Talk:Succession to Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK folks, I've started an article. I don't have time to fill in the spaces, but I hope that others will pitch in. Zora 01:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing distinction between Twelvers and other Shi'a

Zereshk, you say that all Shi'a hold the same views about the succession to Muhammad, and differ on the imams they accept after Husayn. On that basis, we might as well change the organization and just have a "Shi'a" section pure and simple.

Good move.--Zereshk 01:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One caveat: I thought that there were some Shi'a who didn't accept Hassan as the second imam, but counted Husayn as the second. I'll have to rummage through the book I'm reading to find the reference. Zora 23:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do and let me know. My sources say the divisions came after Husayn (as Imam #3). Still, this all doesnt concern the succession of Mohammad, as you pointed out.--Zereshk 01:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, the book is The Formation of Islam, by Jonathan P. Berkey, Cambridge University Press, 2003. I've found this book quite useful in summarizing current scholarship and suggesting further reading.

Berkey devotes several chapters to the formation of Shi'ism as a movement; he argues that it didn't really solidify into a sect until after the Abbasids took power. He refers to earlier protesters as proto-Shi'a or Rafidi (refusers, the term used then for people who refused to give their loyalty to Abu Bakr and Uthman). On page 132, Berkey says, "most partisans of the ahl al-bayt identified the second and third Imams as his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn". I think he phrases it that way because there were other rebels/claimants to the caliphate who were part of Muhammad's clan, but NOT descendents of Ali and Fatima. Your references might not consider these people Shi'a. Berkey considers anyone advancing the claims of the ahl al-bayt as proto-Shi'a. Zora 06:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, there's a passage in the book somewhere that has the specific reference to Husayn being considered the second Imam, but I can't find it. Maybe later. Zora 10:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kharijites?

What about Ibadi views? Not that I know... - Mustafaa 19:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, very good point. They do tend to get left out, don't they? Zora 21:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im ignorant there.--Zereshk 02:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finally, some sanity

I'm glad to see someone putting in Sunni hadith references, instead of deleting Shi'a ones.

Though it would be great if we could make them look nice, like the Shi'a section.

Also, this page needs to extensively be linked to all muslim pages. I'll get to that tomorrow I guess.--Zereshk 03:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

It seems the entire justification for shia doctrine is sourced to Allameh Tabatabaei, a highly partisan shia scholar. Books by other partisan sources may not be used as sources for quoted Hadiths, because they are unverifiable for an internet encyclopedia. They may, however, be mentioned as "shia references" at the end of the article. Unless you can provide links to neutral scholarly and/or journalistic sources that can verify these hadeeths (both Sunni and Shia), I am deleting them (after hearing Talk responses). Also, I checked out the quranic versus cited in the article, they have nothing at all to do with Ali or the succession; please explain this. Also, please do not create empty section titles. We can use a stub template, and enter the sections when we actually have information to put in them. --AladdinSE 03:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't started adding sources because I am in the middle of reading The Succession to Muhammad by Wilferd Madelung, the Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford. It is a meticulously researched work that finds a great deal of merit in some Shi'a claims. I'm not sure a Shi'a would like it -- it is resolutely secular and analyzes events in terms of power (military and economic) and the old pre-Islamic beliefs about government and kinship.

I'm also impressed by Madelung's approach to the hadith. He's willing to use them, but he limits his sources to the very earliest written collections, and he is quite willing to believe that the narrators and transmitters are lying or shading the truth. This strikes me as a middle way between accepting the work of Muslim scholars uncritically, and throwing everything out as useless and biased.

Anyway, Madelung pulls most of his evidence from standard sources like Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. So you can't just dismiss Zereshk, Aladdin, as taking his sources from late, untrustworthy sectarian traditions. I don't think Zereshk has presented his hadith sources in a form that's optimal for reading, but that's a separate matter.

Please don't go deleting things. Rework and rewrite. Zora 04:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You dont set the rules here. And you cannot and will not unilaterally erase whatever I write.

I am far more knowledgeable about Shi'a beliefs than you are. As you said, you are not even muslim. You do not know what we believe in.

Your remarks and edits are so erroneous, so wrong, and so off the mark that I dont know where to begin with.

Now listen closely. Zora, this is for you too. Here's your chance to learn about the Shi'a:

1. Tabatabaei is not a partisan scholar at all. Some may think so. But Qom does not. And I hope you know that Qom is the most active center of Shi'a scholarship today. Even more than Najaf. In fact, Qom officially endorses his book. (website belongs to The Islamic Propagation Office of the Islamic Seminary of Qom.)

2. His book, which you find "partisan and POV", is edited and translated by Seyyed Hosein Nasr, one of the world's leading academic scholars on Islam.

3. If Tabatabaei was partisan, the largest Shi'a websites on the internet wouldnt be using/publishing his works either. (Example of Website that does: http://www.al-islam.org/) ( example 2 )

4. Interestingly, The Al-Mizan website specifically endorses the book you call "partisan": The book "Shi'ite Islam" serves as a good means of removing popular misconceptions about the Shi'ah and can pave the way for a better inter-sectarian understanding among Muslim schools.

5. Aside from that book, Qom officially recognizes the hadith documentation I listed. They are listed here: [1]

6. As for why those Quranic verses indicate Ali's succession to Muhammad, in the view of the Shi'a, see page 177,178 of "Shi'ite Islam" that I referenced ( online version ). And as I said, this book is officially endorsed by Qom.--Zereshk 06:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, you're shooting yourself in the foot here, because Qom is simply not a credible source for impartial scholarship. A valid source for Shi'a opinion, yes, just as the Vatican is a valid source for Roman Catholic opinion, just as al-Azhar is a valid source for Sunni opinion.

But let's not delete all of the Shi'a sources. We probably should delete SOME, and keep only the best, but we'll get to that later. It's early days yet. I'll add a section of academic sources when I have time. Sheesh, you guys are so impatient. Zora 06:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, you don't even READ. I have given no details about myself, you have no idea if I'm Sunni, Shia. Christian, Agnostic, atheist, Wiccan or anything else. Unlike you, I'm not here on Wikipedia to promote my own system of beliefs. You can't go barging into Islam articles declaring that know more about Shia than anyone else. Here on Wikipedia you are no better qualified then anyone else. My I'm grateful for your rants above, because they give an accurate picture of your POV-pushing attitude. All those accolades you mentioned were for Seyyed Hossein Nasr when it was Tabatabaei that I described as extremely biased, Nasr only translated his work, which initself remains highly partisan. As Zora said, Qom is hardly a neutral endorsement. Your work can and will be edited and erased by any editor on Wikipedia as long as it continues to exhibit this extreme emotional shia-centric bias. As for deleting Shia sources, I have no problem with keeping any that are scholarly and actually hyper-linked and can be verified by any reader or editor. Published books can be listed in a "further reading" section but are useless in the body of the article. In case it has escaped your notice, this is an internet encyclopedia.

Now, agian, please pay attention to how you organize the Talk section. When a new section is created, please reply within that section without a separate "reply to AladdinSE" which seems designed to create a personal antagonism with another editor. --AladdinSE 07:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you, AladdinSE, re following the #$%@#$%@# indented wiki style for discussion. It's a pain. Especially when things get indented three or four levels. I wish we had a Usenet style thread system or a PHP forum instead. As long as it's readable ... why fuss over form HERE? Zora 08:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with usenet so I can't reply to that comment, but as for indentation, as you can see I generally don't indent beyond the previous editor's post, I let it alternate between a regular post followed by an indented post then a regular post and so on. Section titles, followed by numerous dividers and page breaks, are much more of a pain than that. You don't agree? --AladdinSE 12:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE,

You clearly demonstrate your infinitesimal knowledge about the Shi'a faith: Qom is clearly the world's most active center of Shi'a scholarship. That's not even open for discussion.
Nasr was the personal student of Tabatabaei for many years. Did you know that? He wrote the introduction and footnotes of his book, and actually added the reference parts to it, including many of the Hadiths I gave. Where else do you think I got these Hadiths from? (Only Nasr knows how to spell them so meticulously correct in English)
Even non-Qom sources of Taqleed endorse Tabatabaei. The book you consider "highly partisan" actually appears in its entirety on the website of Grand Ayatollah Khoei. ( see )
Do you even realize what absurdity youre saying? Do you even know what an "Allama" is? There are only 2 or 3 Allamas in every generation. Look over here. How many Allamas do you count out of all those "prominent ulema"? (Our "highly partisan" Allama is there!)

Oh, and BTW, Did I tell you that my great grandfather, Grand Ayatollah Shirazi, also endorsed Tabatabei? I uploaded this picture just for you. :)

al-Shirazi discussing issues of Fiqh with Allama al-Tabatabaei.

--Zereshk 08:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good lord, you really have no idea how Wikipedia works, do you. It doesn't matter if your grandfather was a grand Ayotollah or a janitor, you are equal to everyone else here. What's more, Qom and those sources you're so proud of are blatantly shia-biased. That is the point you fail to grasp, not that they are qualified to comment on Shia doctrine, but that they are ill-qualified to be neutral on the issue of the Succession to Muhammad. Nevertheless I thank you for mentioning all this info, because if this matter ever went into arbitration, this will be essential evidence of your bias and predisposition. Also, is there any particular reason why you wiki-link my user name everytime you refer to me? As you can see I sign all my posts so you don't need to do that. In fact it's rather distracting because it potentially confuses readers who look for wiki-linked user IDs in signatures. --AladdinSE 12:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Here's one more try.

Here's what you fail to grasp, my incredibly un-knowledgable AladdinSE:

We werent talking about whether or not Qom is "ill-qualified to be neutral on the issue of the Succession to Muhammad". We were talking about whether or not Qom is qualified to present the ***Shi'a view*** on the Succession of Mohammad. (Which it 200% certainly is). If that were not the case, we wouldnt be putting different sections for Sunni and Shi'a views on the Succession to Muhammad page.

Remember, you have been entirely deleting stuff out of sections devoted to "Shi'a viewpoints". You can hardly talk about 'neutrality' there, because The Shi'a viewpoint is biased as opposed to the Sunni, naturally. That's why we separated them in the first place.

But you have been repeatedly deleting the central beliefs of Shi'as....in "The Shi'a viewpoint" sections....on pages about or directly related to Shi'as....that are quoted by Shi'a's top scholars. That is the epitome of sheer arrogance. Specially from someone who says he's not even a muslim.--Zereshk 13:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's so sad that you cannot conduct a civilized discussion without childish remarks like "your infinitesimal knowledge" and "my incredibly un-knowledgable." Your sources are verbose and unverifiable, and you refuse to provide hyper-linked cites. It is not the central beliefs of Shias being deleted, but the un-encyclopedic flooding of articles with enormous extracts from books by highly partisan Shia scholars and Ayotollahs. You also chose to antagonize and condescend to fellow editors, by insisting on wiki-linking my user name despite my request, and using a phrase like "OK. Here's one more try," as if you were conversing with a child. If you stop taking all of this personally like some sort of contest of wills, we'll get our work done much faster and with more civility. By the way don't you think it's rather redundant to link to the Succession to Muhammad article in your last comment? After all this is the Talk page of that same article. You seem over-fond of wiki-linking. Lastly, as for my religious beliefs... are you being deliberately obtuse? I have made no representation of any faith or lack thereof at any point on any Talk page. You know nothing about me, and this information is none of you business. You don't even know if I am male or female. It's completely irrelevant. This is why you are so biased in your edits, you are a Shia first and foremost. Here, I am a Wikipedian first and foremost. --AladdinSE 14:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, you seem to be confusing "editing your presentation" with disrespect to the Shi'a. You can have impeccably Shi'a views but still have less-than-perfect skill at setting out your ideas in a way that actually communicates with and informs others -- which is the PURPOSE of what we're doing here. This is an encyclopedia, knowledge lite. It's a collection of introductions to various subjects, along with links and references that allow those who are interested to explore further. The articles have to be accessible to the general reader. Your huge lumps of hadith references aren't. It's not disrespect to the Shi'a to point that out. Zora 18:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Aladdin's insistence on hyperlinked cites. Books can and should be used as references here (see Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Books; if anything, I'd be more tempted to ban the use of Internet pages as sources!) and are verifiable by simply finding a good library. However, partisan sources should be marked appropriately: if a hadith is accepted by Shia and not by Sunnis (or vice versa), it should be described as such, not simply as what "the prophet says". - Mustafaa 18:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point Mustafaa. I too dont trust electronic sources either, if they are not backed up by hard copy references. The academia doesnt either. Unfortunately, Zora and AladdinSE have been censoring any and all hadith from wikipedia under the grounds that they are "unrelaible", "POV", or now, "unaccessible". Ive had to put up a big fight to keep the Hadith on this page. I would have done the same for Sunni hadith, billahi.--Zereshk 13:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
zora, you are wrong again. I can give 10 references in English that cite that Hadith I have put in. With ISBN# and all. Published by western printers. In fact the "lumps of hadith references" all by themselves are available as well. All one needs is a library that has an "Inter Library Loan" department. And even the lowliest state university in Arkansas has that. How else do you think I was able to get my hands on original documents from Harvard Wiedener Library, like the ones below?

Timcheh Amin-al-Dowleh, Kashan

Amin-al-Dowleh meets Napoleon III.

Also Zora, do you realize the level of arrogance required to say: "Qom is simply not a credible source for impartial scholarship"? Striving for Impartiality is one thing, dis-allowing the Shi'a perspective to be presented aside other views (which you and AladdinSE have been doing) is another. Qom is THE LARGEST single center for Islamic study in the world, even larger than Al-Zahra, and as such, their position is certainly valid in separate sections of the Succession to Muhammad page devoted to "The Shi'a view". That's all Im saying.

AladdinSE, You started disrespecting me by unilaterally blanking out my every input based on your personal agenda. So dont lecture us about "disrespect". I can readily comb through the list of insults youve hurled at me. Also, hyper-links are not always academically acceptable because they can be from subjective unverifiable websites. To be verifiable, they would have to bear some proof of officiality, or refer to actual hardcopy documented sources, which I have already done in abundance. That you dont find my sources acceptable is your personal agenda problem. 200 million Shi'as do. Also, I will write in a style and format that I please. Stop bossing people around. Youre not John R. Bolton. And finally, on 02:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) on the Ali talk page, you said: "Do not even assume that I am Muslim, much less Sunni." I'm only holding you responsible for your own words.--Zereshk 13:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if one of our Sunni members would help out, and enhance the Sunni documentation section, so that the Shi'a viewpoint wont look dominant (because it looks better). Instead of deleting The Shi'a section, let's add to the Sunni section. Shukran.--Zereshk 13:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what I said, and you seem to be deliberately persisting in obtuseness. What can you mean by saying you are "holding me responsible for my own words"??? All I said was that you do not know what I am, you have no right to assume, nor should you be interested, that I am Sunni, Shia, or even Muslim, because that information is 1. none of your business and 2. utterly irrelevant. I most certainly did not blank out your every word based on any agenda. This is your main problem: everything to you is a contest of wills and a personal quarrel. You cannot conceive that other editors might delete stuff without actually being anti-Shia or anti-Zereshk. As for you, you have made your pro-Shia bias abundandtly clear, even go so far as to boast of your family connections. Well, that has no import whatsoever in Wikipedia. About references and links: books of course can be used as references, and as I clearly said, what is objectionable is huge verbatim extracts that have no place in an encyclopedia. Editors have to condense such material into article form with reasonable quotations. Look at any encyclopedia... do you see a huge listings of verbatim Hadiths or similar text just splayed out with no editorial comment? Of course not! There has to be condensation with reasonable and limited quotation. What you did was just dump huge extracts with no form or style whatsoever. As for hyper-links, they are essential in an internet encyclopedia not as replacements for "book references", but as sources of journalistic or scholarly comment that provides a source for legitimacy of the authors being quoted as well as preventing original research. For example, you provide no linked sources that verify that so and so Shia scholars claim that so and so Hadiths prove so and so claims. Finally, would you please stop inserting unnecessary pictures into Talk comments this section is already becoming unwieldy. --AladdinSE 23:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The list I already provided is condensed. Shi'as use hundreds of Hadith in fact, in support of Ali's claim to succession. The 10-12 Hadiths I listed were the cream of the crop. Why dont you provide us with an equivalent Sunni documentation and make us all happy, instead of ravaging Shi'a sections?
I will write in the style I please. In fact, YOUR style of writing is a sore to the eye; it involves too many indentations, and cannot be easily accessed by intra-page links. I will paste images to help get my point across whenever I wish.
In the absence of hyperlinked references, hard copy references cannot and should not be deleted. Having the references hyper-linked is merely an advantage, not a must. As you saw, Mustafaa also does not agree with hyper-linked references.--Zereshk 01:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly no civilized discussion to be had with you. All you have to say is I'll do as I wish and all you see is personalized conflicts and your will prevailing over all. You confuse condensation with mere limitation of sources. Condensation means you take material from sources and reformat it into narrative form, as opposed to just dumping huge verbatim extracts into the article. As for providing "Sunni documentation," have you ever thought about doing that yourself? Has the idea of being a neutral contributor even crossed your mind ONCE? All you can do is cut and paste huge expanses of Shia text and point and brag about your grandfather and put up pictures of him (in TALK for heaven's sake), but you have not inserted one syllable of cognitive, descriptive narrative that makes any of it readable or relevant. I'll leave our styles of writing for the world to judge. Determining which is the eyesore, both in the article and in Talk, I'm confident will be consistent. --AladdinSE 08:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant passages from the Qur'an

I asked earlier about these problematic verses in the Passages used by The Shi'a subsection of the article. I looked them up (Chapter 5, Verse 55 and Chapter 5, Verse 3 and Verse 67) and they seem to have nothing to do with the succession. Chapter 5 verse 55 reads:

Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

Verse 3 reads:

O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the symbols of Allah, nor of the sacred month, nor of the animals brought for sacrifice, nor the garlands that mark out such animals, nor the people resorting to the sacred house, seeking of the bounty and good pleasure of their Lord. But when ye are clear of the sacred precincts and of pilgrim garb, ye may hunt and let not the hatred of some people in (once) shutting you out of the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgression (and hostility on your part). Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah. for Allah is strict in punishment.

Verse 67 reads:

O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.

How are any of these at all related to caliphal succession and how are they "used by the Shia?" --AladdinSE 23:53, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Read the hyperlinked documentataion I provided you. Youll see. It's only two pages. We muslims know how it relates, because we know the story behind it. It seems you dont, obviously.
Also, a reminder once again, you're not here to judge the accuracy of what The Shi'a believe. We're here only to report it in the section of the Succession to Muhammad page that talks about "Shi'a views". I will keep repeating this as many times as it takes, until you understand this.--Zereshk 00:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there's a step in the argument that has to be supplied from another website, you haven't made your argument, Zereshk. You can't just refuse to spell it out and tell us we're ignorant if we don't understand it.

Well said, Zora. --AladdinSE 08:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I agree somewhat with AladdinSE in finding your expository style dense and unreadable. I can't even READ the list -- MEGO. My eyes glaze over. Whereas I'm reading Madelung's book about the same issues with utmost interest. He puts the hadith (copiously footnoted) into a narrative context and adds all the information the reader needs to catch their significance. He is especially good at highlighting the kinship links between all the actors and spelling out why such-and-such action was necessary, given Arabian beliefs about proper behavior towards kin. I'm not ready to dump your list, but I agree that it needs to redone in a narrative form. What we need is a Shi'a narrative, with the hadith references in a footnote section. So, tell us exactly what happened, from the Shi'a POV. Zora 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zora, since you are un-willing to even look at any of the references I post, I will cut and paste what Qom and Najaf say about the verses:

To prove the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shi'ites have had recourse to Quranic verses, including the following: "Your friend [wali] can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor-due, and bow down (in prayer) [or, and this reading is accepted by 'Allamah Tabataba'i: "....pay the poor-due while bowing down (in prayer)"]" (Quran, V, 55). Shi'ite and Sunni commentators alike agree that this verse was revealed concerning Ali ibn Abi Talib, and many Shi'ite and Sunni traditions exist supporting this view. Abu Dharr Ghifari has said: "One day we prayed the noontime prayers with the Prophet. A person in need asked people to help but no one gave him anything, 'Oh God! Be witness that in the mosque of the Prophet no one gave me anything.' Ali ibn Abi Talib was in the position of genuflection in the prayers. He pointed with his finger to the person, who took his ring and left. The Prophet, who was observing the scene raised his head toward heaven and said: 'Oh God! My brother Moses said to Thee, "Expand my breast and make easy my tasks and make my tongue eloquent so that they will comprehend my words, and make my brother, Harun, my help and vizier" [cf. Quran, XXVIII, 35]. Oh God! I am also Thy prophet ; expand my breast and make easy my tasks and make Ali my vizier and helper.'" Abu Dharr says, "The words of the Prophet had not as yet finished when the verse [cited above] was revealed." Tabari Dhakha'ir al-'uqha, Cairo. 1356. p.16. This hadith has been recorded with a slight variation in al.Durr al-manthur. vol.ll, p.293. In his Chayat al maram p. 103 Bahrani cities 24 hadiths from Sunni sources and nineteen from Sh'ite sources concerning the conditions and reasons for the revelation of this Quranic verse.

Another verse which the Shi'ites consider as proof of the caliphate of Ali is this: "This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (even harming) your religion ; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM" (Quran, V, 3). The obvious meaning of this verse is that before that particular day the infidels had hopes that a day would come when Islam would die out, but God through the actualization of a particular even made them lose forever the hope that Islam would be destroyed. This very event was the cause of the strength and perfection of Islam and of necessity could not be a minor occasion such as the promulgation of one of the injunctions of religion. Rather, it was a matter of such importance that the continuation of Islam depended upon it.

This verse seems to be related to another verse which comes toward the end of the same chapter: "O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord, for if thou do it not, thou will not have conveyed His message. Allah will protect thee from mankind." (Quran, V, 67). This verse indicates that God commanded a mission of great concern and importance to the Prophet which if not accomplished would endanger the basis of Islam and prophecy. But the matter was so important that the Prophet feared opposition and interference and in awaiting suitable circumstances delayed it, until there came a definite and urgent order from God to execute this command without delay and not to fear anyone. This matter also was not just a particular religious injunction in the ordinary sense, for to preach one or several religious injunctions is not so vital that if a single one of them were not preached it would cause the destruction of Islam. Nor did the Prophet of Islam fear anyone in preaching the injunctions and laws of religion.

These indications and witnesses add weight to the Shi'ite traditions which assert that these verses were revealed at Ghadir Khumm and concern the spiritual investiture (walayat) of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Moreover, many Shi'ite and Sunni commentators have confirmed this point.

Abu Sa'id Khudari says: "The Prophet in Ghadir Khumm invited people toward Ali and took his arm and lifted it so high that the white spot in the armpit of the Prophet of God could be seen. Then this verse was revealed: 'This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM.' Then the Prophet said, 'God is great (Allahu akbar) that religion has become perfected and that God's bounty has been completed, His satisfaction attained and the walayat of Ali achieved.' Then he added, 'For whomever I am the authority and guide Ali is also his guide and authority. Oh God! Be friendly with the friends of Ali and the enemy of his enemies. Whoever helps him, help him, and whoever leaves him, leave him.'" Bahrani, Chayat al-maram , p.336. where six Sunni and fifteen Shi'ite hadiths oncerning the occasion and reason for the revelation of the above Quranic verse are cited.

I can also cut and paste hundreds of pages about the hadiths if you like--Zereshk 07:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC).

If they are anywhere near as spurious as these so-called arguments are, the article will look even more ridiculous and unreadable then it does now. Nevertheless, if you wish to include the Quranic phrases as used by Shias to prove the Wilayat of Ali then surely you see that you must provide some narrative description condensed (NOT QUOTED VERBATIM) form the above mentioned "arguments." Also, the parts claiming Sunnis agree that such and such verses point to Ali is completely POV and needs neutral cited hyper-links to prove it. --AladdinSE 08:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

My dear AladdinSE,

I presented you with the view of 200 million Shi'a. That you do not see it convincing or impartial, is your problem to deal with. As I said, for the sections dealing with "Shi'a views", impartiality is not the issue at all, but rather, what the Shi'as view to be true is what we wish to write about. I will provide a hyperlink as well. Just for you.--Zereshk 09:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Zereshk, you are NOT 200 million Shi'a. You are you. You can't get your own way by screaming that we're censoring Shi'a if we don't let you write exactly what you want to write. What sort of hubris is it to claim to speak for 200 million people who don't even know you?

I've seen this sort of thing when I was involved in Green politics. We'd get a minority member -- say, a Hawaiian -- who would then claim total authority over anything having to do with Hawaiian issues. Even when this person represented one particular viewpoint which was not shared by most Hawaiians.

I, at least, want your input. You're a well-informed Shi'a and your English is good (unlike Striver, who had good intentions but had a hard time with English). But you have to learn to cooperate, and to accept editing. I sure as heck wish there were some other Shi'as here, because I'm guessing that they would tell you to back down, that you are not showing your creed in a good light with your behavior. Zora 11:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My dear Zora, of course I am not 200 Million Shi'a. But the views I am presenting here are the views of the Shi'a mainstream. No ands, ifs, or buts. Unless you are saying that Qom does not represent Shi'a views? In fact I have been presenting the leftist view of Shi'a doctrines, just so that people like you and AladdinSE wont go ballistic.--Zereshk 22:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT your dear Zora -- please don't be sarcastic. As for your "views" being mainstream ...

1) There are millions of Iranians (as demonstrated by election results, street demonstrations, etc.) who don't think well of Qom and the mullahs thereof. You have identified yourself very strongly with the clerical party. You are in opposition to millions of Shi'a.

2) We have to make a distinction between Zereshk's views as they involve matters of doctrine, where they are presumably Qom-certified orthodox, and Zereshk's views as they involve argumentation, written presentation, behavior on Wikipedia, etc. If there is ANY validity at all to the Shi'a tradition, there must be scholars who are polite and humble, who are willing to take editing, and who do not confuse their ego with Shi'a Islam as a whole -- that is, who are saintly, in the best of the Islamic tradition, as well as learned scholars. If you know of such, please bring them here. We need their help! Zora 02:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Zora

Zora, I apologize for saying "dear Zora". I didnt know you hold such vehemently antagonistic views toward me. Again, I apologize.

now...

Answers

Answer to point 1 by Zora:

People are in opposition to the clerical political establishment in Iran. Not to Qom's views on the Succession of Mohammad. Nice try.
Terrorists are killing Shi'as and Shi'a clerics in Iraq. They don't think well of the Shi'a mullahs either.
The same views I have written are held by Najaf. Would you like me to quote you some sources on that?

Answer to point 2 by Zora:

Character assassinating me is not the way to go, Zora. Instead, please please please accept the right of the Shi'a to express themselves on Wikipedia.

Instead of attacking me, why do you never ask me for further references and resources to verify what I write? I can provide you with more than enough of that.

You dont accept Qom's view. (!!)
You dont accept any of the Grand Ayatollahs.
You dont accept top scholars like Nasr.
You openly admit Shi'a hadith to be "unrelaible". (!!!)

Your anti-Shi'a position is obvious! What more can I say! :)

Comment:

Zora said:

"If there is ANY validity at all to the Shi'a tradition..."

I think that is self explanatory of the unusual vicious atmosphere we have prevalent here. Zora is out to prove that the Shi'a are wrong.

Suggestion; An easy solution to the problem.

Here's an idea:

Pick any Shi'a Grand Ayatollah you deem fair and reliable. For example, let us pick Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. He is against the clerical establishment of Iran. Or how about the British based Grand Ayatollah Khoei's office, whose son was murdered in Iraq. Fair?
Let us send an email to his office asking questions about things Zora or anybody else thinks is POV.
Let us reflect those as authentic Shi'a views.

fair?

And if that fails, I am ready to take this discussion to arbitration. It seems we are getting nowhere with this talk. Do you agree?--Zereshk 03:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No grand ayatollahs. I don't think any grand ayatollah would be able to take a collegial attitude towards Wikipedia. He would give us POV opinions ex cathedra -- which is not what is needed here. An American Shi'a mainline academic with deep religious practice and a humble and conciliating personality would be a good addition to the team (IMHO), if one could be found.

Oh, I apologize abjectly. That's me be blatantly US-centric, which is just plain wrong. Any English-speaking Shi'a mainline academic (that is, someone who's had a Western-style education and teaches in a reputable university) with a cooperative attitude ... That widens it out to the rest of the world. Zora 05:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to going to arbitration, Zereshk, arbitration over WHAT? Your right not to have anyone else tell you that you're mistaken, or edit your prose? You don't have such a right. Are you saying that I've called you names? I've asked you to be more collegial and cooperative, but I don't think that's equivalent to calling you names. As for me being out to prove the Shi'a wrong ... that's just silly. Here I've been taking flak from OTHER editors for being too pro-Shi'a and you're telling me I'm anti-Shi'a. Whew!

Clearly, I'm not getting through to you; I'm just raising your hackles. I think it might be best to retire from arguing with you for a while. I will keep on making the best edits I can, and justifying them in talk pages, but I won't engage in back-and-forth with you. This isn't getting us anywhere. Zora 05:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a side note....

It's pretty funny, you know. I too have been taking flak here from you and others for being too pro-Shi'a, yet everytime I go to Iran for a visit, I have to put up a similarly intense fight to defend America and American ideals in debates from vicious right wing Iranian nationalist/religious freaks.

I have to take it from both sides.--Zereshk 13:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am currently busy with other things. I therefore do not have time to oversee or even read the new text that keeps appearing on Shi'a pages. But sooner or later, hopefully I will.--Zereshk 20:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This debate seems to be mixing all kinds of issues. The question of how to explain Shia views is separate from the question of what Shia views are, and I think it's quite reasonable to give a narrative presentation, rather than just pasting in loads of hadith with little explanation. And the question of what people think of Shia clerics, or of Iranian politics, is neither here nor there... - Mustafaa 23:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --AladdinSE 05:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Ive already put in a narrative section for the hadith. I will put in more soon. You are right. Each hadith must be explained as well.--Zereshk 06:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I removed a copyvio

I removed the section on Shi'a views, because I discovered that it was copied directly from Sayyed Hossein Nasr's introduction to the Tabatabai book. Even though that book is online, to be read by anyone, that doesn't mean that it's OK to cut-n-paste huge swathes from it without attribution. The selection really wasn't the right thing -- we just need a narrative. Zora 12:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Copyright Violation

If the selection "wasnt the right thing", that's one issue.

But if taken out because of "copyright violation", then I will have to inform all that the 3rd printing of the book, under Ansarian Publications of The Islamic Propagation Office of the Islamic Seminary of Qom has allowed the copy and pasting of material out of this book. In fact, I had to call them to re-verify this.

If anyone wishes to further investigate my claim above, they can personally email the publishers: Ansarian@noornet.net

Hence I will continue to use that and other sources provided by them to enrich the information on wikipages.--Zereshk 14:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat off-topic

I think there is something we can all agree on, and that is this VFD. It's about the so-called "Islamofascism". The most NPOV way to treat this is to redirect it to a list of political epithets, but it seems some people want to turn it into an article about how Islam is a fascist ideology comparable to Nazism.Yuber 00:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please DON'T troll Islam-related talk pages looking to pull people into a flamewar. Zora 01:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Islam-related talk pages" are the only place I can think of where the subject of Islamofascism may be interesting to some people. Care to suggest another place I can post this so Muslims will see how people are trying to say Islam is Fascism?Yuber 01:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Historians

I am a Shia Muslim and I have been trying to improve as many Islam-related articles as I can. I apologise if I have not always explained what I have done. I also hope that disputes neither hinder the progress of a particular article nor suspend any future editing, because it is important that Islamic perspectives are presented as they actually are.

There is a question that I have, however, that may be answered by Zora if she wishes, and my question is this: Of course as with any encyclopedia, the text must be presented from a neutral point of view. However, clearly many historians who documented Islam-related events were Shias. Does this necessarily exclude them from being relied upon for presenting reliable facts? It may well be that a non-Muslim historian maybe no more trustworthy than a Muslim historian. I presume that we should accept that we will have to be content with using both Shia and Sunni sources. Furthermore, surely a Christian or an Atheist historian can also be considered to be biased towards his or her own belief system. Thank you. Adamcaliph 00:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Of course Shi'a sources should be included. But they shouldn't be considered authoritative -- any more than the Sunni or the academic sources should be considered authoritative. We need to try to give a neutral presentation of all points of view (POVs).

We had a tussle over sources earlier because Zereshk wanted to include a HUGE amount of material, badly formatted, and would not accept any editing. I, and other editors, certainly want the Shi'a POV represented, but we want the section to be READABLE. Striver, another Shi'a editor, also had a problem with what I call "hadith dumps". Myself, I think that Shi'a are better represented by a concise, readable summary of their views. We were having problems with individual Shi'a editors, not with the Shi'a viewpoint. If you can give a better presentation of the Shi'a POV, one that is understandable to a casual reader who knows nothing about Islam or early Islamic history, and that's short enough not to overwhelm, go ahead!

I've been known to wish that Reza Aslan, the author of No God But God, would show up here to represent the Shi'a POV, because I truly admired his book; it was well researched and well written. He didn't convince me to become a Muslim, or a Shi'a, but he certainly gave me a better understanding of how the beliefs "make sense" to people who are Shi'a. Zora 00:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Zora. Adamcaliph 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good luck to you Adamcaliph. The forces of Jihalat are in full strength here on Wikipedia! :) --Zereshk 03:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I removed all the Qur'an quotes, hadith dumps, disquisitions re the nature of the imamate, etc., and tried to present some comprehensible narratives that would be comprehensible to non-Muslim users of Wikipedia.

Too many of the Muslim editors seem to be completely in thrall to the long history of Sunni-Shi'a debate. Asked to outline their position, they fall back on old methods of intra-Muslim debate, in which it is ASSUMED that all combatants will be Muslim and will accept some documents or traditions as binding. Argument thus reduces to squabbles over the meaning of a verse from the Qur'an, what "occasion of revelation" explains it, what hadith are to be trusted, why certain narrators in the chain of isnad are unreliable ... it is a debate that makes sense only within a framework of shared belief. This does not work for non-Muslims.

Sunni-Shi'a debate would make a good article, I think, and if someone else wants to start writing a history of the debate before I get to it, please do! This would be the place for the hadith dumps and the arguments re occasions of revelation. Zora 11:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Without the hadith (at least the Shia ones), the articles seriously lack any merit or even credibility. The article has now turned into a watered down narrative of what Madelung believes Shias believe happened. Not what the Shias believe. It's now a he-said she-said chronicle.

I remember that the text of Hadith of Thaqalayn was even a test question on the National University Entrance exams. Knowing the hadith by heart was required to get a high school diploma. So were the other several hadith I had listed. It's a central axis of Shia belief.

Without it, this article is a joke, and does not reflect The Shia view. (yes, I represent the Shia view. I know about myself and my beliefs more than anyone else).

I'm sorry, but this article deserves a POV tag, as it suppresses the Shia viewpoint.--Zereshk 02:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

The article is much simpler, and possibly easier to read. The article needed a spring clean. I imagine that it has become a lot clearer to the non-Muslim who is generally unfamiliar with, as you put it, the “Intra-Muslim Debate”. However, may I make the following suggestions:

Re "Umar, his long-time friend and supporter...".

I believe that the above statement is POV. Sunnis agree with the statement; Shi’as disagree with the statement.

Re introduction to "The Shi'a view of the succession".

May I suggest the following version:

The Shi'a believe that God has stated that the world is never left without a vicegerent. They therefore believe that Muhammad, being one of God’s vicegerents, appointed a successor. They believe that God chose Ali to be the successor. They believe that before he died, Muhammad, in accordance with God’s will, indicated at various times, and in various ways, his trust and reliance upon Ali. Ali was not only his cousin, but the husband of his daughter Fatima, and the father of his beloved grandchildren Hasan and Husayn. Ali was a leader in battle, entrusted with command, and left in charge of the community at Medina when Muhammad led a raid on Tabuk.

I believe that this version is more accurate and possibly better explains the Shi’a perspective that it is not up to humans to appoint the Leader of humankind; rather, no one else other than God can make such an appointment.

Re Ghadir Khom: "The Shi’a say that after finishing his pilgrimage..."

It is not the occurrence of the event that is disputed by Sunnis; rather it is the significance of what was said at the event. As such, it is slightly misleading to provide "The Shi'a say..."

Academic books.

I believe that there should be a heading for the non-Muslim books.

Certainly the article is moving in the right direction. Well done. Adamcaliph 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zereshk's POV tag

Zereshk, you haven't made clear what you mean by the hadhyan of Umar. Google brings up nothing useful and there's nothing in the index to Madelung. As for your threat that you will not give a Shi'a "endorsement" unless you get to include all the hadith you feel are relevant ... well, I dispute your standing to speak for all the Shi'a, and I do not feel that the article would be any more readable if the hadith were included. If you wanted to write an article entitled Hadith cited by the Shi'a in defense of their version of the succession to Muhammad then we could link to it. Then it would be there, but not cluttering up the article. Zora 03:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Zora

Zora, please read all of this carefully and honor the time I put into writing it. It took an hour for me to write it. Instead of trying to answer me right away chopping my paragraphs, please first think about what Im saying for a while. Especially the last item.

1. You cant dispute me on what I am. I am a Shia (though from a more introspective, enigmatic, and liberal school of thought), and you do not know my faith better than I do. Youre an outsider. Neither does Madelung, or anyone else, no matter how hard they try. You dismiss Qom and any Marja of Taqleed I provide. So I easily dismiss you and all your "academic" babble. So that's that.

2. That being said, I repeat: This article lacks any credibility as long as the Shia voice is not heard. A seemingly academic take on the Shia's view cannot substitute the Shi'as actual view.

3. You do not understand the significance Hadith has for both Sunni and Shia in Islam. I cannot really argue with someone on some topic, when that person is not informed on that topic. A physicist cannot argue about Physics with someone who doesnt know physics.

4. Of course Google wont give you anything on Hadhyan (هذیان). Since when is google a source for academics? If you mention the incident of Mohammad's will, then you must have fidelity and mention all of what happened. Omar accused Mohammad of saying hazyan, therefore ruling out the need for a will. This view is not my view. It is the Shia view. And you suppress it because you simply feel a political affinity for Arabs.

Ah yes. I know where your problems with me stem from. You dont even understand the real meaning of the word "nationalism" that you keep throwing at me. But then again, you arent at fault. Youre an outsider. And you come from an academic background that Edward Said kept pointing at. i.e. the orientalist. What bothers me though, is that you desperately try to remain an outsider and shut out the world from what we (the insiders) have to say, only because Qom is in "Persia" (that land where its people think so highly and pompous of themselves). But did you ever try to go further than that apparent observation and try to see why they seem to see the world that way? Did you ever try to view the world from our eyeglasses? Ethnicity, racism, and nationalism are all diseases from the west. Did you ever ask why me and SC act the way we do? Or did you just jump to conclusions based on what you see? It's the world is only what is seen attitude. Another western academic product. How should I put it....: Nationalism is "us vs. them". Trying to save a culture and heritage from being erased is not nationalism. Our philosophy is "us AND them". It's exactly what Khatami meant by "dialogue of civilizations". He was trying to say that "we also exist as a civilization just like you do". Why? Because he, me, and SC very easily spot shit like this happening everyday. Nationalism is solipsistic, whereas we acknowledge the greatness of others. Cyrus the Great kicked ass. But so did Buddha and Heisenberg and the Mesopotamians who invented writing and the wheel and arithmetic.

I fight for those who get swept under the rug of history, whether Arab, Persian, Muslim, or Fijian. Naturally, youre never there to see me defending Arabs or Muslims (regardless of their Sunni or Shia background). Youre never there to see me attack Persians either. Humans only tend to see the negativity in others. And at this point in time, the rights of the Shia, and the memory of Iran and Persia, in specific, are being swept under the rug of history more than the others in ways like this, and nobody's noticing. Except us of course, the insiders, and those who know. We remember the days in the 70s when bookshleves in places like Borders and Barnes and Nobles had equal amounts of books on China, Egypt, India, and Persia. Tell me, did you notice the sound of the fly buzzing around ugly and mean looking Persian soldiers ready to battle Alexander in Oliver Stone's new movie "Alexander The Great"? In his commentary in the extra features section of the DVD, Stone actually says "we tried to make the Persians look dirty". and Im thinking..."but WHY???" He made it into an east vs west thing. But do people actually know that Iranians name their kids "Iskandar" (Alexander) even today? Rent the movie from Blockbuster. You may laugh at my comment. "Oh, so a fly bothered you. That's hardly academic and important in reality". Just think, Why is it that (overall), the villains in western media culture are traditionally black haired people or people of color while the good guys are always blondes and fair skinned? Cultures are shaped and deformed by such propaganda and negative publicity. That's exactly how Bush goes to war convincing 50% of Americans that Saddam was actually behind 9-11 (even though I hated the bastard Saddam myself). The point is, that we see the blackout that's been going on because of some stupid thing Khomeini did 25 years ago. It is all driven by political conflicts. Unfortunately, what such people (like yourself) do not understand is that the heritage of Persia also belongs to you and all humanity, not just me and SC, the genetic inheritors. Genetics has no meaning anyway, since Persia was made of 100 different ethnic groups. It's what our great sage Sadi so openly declared when he said:

"Of one Essence is the human race,

Thusly has Creation put the Base;

One Limb impacted is sufficient,

For all Others to feel the Mace."

You can read these lines on the UN building walls in NY. (they were engraved in the Shah's time. I'm not sure if they are still there today. Perhaps a quote from Virgil or Erasmus has replaced it.)

That's the very reason why I'm here spending precious time on Wikipedia. Because this is one of the very few places where the information blackout does not extend to. Please, ....leeeaaaarn. There is much more to the world than what is apparent to your eye. Visit Iran, live among their people, then call them nationalist. Visit Qom, then decide. Live with the Shia. Then try to claim you know them.--Zereshk 09:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, since Zora doesnt accept anything I say about Shias (as a Shia), I went to the trouble of scanning documents. This is what Shias say about the Hadhyan (delirious) reference of Omar to Mohammad for "the will":

Image:Just for Zora.jpg

--Zereshk 00:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Umar's supposed claim that Muhammad must have been delirious should be there. But you shouldn't get upset because I don't understand a reference in Arabic. Zora 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Dodging the point is a habit of yours it seems.--Zereshk 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Attacking another editor is impolite and distracting. Help us all out by summarizing in a single sentence the point you are trying to make here, Z. BrandonYusufToropov 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Zereshk, I was going to move your note to "look at page 33" to the article for that hadith, but I found that the note was already there. If the reader wants to find out more about the hadith, the info is there. There's no need to clutter up the article here, which is already chock-full of hard-to-digest info.

I appreciate your moving the hadith references out to their own articles. That makes the main article easier to read and also gives us more room to talk about the reliability of the hadith, or interpretation of the hadith. Zora 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Trust me Zora, it's quite easy to sense your urge in trying to shut out any references I provide. I just sincerely wish you would stop that partisanship editing of yours. Hate me, fine. But at least be impartial on the info.--Zereshk 00:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

A question for all of you... If maters related to deen are so disputed...and if all of us agree that there is One God and that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was the last prophet...why argue about anything else?...yes the Caliphs were amazing people with characters we should all follow...but if it means a split in our people...why not just stick to the fact mentioned...that there is One God and Muhammad is the final messenger. To me this whole shia sunni thing is a matter of who´s right and whose wrong...I seriously doubt the intentions of those who persist on fighting on who was to be the real first caliph! Yes it made a difference at the time...but how does it effect you as a muslim today? Are we not told to stick together and follow simply the Quran and Sunnah? Surely the main aim of Islam is to believe in Allah and thank Him for His blessings and worship none other than Him. The main idea being to please Allah...why then have we all resorted to dwelling (in my opinion) on pity issues. Is it really worth the split in muslims?

"And hold fast to the rope of Allah, and be not divided amongst yourselves" Quran.

S Anwar

Brother, of course we are unitad in Islam. But i will never accept any belief system that demands of me to respect people like Muawiya or that demands me to obey animals like Yazid. Oh, and by the way, According to Sahih Muslim, it was the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt we where supposed to follow, remeber? --Striver 11:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but no-one is asking you to accept those beliefs...all is asked of you to respect their beliefs. What they believe in after Muhammad...as far as it doesn´t claim a new prophet or an equal to Allah....makes no difference. To me (i may be wrong) the right of Ali to be or not to be the caliph or Abu Bakar to be the caliph is as important as whether or not the president of my country wins the next election or not. Yes its important to choose the right ruler...but it doesn´t really matter when the country doens´t exist anymore does it!...we don´t ahve a khilafa anymore ...yes if we did it would be a disputable topic since we coudl fight on who is the rightful khalifa...but there is no khilafa...and fighting over wat happened in the past won´t change the future. I repeat IF the difference comes down to who was to rule after Muhammad....forget it!. Yes we have been told to follow Ahl al-Bayt...to me the best thing do is follow the 10 blessed companions...that doens´t mean quarrelling over Abu Bakar and Ali´s political position, but to follow their personalities and strive like they did to perfect following the Prophets personality and teachings! You metioned Sahih Muslim, then truely you would have read in the signs of qiyaamah that muslims would be enemies to one another...you can argue and say its inevitable...but to me (if i could say this to all muslims)...just stick together...surely the word of Allah is greater than any companion of the Prophet. If Allah commands "Hold fast to the rope of Allah and be not divided amongst yourselves", we should follow that blindly...if people fight with you regarding caliphs or religion thats between them and Allah, atleast we should try and stay away from anything that invokes hate between our own people. I repeat...one who says the Kalima IS a muslim, even if you know for sure they don´t mean it or they are just saying it to save their lives or for watever reason...one who says the kalima is a muslim...fullstop. If a shia says the Kalima and believes in One Allah and Muhmmad (p.b.u.h) then he/she is a muslim and i oppose anyone who says the opposite. Yes if they equal Ali with the prophets (which i doubt they do) then you can question their faith...but still calling someone a kafir is a big thing...and since when has man become the judge of things of the sort.

[edit] A request

At the risk of opening a whole new battleground, I'd like to suggest some knowledgeble people create a section on the current effects on the succession dispute. On a surface level, the question is now moot - the individuals involved have died and it seems pointless to divide up a religion today over a question of who should have held an office 1300 years ago. But, even as a non-Muslim, I realize there are greater issues involved. It would be good to explain the current doctrinal differences between Shi'a and Sunni and how they evolved from their original differences of opinion over the succession. MK2 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's too large a topic to be covered in this article. It would also be very difficult to cover it in one other article, since there's a more than 1200 year history of conflict between Sunni and Shi'a, both of which contained numerous viewpoints, and both of which evolved over time. I'm trying to work on an article re the history of Shi'a Islam, which would cover some of the material you want, but it's going to take me a while to do the reading and then write. If you're interested and don't want to wait, you might like the book I'm reading now: An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, by Moojan Momen. It's 25 years old and out of print, but you might find it in a library. Zora 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic articles in Wiki are all written by Shia even the Sunni View

Dear friends Zora and others I made changes to the article succession to Muhammad, where I changed only the sunni view ( just added to it) it was written by shia. All my changes reversed. I demand my changes returned. Striver is not a Shia but an off shoot shia of the Ghula who worship Ali ( article of Ali), where my changes are also reversed. I contend with only making changes in the Sunni View which always comes next, why? Sunnis are 95% of Muslims population while Shia are 3% the remaining 2% are Druze, Ahmadi, Ibadi alawi( who are not considered shia) yet Striver Alawi is making the bulk of the article. This is absurd( if you are amking a WORLD Encyclopedia) other wise in the currect version you should call it ( exotic and pervert encyclopedia)! The Wikipedia should be purged fromall the additions that are not related to the subject ( myths for example), We are talking about facts here. Also the Sunni view should come first( 95% of Islam), That is if you really want to know about Islam, other wise you if you need to look your self in the mirror then you do that and don't go all this work. My changes on this article ( succession to Mu) and (Ali) are reasonable if you really read them. If you don not, I am going to send complaints every where devaluating your Encyclopedia in the media.

Aha, YOU'RE the one. I spent a long time reverting your edits. One, it helps if you take a username. Two, you have to supply references for your edits. You can't just add what you believe; you have to give us reason to believe that many Sunni believe as you do. Three, you write as if English were your second language. This is not a large handicap if you're just starting a useful article, but when you start editing an article that is already written in good English, you are making extra trouble for other editors. If you go present your proposed edits one by one, we can discuss them and add them bit by bit. Zora 03:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adnan

Adnan, I hate to keep undoing your work, BUT your edits are sub-standard English AND you're asserting matters as fact that are in fact Sunni belief. You can't just say that shura is prescribed in the Qur'an, for example. Please take this one bit at a time, instead of trying to revise the entire article to PROVE that the Sunni are right. Zora 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zora It is not a crime if my English is substandard as you claim. you can fix my bad English or a administrator can do that ( they are paid to do that don't worry,

No, no one is PAID to do anything here. We're all volunteers. Zora 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

but you should not remove my edits they are under standable, they are not debatable:

Abbasids claim for khilafa is based on their lineage from Abbas and that is why they their name come from ( this does not require a proof) as for The page say that Abbasids returned to the claims of first khalifs , that is blasphemy and you keep returning it. The subject of the succession to Muhammad is not a shia subject or an anti-islam subject. The page was full of shia assersions out side the shia view and you were comfortable with that, why?

It is not Shi'a POV to say that there is controversy about something. As a Sunni, you think that there is no controversy, that you are right and those other folks are wrong. Well, to someone who is NEITHER Sunni nor Shi'a, there does seem to be controversy. Zora 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The sunni view was written by shia presenting a sunni view from a shia website which was in the sunni links. I sent it to the shia link. The sunni view as now is not the sunni view. are you happy with that as for me I have added a link that include all the references names of books that bolster my edits, so you don't have to erase my edits.( because you say they are open to debats, well11 how about the shia view are they not open to debate, so why don't you delete them. I am afraid you are complicit some how. I put in the sunni view that story about Al-Muhsin is not true, because if it is true there will be names of people in that name immediately after the incident or say 100 years or two hundred years.

I agree with you that the story re Al-Muhsin is doubtful. However, we have to be neutral and give both sides. Zora 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to bring you a proof, you bring me a proof that Yes there was a man named Muhsin in the 100 H or 200 h and then you refute my claim. How about that. I have compiled several places and articles where there is obvious malingering, and if I present these evidences to critics or say Encyclopedia Britanica, you rating will fall. do you want me to go ahead and do that, because this is what I am going to do. It is gone too far for Wikipedia invaded by full time editors and administrators who promote the shia view on the expense of the truth a encyclopedia should show!!!!!!!!!

It's funny, Adnan ... here you are accusing me of being complicit with the Shi'a and the Shi'a are sure that I'm complicit with the Sunni. No, I'm not full-time, I'm just a jobless wikiholic. Zora 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be fair:

Excuse me saltyseaweed: Muhammad was never a secular leader! The word secular or anything similar to it is absent from the Arabic language. There is no secularity in Islam, because Muhammad embodied the religious, military, economic and cultural leader of Medina. Therefore, the Companions and al salafi al salih were the leaders of all things pertaining to Islam. Because the shahada, 'ash hadu an la illaha illaha, ash hadu Mohammed ur rasulullah, makes it clear that there is to be no intermediary between the umma and Allah, it is haram to have a "secular" leader in Islam, as it would place the authority of a government ahead of Allah's authority. Democracy in a culturally amicable sense both with regard to local cultures and Islam at the heart of its essence is permissable, the leader must follow the example of Muhammad and his Companions and not rule in a way that is in conflict with a modern application of shari'a.

Additionally, the last ten years of Muhammad's life were referred to as al maghazi, or "the raids" referring to the battles that were engaged in to spread the Quranic message, and is never symbolic of anything secular!

I just wanted to clarify saltyseaweed's assertions. caswe

[edit] Saltyseaweed

I reverted some of your edits. Frex, you had changed "Muhammad was a secular ruler for the last ten years of his life" to "was a leader of the Muslim community ...". Now, he'd been leading the Muslim community for close to 20 years. It's just that in the last ten he acquired a land base, an army, and a web of alliances. I would call that becoming a secular ruler as well as a religious leader. Perhaps we should add the "as well as religious leader" to the text?

Also, you added "Shi'a believe that" to some sentences in the Shi'a section. I think that the fact that the sentences are IN the Shi'a section indicates their POV. We don't need to continually re-specify at the sentence level. Also, just as an aside, it isn't just the Shi'a who say that Ali wasn't mentioned at Saqifah, or that a Medinan elder was beaten up -- you can find these details in Ibn Ishaq, who is a Sunni historian. Zora 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I have a problem with the word "secular" as I think the word is misused in the sentence. While it is true that the kinds of authorities (army/alliance/land base) Muhammad yielded are governmental in nature, not all governments are secular. Secular denotes neutrality in regard to religion. Obviously not all governments are secular, and certainly not the early Muslim community. I think "the leader of the Muslim Community" is the best description as those powers you mention were not even new to Muhammad (he was considered the legal, religious, and military leader among the Muslims from the beginning as far as I know).

I'd have to disagree there. He couldn't have been a military leader until he received permission to take up the sword, which he claimed to have received at Aqaba, before the Hijra. Before Aqaba, the Muslims were resolutely nonviolent. I do take your points re the use of the word "secular", however. I think your recent edits are an improvement. Zora

Thanks for that information; I did not know that.Saltyseaweed 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather, as the community grew, Muhammad's power grew in magnitude. I apologize for the incorrect date, though, you are right that it should be close to twenty years.

I added "Shia' believe that" despite the section being in Shi'a section simply because "according to the Shi'a" and other likewise clauses are used throughout the section. Therefore, the LACK of such a clause may, in context, be construed as the statement being universally accepted.

That's a problem, then, because I don't want to have to add "according to the Shi'a" to every dang sentence. I would have imagined that the heading would be enough to warn readers that it was all Shi'a POV. Do you have any suggestions that don't involve prefacing each sentence with "according to the Shi'a"? Zora 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is okay to sacrifice some conciseness for accuracy. Where Shi'a and Sunni agree on the event but differ in interpretation, I think the event should be stated as a fact and Shi'a's interpretation be clearly marked as such even in Shi'a section. If Shi'a believe that an event occurred but Sunni don't, then that fact should be made clear. Unlike paper encyclopedia, we have no page contraint here, and later editions can always par down the sentences to make the reading less awkward. Saltyseaweed 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My correction regarding Medinan elder was more for clarity. The original sentence said the Umar was "willing to beat up" the elder. As there is a distinction between being willing to do a thing and actually carrying it out, I simply thought my sentence was clearer.

OK, according to Ibn Ishaq they did beat him up. Very edifying behavior :/ Zora 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a bad joke that the vote was done orally and that they beat up the old man until he screamed "Ow," which was close enough to be counted as "Aye."Saltyseaweed 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Having said these things, I am going to make a small alteration to the article to get your attention. We can continue the discussion further. Saltyseaweed 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as most visitors to Wikipedia I came here today for some cross-reference, and the topic "Succession to Muhammad" would have been what I needed. Seeing the "disputed warning" I went to the talk page, where I'm now, slightly chocked and that's not the reason I came here (that was to use Wikipedia as a encyclopaedia). Honestly Zereshk, your writing is not about Shia or not, that is just something you try to hide behind. Problem is your attitude, not your sources, work or belief. There is no question that you can contribute a lot to Wikipedia, but allow me to look at from the users point of view. If a user want information about the Succession to Muhammad, then s/he wants that. First of all who the successors was, dates, any special events during their time and so forth. The average user is not interested in a free fall into a spider’s nest of religious opinions. An article about the successors should have the basic facts, and then added a small section called something like: "different views on the successors". That's the place where the general difference on Shia and Sunni view should be mentioned. ANY details more than the general information should be own articles IMHO. As a user of Wikipedia I don't care if the writer is Shia, Sunni, Druse, or whatever - in fact that should NOT reflect in the article. An encyclopaedia article should give such a balanced view that one would not be able to guess what personal belief the writer/s got. Where more than one opinion is around, the subject of the article should still be the sole focus. If any diversities need further information, these different opinions / religious views, can be explained in own articles and linked to from this article. The attitude you show here Zereshk is not helping the users of Wikipedia, and that should be your sole interest when editing articles, AND when discussing with fellow editors here... ArnvidAA

I edited some bit here and there to show some historical accuracy, and correct undue bias towards the shia view in 'an overview of events'.The shia were not known as rafidhi until much later during the time of Zaid, the great grandson of Ali. They were just known as "Shia". Muslims make a distinction between Rafidha Shias and Zaidi Shias. The former are known to curse and cast doubt on most of the companions of Muhammed. While the latter are not much different from sunnis except that they dispute the fact tht Abu Bakr was more apporpriate then Ali for the caliphate and also the later events regarding the Khawarij. I strongly agree with ArnvidAA..--Blingpling 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly second ArnvidAA's message. As a user of Wikipedia, I ask that editors be as respectful and user-focused in their efforts as possible - especially in consideration of those users who are approaching this topic for the first time. Where a topic is understood in various ways by groups holding various irreconcilable views, a brief description of these different views must be provided - again, to the extent necessary to frame and describe the issue to a novice user. However, a user will not want and should not expect to be presented with defenses of any of these various views.

Editors, having their own views on this topic, will naturally find an encyclopedia-style definition of a subjective topic incomplete and, I am sure, would elaborate at length in a more appropriate venue. Thus, the limitations of this job requires quite a bit of restraint of them. Users, if interested, can pursue elaborations and commentary on the different views described through other avenues than an encyclopedia, which should maintain absolute dispassionate objectivism. --msludwick

[edit] Backdating Shi'a to times when there were no Shi'a as known today

There are next to no sources for Islamic history that come from the pre-Abbasid period. We are told that there were oral traditions, but nothing was written down until the early Abbasid period. What we know of the development of Shi'a Islam is that there were no Shi'a, as known today, with all their doctrines, in the first hundred years of Islam. They were called Shi'at Ali, or Rafidi, and they were both a political party, a regional party (Iraq and Iran against Syria), and a religious tendency (piety rather than worldliness). It wasn't until Jafar that some of the doctrines associated with Shi'ism today were developed. It was only somewhat before that that Shi'at Ali became abbreviated to Shi'a.

Contemporary Sunni and Shi'a both try to "backdate" their sects to the time of Muhammad, insisting that everything they believe now was there in Medina in 631 CE. Academics do not accept this. They see the traditions as developing, and changing.

Muslims aren't alone in this. Christians or Buddhists insist that they have the true doctrine, just as it was preached and practiced by Jesus or Buddha, and that of course Jesus was a Methodist, or Buddha a Ch'an monk. Historians must debunk this.

Of course we can give the "orthodox" views, but we have to give the historical view too. Zora 09:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Rewrite

This article has digressed into something it was specifically not intended to be. While it is not very important as to who wrote it, the initial author while attempting to maintain neutrality has created a controversial format for this article. I personally feel that this article has a Shia slant, but to each his own. This has turned into a Sunni/Shia debate as to who and why so and so should have been the successor. Many of the sub topics are irrelevent and only further this debate. The article is about the succession to Muhammad. Some of the sub topics while offering some insight into time period, only ignite conflict and need to be trimmed for the sake of neutrality. Remember, the purpose of this article is NOT to PROVE who is right and who is wrong but only to explain the events that are related to the succession of Muhammad and how it was achieved from the different perspectives. I understand it's not that easy given the delicate nature of the subject but hopefully we can work together in achieving this goal. IMO, the western view is also irrelevent to the purpose of this article. While I do thank the administrators for volunteering their personal time in managing this site, there is too much derailment. As for all of those who are editing this article, please include more citations as your edits only reflect your opinion on the matter.

[edit] Am I crazy?

I understand there are many non-native English speakers here, or maybe there is a reason why this article is entitled as such but Succession TO Muhammad doesn't make sense. Perhaps Succession after Muhammad, or from Muhammad.

The title is a direct lift from Wilferd Madelung's very good book, The Succession to Muhammad. Cambridge University Press thought that was a perfectly good title. You think your English is better than theirs? Um, perhaps you are crazy. Zora 18:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The sunni view of Ali's hesistance

Personally, i have something to add in the connection with the sunni view of Ali's hesitance. According to the Sunni view, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:546 is especially notable because Ali does acutally admit that Abu Bakr has some kind of superiority. This website [2], i think, gives a fair good view of the sunni view of the succession. Thank you for reading. God bless you all.

[edit] Template

Zora, i created that template for navigation purpose. If you look closely, you will see that pure Sunni view articles like Abu Bakr's prayer linked to it. If there is any section that you feel is missing, then fix it, or tell me so i can fix it for you. --Striver 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/c/Talk%7ESuccession_to_Muhammad_91fc.html"