around a month, I will again send the unblocking request to Wikipedia. Then, hopefully, they will accept it. (Written by Koroosh)

--129.241.143.241 (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

where did everyone go no more work has been done??? i was thinking we work on an ulema page aka non marjas --Bachehjonoob (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I got the Current Maraji article unprotected. Now we can work on it. I'm working on Images & trying to get free Images for article. Meanwhile we can work on other aspects of the list. Please keep it clean or it would be protected again. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Faizhaider,

Good news! If you need some other pictures from the ones that I sent you before or the others, please let me know; so I will find them and send you. (Written by Koroosh)

--129.241.140.185 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ok so whats the hold up where is everyone no work is being done theres no pictures there at all??--Bachehjonoob (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)== On Marjaiyat of Reza Hosseini Nassab ==

I'm not deleting the references randomly. This person has made a false claim. Not only he is not a Marja, he is not a Mujtahid in first's place, let alone being a Marja.

Two IPs were deleting name of Grand Ayatollah Hosseini Nassab from list of Marjas, and the article was protected from them. Right now, one of them has asked you to delete what he was deleting. There are a lot of references for Marjaiat of Ayatollah Nassan, such as:

• [5],Qom Seminari (Islamic Research Center in Qom Hawza).
• [6],Harvard University (Islamopedia).
• [7],Baktashienews (In Iran).
• [8],Website of Marjaas.
• [9],Law Website (In Iran).
• [10],Website of Shia In Iraq.
• [11],Roozegar News (In Iran).
• [12],Kandokash News (Iran).

There are other sources mentioned in page discussion. Thank you for your time and paying attention to this issue. Academycanada (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the references you have provided are acceptable from a religious point of view. In fact, anyone can make a claim to be a Mujtahid or a Marja and announce his claim on various websites. This does not change the reality that he is not qualified to be a Marja. If this person has approval from authentic religious people or institutions, then we can discuss that. Otherwise, I can create several websites and say that he is not a Marja, and make reference to them to support my proposition.

1. There is a big deference between the websites which are created by a regular person, and the verifiable references from Hawza in Qom, university of Harvard, and official news websites, which have been mentioned above.

2. If sources of big research centers in Hawza, famous Islamic Department of important universities like Harvard, and the other mentioned sources are not verifiable, then what can be acceptable?

3. This is one of the rules in Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Academycanada (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference. What I'm saying that University oh Harvard is by no means qualified to decide whether someone is a Marja or not. As you might know, there is a specific procedure that needs to be followed in order for a person to become a Marja, and there are specific procedures to verify the qulification of a person. These websites you refer to just publish the names of the people who have made the claim, irrespective of whether they are acutally qualified or not. So being "verified" (as you use the term)by big institutions in Hawza (which by the way there is none in the references) or Harvard or others doesn't prove that this person is qualified. They just verify that he has maid the claim. They are in no position to verify the "qalification" of him.

I completely understand the rules of wikipedia. People often get information from it that are not crucial, and it is no big deal if the information is not acurate. However, this case is exceptional in the sense that it deals with the religion of the people and the Hereafter. What if people are misled by this false information? Is Wikipedia going to answer in front of Allah (SWT)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.14.157 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I mentioned the name of “Islamopedia” as the Islamic Study’s department in Harvard University, and this department embraces knowledgeable experts in Islam and Islamic issues (including the concept of Marjaiat in Shiism).

2. You said: “these websites just publish the names of the people who have made the claim, irrespective of whether they are actually qualified or not”. This is not right, because the people who made the claim are more than 70 people, but names of only about 30 people who are qualified and introduced by Islamic Research Centers in Qom Hawza and other Islamic Organizations in deferent countries are mentioned in their websites, which I refer to.

3. You said: “big institutions in Hawza (which by the way there is none in the references)”. Did not you see the 8 references, or you just do not want to accept the truth? Because if you click on reference No.1, you will see list of Marjas (including name of Ayatollah Nassab) in website of “Noordir.com” which is published by the Computer Research Center of Islamic Sciences, which is one of the big Research Centers in Qom Hawza.

4. The users are supposed to edit the articles according to this rule of Wikipedia, which I ask you to read it again carefully: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true”. This is the common rule for scientific, religious, social, cultural and other types of article.Academycanada (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1- Apparently you don’t get my point. The Islamic Studies department of Harvard verifying the Marjayiat of a person is like for the Howza in Qum to verify whether a person is an expert in English literature. They might have a department is English studies at Howza; however, it is not their job to do so as there are certain institutions and procedures for evaluating that. As a matter of fact, the Howza is not qualified to evaluate the level of expertise of a person in English literature. Similarly, the experts in Howza (and not Harvard University or any other institutions) are the only reliable and justifiable source for evaluating the level of expertise of a person in Fiqh.

2-Please pay attention to my words. I didn’t say that they publish the name of each and every person who has maid the claim. Also, the fact that they haven’t mentioned the name of all the people who have made the claim doesn’t mean that there is an evaluation process. How can they contact each and every one of them, evaluate their knowledge, and after that include their name in the list? That is impossible. In fact, as I said, the only way to evaluate is through scientific discussions, which has never happened in this case.

3-If you look carefully at reference number 8, the page is just a directory of Islamic websites (I’m translating the title of the page, in case you don’t know Farsi). It means that they have a directory of the people who are known to be Islamic scholars. Again, there is no evaluation process before adding the names of people to their directory. In fact, the description of the websites states that it’s just a directory and list of Islamic websites. This is just a database of Islamic websites on the net that have been collected and categorized by this institute, without any high-level evaluation. If you doubt what I’m saying, just contact them and ask about it.

4- Once again, I do understand the rules of Wikipedia. I’m just trying to avoid the consequences that might occur to the readers as a result of not being an expert in this field. People usually rely on the provided information and do investigate further. As I said, this might not be that critical in other issues, but as for religion, it might lead to deviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.14.157 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ummm ok....ONLY THE AHL-KHOBERAH can decide whos a marja!!! not canada lol what the hell is this?? and by the way our criteria was pretty stringent for this list but we concluded that we would put semi-marjas who claim marjayat but are not acreditied by qom. and even qom cannto completly say whos a marja becuase sistani said recently that qom does not decide who is and isnt a marja. and with the exception of like 2 people on this list almost all of these individuals are accepted maraji we have posted proofs on here. also most if not all of these indivuals live in iran or iraq and for them to claim marjayat in those cities means you need some kind of credentials you need to go through long periods of time in the howzeh and if not people let alone other maraji will not accept you. a maraja is accepted if he reaches level of ijtehad and feel;s he no longer needs to do taqlid then he can recieve khoms from followers if they accept him. i had my doubts about this nasab guy but i asked ayatollah mukaram alshirazi and he did not deny or agree meaning that hes not either for or against it but rather that person feels he is of the level of marjayat and that is his perogative.....secondly now that shia are mroe free you are going to see alot more people claiming marjayat and the system of howzeh is a very close knit system between them and they dont necessarily publish who is and isnt a marja to post for canada or harvard its kind of an understood relationship among the higher level ranking ayatollahs.ps do not remove anything guys unles there is complete agreement among all people especialy non muslims should not have a say in this becuase we dont know what thier intentions are--Bachehjonoob (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The Islamic Studies department of Harvard verifying the Marjayiat of a person is like for the English studies department of Hawza in Qum to verify whether a person is an expert in English literature. Both of them are valid as references in articles.

2. Beside that source, I mentioned seven other Islamic and news organizations such as Islamic Research Center in Qom and Baktashia News which are located in Iran, Iraq and other countries.

3. The mentioned sources above have published list of Marjas who are approved by them, and nobody forced them to add or to delete a name.

4. The responsibility of users is to edit articles in Wikipedia according to what is published in other verified sources, and to mention those references. If you as a Shia person want to choose one specific Marja among the list of Marjas to follow, you have freedom of choice to select one of them according to criteria which is mentioned in the Resalah of all Marjas.

5. Based on the mentioned rule in Wikipedia, if a person does not believe in Marjaiat of one specific Marja whose name is published in verifiable sources as one of marjas , then that person cannot delete his name from the list, but he/she can choose his/her favorite Marja from the list. We should respect the rules of Wikipedia. Academycanada (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

' 1-Yes, they may be valid as jut references, but they are not qualified to evaluate the mentioned concepts. For any scientific evaluation, there is a specific institution in charge. None of the institutions that are referred in the article have the religious authority to verify a person’s Marjayiat.

2-Again, none of them have the authority to do so. Just imagine if a news organization become the source for verifying the authenticity of a scientific matter!

3-Although they are not forced to do so, their supposed approval is not from a scientific or religious point of view. Hoe can they actually verify his Marjayiat without having evaluated his knowledge? After a Mujtahid teaches for several years in Hawza and trains numerous students to become a Majtahid, it is proven that he is at the level of becoming a Marja. This person has been out of Hawza for many years, and he hasn’t trained a single student.

4, 5- Like I said, I do understand the rules of Wikipedia. Most probably you are not a Muslim, or if you are, you pretend not to be. To me, as a Muslim, the issue of guidance and deviation of people is far more important than the rules of Wikipedia. It is my duty to inform them this person is not qualified to be a Marja. However, at the end of the day, I can’t force them not to choose him as a Marja. The reality is that even if we assume he is a Mujtahid, one has to come to certainty that he is the most knowledgeable among all the Maraji, which is absolutely preposterous. I personally know SEVERAL Mujtahids and experts in Islamic studies who know this person and testify that he is nowhere close to being a Mujtahid, let alone a Marja! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.14.157 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

completly agree with the person who wrote the previous message there is now a plot by think tanks to appoint maraji or "pro-american" maraji and to proport lots of pseudo maraji that will try to weaken the traditional system I have just read an article by karim sajadpour an american iranian stooge that said the united states needs to quote "support maraji against waliayat faqi and pro democracy maraji" this is dangerous NO kafir has the right to decide or interpret our religion period make sure this page stays in hands of people who have proofs and I have worked hard on this page like many others to help guide muslims in doind taqlid if other people start picking and choosing it can be dangerous especialy non muslims. i even to be fair put people i dont consider a marja (i.e. sana'ei) but is still respected by many!!!--204.62.40.196 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Islamic research center in Qom Hawza and other famous Islamic centers in Iran and Iraq which I have mentioned above are among the best references for Shiite issues, and they do not introduce American Marjas! When you call some Marjas as American and put the name of Ayatollah Saan'ei , you should mention the references in your note. Otherwise please don’t insult other Marjas.

If you have a personal problem with one of Marjas whose name is published in valid and verified references, please do not remove their name from the lists in Wikipedia and do not insult them, and try to solve your problem out of Wikipedia. Academycanada (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been monitoring above conversation(this one and prevoius ones at diiferent pages) for long, seeing the considerations & ponts presented by different users I think for now we will keep Nasab in the list. I'll add a not e to the list saying that This list is just for sake of reference and people should not accept it as proof of Marjaiyat for enlisted candidates. To choose & decide Marja for religious purposes please refer to the Shia-Islamic Codifix, Sources and Peole of Knowledge (i.e. Ahle-e-Khoboor). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I didnt mean sanaei was an american marja I said american think tanks and iranian suposed intelectuals which basically means they pulled thier degree from a toilet have been talking about this for a while and have openly been promoting this idea. that was my only point that we need to be carefull who is disciminating islamic knowledge.....my point about sanaei was basically that I DONT agree that hes a marja or NASAB but becuase they are considered marjas (well atleast sanae) by most others I still agreed to put him on the list and this NASAB guy i put on only because he claims marjayat and i considered that iota of evidence and agreed to put him on. like i said we said well put known and pseudo-maraji since in reality theres alot of differances of opinions of the ahl-khobara whether sistani or majma3 modareseeen howzeh ilmiyeh qom--76.100.192.191 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s. guys i have some info ayatollah mahfuzi has officialy claimed marjayat since the death of aghaye behjat and also seyed rayshahri has said he will also be anouncing marjayat very soon we might wana add them or think about it in the future--76.100.192.191 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)