Talk:Shia Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Shi'a Islam, a WikiProject related to the Shi'a Islam.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shia Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Archive01 - July 2004 - December 2005

Contents

[edit] Percentage

This article mentions Shia Islam as being 15% and 85% of all of islam. Only one number can be correct. The first number is mentioned in the first paragraph. The second number is mentioned in the "Demographics" paragraph. This appears to have been corrected

216.119.176.54 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Anders

[edit] Redirect

Someone vandalized this page with a redirect to the article on "Shit". How can that be reported?

[edit] Map

something is off with the second map. it doesnt have the borders of Yemen (which would have been South yemen at the time.) It makes it seem as though that area is part of Saudi Arabia. Also isnt ther a significant Shia population in Yemen. It isnt shown on the map. Xerex 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are all simple: (1) Yemeni borders: with regard to those, the map is very old, this is very obvious!! There has been a very long border dispute between the Yemenis and the Saudis which wasn't resolved until less than 5 years ago, I believe, which explains what you see. The borders are now demarcated and 'all is good'. (2) Yemeni Shia areas: the dark green doesn't mean that all the Yemeni ZAIDI Shia live there only, but it means that these are their areas of heavy concentration. It is, however, true and is well known to those specialized in the region that the former 'Northern Yemen' republic was of majority Zaidi Shia population, which explains what you see on the map. The "significant Shia population" you are talking about is above 40% and being so doesn't mean you have to see 40% of the Yemeni soil painted in dark green!!! Certain areas would have more people per squre kilometer than many vast lands!! There is no such rule, when it comes to drawing maps, to reflect the percentage a group of people comprise in the total population by means of colors on the country's map!!! I thought this was commonsense!!! SilkySword 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Flaggelation

flaggelation is self harm- self harm is strictly forbidden in islam.

also bombing markets and taking women as hostage before killing them is strictly forbidden in islam--82.194.62.23 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that those acts you want to say fundamentalist Sunni groups are accused of? Let me tell you that there is no real proof on that, as the rulers who want to hold on to their thrones while defaming those challenging their authority and control (like fundamentalist Sunni groups) would resort to all means necessary (including killing innocents) to discredit and bring shame on their rivals! Meanwhile, I think the entire world today is sure what the Shia death squads are doing in Iraq!!! SilkySword 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

reply to u: flaggelation for no use is forbiddin, but for Ahlulbait it is.

Oh yeah??? And what do the deceased members of Ahlulbayt (ra.) benefit from your flaggelation exactly??? Share with us, please!!! SilkySword 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Deceased"? The quran has some words to say on this to faggots like you..."And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: 'They are dead.' Nay they are living though ye perceive (it) not." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.215.187 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ismailis

The second largest group of Shi'a Muslims are actually a subgroup of Ismailis called the Nizari Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan. They are NOT Seveners as briefly mentioned in the article... Ismailis have a diversity of sects including the Nizaris, the Druze, and the Bhoras.

A clarification is needed, as well as a differentiation - I have added it to the denominations section.

[edit] Multiple POV

Because for this article there's actually many POV, why don't we have multiple pages, one for sunnis' POV, one for shi'i, and one for general information about shi'i.--Ali Akbar 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's called a POV fork and WP doesn't like them. Unfortunately, one Shi'a editor was extremely fond of making them, and it's taking time to work them out of the system. Zora 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Shia and sunni traditions

I can't believe some illiterate individual actually believes shia muslims perfrom anal sex. And I cant believe nobody had half a brain to edit it. -Kiran

Oh come on, deleting my posts is just censoring free thought. Shame on you Wiki. Put it back.

you may notice that wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of un-sourced and un-verified opinions, musings or invective. perhaps if you wish to air unfounded beliefs on the sexual habits of certain religions you should get a blog instead? -- frymaster 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is such a well-documented fact about the Shia religion (allowing anal sex). There was even a quick reference to that in an American show by that 'Maher' guy, he said he found the 'fatwa' allowing that right on Sistani's website!!! The problem with the Shia commones is that they don't READ, YET they like to assume stuff and believe they do or don't exist (example is this Kiran here). I can show scanned pages in Arabic from the major Shia books of 'narrations' and I can cite specific sources too, but do you have those books to verify what I say? Most of the Shia don't even have their major books at home, yet they claim not only to know their religion very well, but that of ours too (Islam -yes, and I like to refer to Sunni Islam as just 'Islam', since we are the Orthodoxy and others are the 'heresy', whether you like that or not). SilkySword 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emulation

I didn't know what emulation meant near the top of the article, so I clicked it for clarification. However it went to an article about software emulators, which I doubt the 12 Imams were concerned with.

I believe you mean to ask about Taqlid. It means to emulate or imitate (that is to follow) the religous verdicts of a major Muslim scholar. It is because you as a layperson don't have the knowledge to make up your own opinion on it, so you trust a certain scholar and you choose to follow what he follows of opinions (which are believed that he reached through careful research and reasoning, and when there is not textual evidence from the Quran or Sunnah on the matter in question; that's when he resorts to those other methods to reach an opinion on the matter). SilkySword 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Picture Move

I moved the intro picture because for me and probably for many other users (esp. those with hi-res screens), the image appears to the left of the table of contents. The picture is not especially important in the intro, so it doesn't really matter where it is. Moving the picture to the Etymology section eliminates the issue but keeps the picture in a prominent location. joturner 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A possible reference

I found this article interesting and believe it can serve as a good reference to this article. [1]

Sunnis and Shias differ in doctrine, ritual, law, theology and religious organisation. It is the largest and oldest division in the history of Islam.

But the origins of the split lie in a dispute over who should have succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as leader of the Muslim community when he died in 632.

One group of Muslims elected Abu Bakr as the next caliph (leader) of the community, but another group believed the prophet's son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor.

Though Ali eventually became the fourth caliph, his legitimacy was disputed and he was murdered in 661.

The Shiat Ali ("Party of Ali") refused to recognise the legitimacy of his chief opponent and successor, Muawiya. Ali's sons Hassan and Hussein continued to oppose Muawiya's successor and fighting between the two sides resulted. Hassan was poisoned in 669 and Hussein was killed in battle near Karbala in 680.

Ali, Hassan and Hussein became the first of the 12 imams who Shia Muslims believe are the divinely-appointed leaders of the Muslim community.

The leadership by imams continued until 878, when the 12th Imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, is said to have disappeared from a cave below a mosque in Samarra.

Not accepting that he died, Shias still await his return more than 1,100 years later. The Hidden Imam's arrival will, they believe, reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.

[edit] Neutrality and cleanup

I had edited the article and made changes to it, in order to keep it more neutral while still trying to preserve the facts. I feared that a NPOV disputed notice might be put up if those changes were not made. I had also done some cleanup of the article to make it conform to Wikipedia's standards, and had put a note on every change that I had made.
Someone has removed all the changes I have made, from an unknown IP Address, by reverting to an older version of the page, without any note. Everyone is welcome to improve the article by making any kind of further changes to the ones that I had made, but I would request that you would please explain any major changes by putting up an edit summary, or talking about it in the discussion page. By reverting back to an older version of the page, I see a very obvious slant in the article now and it might not be long before someone notices it and puts up a NPOV disputed notice.
Thank you everyone for all the contributions you have made to this page --Jibran1 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, my request is to please not add too many links in the 'External links' section.
Please refer to this page Wikipedia:Five pillars, and I quote:
Wikipedia is not... a grouping of links (whether internal or external).
Thank you.--Jibran1 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the article appears to suffer from absence of NPOV and absence of discussion relative to relation to terrorism Cdcdoc 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a-Sunni

Do we need Common arguements in Shi'a Sunni dialogs to cover stuff like this in?--Striver 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG that was ugly! --Striver 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

This page has been moved from Shi'a Islam to Shiah Islam. My understanding is that Shi'a Islam is more correct, and I think it should be moved back. Any comments. -- Jeff3000 20:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only was that move done without any consultation with other editors, it affects links in hundreds of Islam-related articles. Move it back! Zora 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be changed back. Pepsidrinka 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

When did shiism actually start as a movement? there is nothing about that n the article.

I have added another Sunni-Shia demographic statistics that was featured by Al-Jazeerah. --Islami 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The muslims were all one group until the prophet Muhammad(PBUH) had died. He told them to have Ali `ibn Abu talib(PBUH) to lead the muslims. Most of them(80%) said he was too young and said Abu Bakir should be the next leader since he was older and wiser. A few of them(20%) said Ali(PBUH) should be the leader since he was chosen by the prophet. This took place around 650 A.D. I hope that answers your question.--LF2 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). The proper way to write it is Shi`a with a grave accent [`] and not an apostrophe [']. It's easy to confuse the two, but Shi`ah uses an ayin character in Arabic, not a hamza, and the correct way to transliterate is to distinguish between the two. The grave accent is also found on the keyboard, to the left of the "1" key.

Does anyone object if I change the page title and fix the redirects which it will cause? Cuñado - Talk 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, we could add the "H" on the end to represent the tāʼ marbūṭa (ة), but it's inclusion is sometimes omitted, so it's up to preference. Cuñado - Talk 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm about to change the title. I got no responses. Cuñado - Talk 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this notice. The Shi'a article is the scene of so much skirmishing that I usually ignore it. MOVE IT BACK, dang it. Hundreds of articles are linked to Shi'a. Zora 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You can move it back right now if you want. I was about to start going through and fixing redirects and other "Shi'a" titled articles. I think the reasoning is clear, are you protesting the usage of "Shi`ah" or the redirects? Cuñado - Talk 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No primary transliteration

Ok Zora, first see the proposed policy for Arabic naming (I assume you already know it). This falls into the category of Muhammad and the Qur'an which have no primary transliteration, so the default is not the highest google search, but the standard transliteration should be used. In the case of the ta' marbuta there is not a very standard way of dealing with it, so you could argue to use "Shi`a" over "Shi`ah" ("Shi`at" in more classical), but regardless, using the apostrophe is wrong, it should be a grave accent, like this: `.

A quick search can prove that there is no primary transliteration:

  • Shia - 12,000,000
  • Shi'a - 1,700,000
  • Shi`a - 31,200,000
  • Shiah - 157,000
  • Shi'ah - 83,300
  • Shi`ah - 4,080,000
  • Shiite - 13,600,000
  • Shi'ite - 3,110,000
  • Shi`ite - 18,200,000
  • Shi'ih - 583
  • Shi`ih - 625,000

I'm not sure how google searches with apostrophes* Note that our own version of Shi'a only gets 1.7M, and that can be high due to Wiki mirrors. The highest is Shi`a with 31.2M, but even that doesn't take the cake.

I would argue that the title (and usage on all the wikipedia pages) should be Shi`a or Shi`ah, and I would prefer the latter. Cuñado - Talk 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that the "h" at the end is the "standard transliteration"? john k 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot two more:

  • Shi'i - 299,000
  • Shi`i - 52,600,000

The word has a Ta' Marbuta at the end in Arabic. This is either pronounced as an "H" or a "T", depending on usage in standard Arabic. It is often omitted when transliterated because it's not totally necessary, and lightly pronounced. The main issue is using the different accent. Cuñado - Talk 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the accent grave. Readers don't use it. Shi'a gets 1,700,000 google hits. Shi'ah gets 83,000. Shi'a gets 95% of the hits, Shi'ah gets 5%. Zora 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning of "readers don't use it" is not true. That's why in all cases it gets more hits by orders of magnitude more. It's really necessary to distinguish between the ayin and the hamza, and if you want to use the apostrophe for both then it's not correct. It's either ayin=‘ hamza=’ or ayin=` hamza=', anything else is sloppy.
Without the "H" the ta' marbuta is ignored, and it's another example of sloppy writing. We already had this argument on Fatima Zahra and you won based on google hits. I'm really not sure why you oppose using the "H". Should we RFC this? Cuñado - Talk 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunardo, Google doesn't distinguish between hamza and ayn, nor do 99% of the people who use the English Google. This would be relevant for an Arabic Google, if there is one. English-speakers use apostrophes. It's not accurate, but it's convenient. Please stop trying to impose your version of "correctness" on dozens of other Wikipedia editors.

Sure, we should have the word in Arabic, in Unicode, and in a proper transliteration, at least once in the article. But otherwise we can use the common English form of the word, which is not the same thing as the proper transliteration. Zora 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't think I'm imposing any of my personal ideas of "correctness". There have been international standards set: Library of Congress, United Nations, several international conventions of orientalists.
I'm not sure how google deals with the apostrophes vs grave accents, and I don't think you do either. But the search results are different. In printed text there is always a distinction between the two characters. The proposed guidelines say that if no primary exists then use the standard. There are several common ways to spell it (Shia, Shiah, Shi'ah, Shi'i, Shi'ih, Shiite, Shi'ite), so there is no 'English' version of it.
Here's one more example to look at: dictionary.com gives Shi`ah as one of four, none of them with an apostrophe. Compare it to Qur'an, which has a hamza. They use different characters to represent the ayin and the hamza. Look at any transliteration table, there are several here. They all differentiate between the two. Using the wrong symbol just makes it look bad to anyone who knows what they're doing. If there are references that use an apostrophe, or omit the ayin altogether, it's out of ignorance and not convenience. This page says "Shia" but then puts the ayin there for "`Ali" and the hamza for "Qur'an". Cuñado - Talk 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Cuñado, first off Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) is still just proposed. It is in no way offical, so please refrain from implementing it right now. Secondly, moves like this one are extremely controversial - this is too well-known of a topic to be making unilateral page moves like that. In the future you should go to requested moves so the community can vote on it. --Khoikhoi 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, if we're going to have an official transliteration policy, I'd request that instead of making a distinction between the apostrophe and the back-tick, which are nearly indistinguishable, we do what I see many academic presses do, which is use forward and backward facing semicircle superscripts for the hamza and the ayn (or whichever way it goes). I spent quite a bit of time looking for them in the Unicode documents, and couldn't find the numbers, but I'm sure that they exist, I see them frequently, and they make the diff between hamza and ayn very clear and readable.

Here they are:
ʾ       U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING
        * transliteration of Arabic hamza (glottal stop)
        x (armenian apostrophe - 055A)
        x (arabic letter hamza - 0621)
ʿ       U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING
        * transliteration of Arabic ain (voiced pharyngeal fricative)
        x (armenian modifier letter left half ring - 0559)
        x (arabic letter ain - 0639)
ˀ       U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP
        * ejective or glottalized
        * typographical alternate for 02BC or 02BE
        x (latin letter glottal stop - 0294)
        x (combining hook above - 0309)
ˁ       U+02C1 MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED GLOTTAL STOP
        * typographical alternate for 02BF
        x (latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative - 0295)
This would give: Shiʿa Shiʿa Shiʿa --JWB 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, for the regular English usage of Shi'a -- as opposed to an exact transliteration -- I'd ask that Cunardo respect decisions made in the past that may not be ideal, but are now used in hundreds of articles and just cannot be easily reversed. I'm going to move this article BACK. If Cunard wants to change things, he's going to have to make sure that all editors who work in Islam/Arabic/Middle East-related articles are notified, and that there's a plan in place (a bot?) for changing hundreds of references if all the editors decide to make a change.

Third, I'm asking Cunardo to stop making decisions about Arabic names without consulting anyone. There are names that have English forms that have been used for a long time. Those forms may not match the Arabic, but they are known, and familiar, and ENGLISH. This is the English wikipedia, we use English. We say and write Ali, we don't use `Ali. Please, Cunardo, limit yourself to making sure that every name has both an Arabic form and a proper transliteration, given once at the start of the article. Don't insist that the "proper" transliteration be used everywhere. Zora 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, don't try to represent dozens of editors. So far you're the only one in open opposition to my efforts to clean up articles, and nobody else has really shown any interest in the entire subject. I've been the one making the proposed standard, and I would like all these dozens of supposed editors to help make and implement the policy, but nobody seems to care. Khoikhoi is right, if it's only a proposed standard then it doesn't matter. As to the English argument, I already went over this. There are a dozen way of writing it, so we could sit here all day and argue what the best form is. That's why there's a standard form to use. As to what character to use, there are two characters on the keyboard [` '] and two in the WK edit window [‘ ’], outside of those it would not be practical to use an inaccessible unicode character. I would prefer the edit window characters, but they're less accessible. Cuñado - Talk 00:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunardo, if we're only going to use the hamza and ayn characters once, in the proper transliteration, then it is not that much extra trouble to use non-keyboard characters. We do not need to include them in every single use of every single Arabic word. We pick an English form that's close enough and use it. We use the commonest and easiest forms. Some of the academic books I read make a point of using the "correct" transliteration, with all the diacritics and special symbols, every single time, and some just say, "We're going to use Muhammad, Ali, Umar, etc." and get on with it. Given that most of the editors working on Islam-related articles do NOT know Arabic, and that 99% of the readers and users of the encyclopedia wouldn't know what to make of the differences between Ali, 'Ali, and `Ali, it is good enough to provide a good transliteration just ONCE, for people who really do want to pronounce it according to the dialect of Arabic that they know. The rest of us will make do with a version that is easily readable. The rest of us are just going to say Ali.

Also, try to understand that past choices can make doing the perfectly right thing impossible. I don't even remember where we discussed it, or who was there, but two years or so ago a bunch of editors (Muslim and non-Muslim, Sunni and Shi'a) agreed that Shi'a was OK, and that form is now used all over WP. That initial decision may not have been the best one, but we've got enough of an "installed base" that changing would be a nightmare. Respect practicality! Zora 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If this was the arabic version of Wikipedia I'd see where you're going with this since it is important to write it the right way. However, because this is the english version of wikipedia it is ok to make changes in the roman transliteration of arabic words.--LF2 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walmens?

I tried to figure out what this word meant, but Google only came up with a musical band or some Dutch meaning. What is Walmens in the section on Demographics ? On 3 April 2006 User:72.192.10.253 replaced 'Saudi' with 'Walmens'. Is this maybe a phonetic transliteration of some Arabic word? Shenme 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Change it back to Saudi, maybe it was vandilism.--LF2 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is sickening.[2]. --Zereshk 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But hey, now they are free at least, thanks to "enduring freedom"... lol... or sort of... --Striver 07:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual/NPOV and the succession

This page is about Shi'a, which obviously takes one stance on the succession, but that doesn't warrant stating their beliefs as fact. From the Overview section:

"Shi'as do not accept the rule of the initial three Sunni caliphs who proclaimed leadership after Muhammad's passing, believing them illegitimate and inferior to Muhammad's family in all respects."

(This seems fine, but then...)

"The caliphs are followed by Sunni Muslims, who ignored Muhammad's chosen successor. The first caliph, Abu Bakr erroneously took over power at a meeting he had at the saqifah with Umar."

In the next few days, barring any posts here expressing grounded objections, i will re-write the passage, including any facts present now.

--KEM 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should look at the history of the article - I would suspect that this version was added in fairly recently by a POV pusher. john k 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-objective writing?

In the History section, there are statements that "However, many Sunni scholars of recent history have become more open towards Shi'a Muslims and some have promoted unity, while others have not. Shi'as has always stressed to seek unity among the Muslims."

This seems a biased point of view i.e. that Shias have always sought unity whereas Sunnis have not. Can someone modify this to be more objective?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gokhalevai (talk • contribs).

Actualy, that is the case, Sunni cant stand that we hate Umar. --Striver 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Speak for yourself! I don't think that any muslim should hate Umar. The Prophet Muhammed (SAW) doesn't hate Umar. He just refuses to talk to /associate with him, as described in Bokhari and Muslim. Ali gave Abu Baker allegiance twice, once under compulsion, and six months later freely. Ali could have chosen to fight Abu Baker and Umar, but he chose not to. He said that he was happy to give allegiance to any muslim ruler, and did so. He asked for the Shi'a support and didn't get it! The rest is all rhetoric.
There is no basis for Shi'a and Sunni discord. The differences in Shi'asm and Sunnism are chiefly differences in ignorance. IHusain 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a wikipedia discussion is going to solve the differences between Sunni and Shia muslims. People have been trying to solve it for quite a while now. The best we can do is to just "get along". Peace. --Nkv 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shi'a clergy

I am actually interested in the differences in the clerical structure and ranking between Shia and Sunni, any idea? Do sunis have Ayatolahs? Do individuals follow a Mojtahed? In Shia the Marjaeh-Taghlid (Mojtahed) can only issue fatwa, who can do that in Sunnat? Kiumars

Actually, there is an article in wiki on The Shi'a clergy, but it is terribly lacking in content. About 1/3 of the very small article presents the Sunni view, and the dynamics of Shi'a clerical authority, who can ijtihad and under what circumstances and by what qualifications are not mentioned. Also the various theological schools of thought in Shi'a islam are entirely unrepresented. It would be great if someone would flesh out that article, and then a proper comparison could be made between shi'a and sunni clergy. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality

?The correct pronunciation is "Shi'a," (SHE-ah); and some take offense when they are referred to as "Shiites". Shias believe that this is common sense that has been warped for ridicule sake.

- FrancisTyers · 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need to be bolded. Pronunciation is not any more important than any other piece of information on the page. What we really need is an IPA pronunciation guide in the intro, and perhaps a plural as well. I doubt all Shi'as believe that people who mipronounce the name are doing so against them. I do agree that, if a popular pronunciation is indeed incorrect, we need to provide a clear guide to correct pronunciation on the page. This page should provide that information, but not a lecture on using it correctly.
- KEM 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody understands that IPA pronunciation. Putting it in is a waste of space. Put in a pronunciation that people can actually understand. Armyrifle 19:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Muslims in East Asia?

Is there any Shia Muslims in the far east? From what I know, East Asian Muslims are all either Shafi (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, southern Philippines, southern China) or Hanafi (northern China) Sunnis. Le Anh-Huy 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, if I remember correct, Indonesia and Malaysia are 99% Ahlus Sunnah and China is like 95%. There is some Shi'a in the area, but a (Malay I think) brother on Myspace informed me that there was no Shi'a there. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Ahmadis

I'm new to this and so maybe I didn't look properly in the discussion archives, but I don't see any justification for adding Ahmadi in parentheses after India in the Demographics section. The Shi'a and the Ahmadiyya are two completely different groups and should not be confused with one another --Chef 17 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a and Sunni traditions

I find this statement related to Shi'a having a different Quran, incredibly offensive. Perhaps there should be a special page devoted to offensive and ignorant belief about Shi'a and Sunni Traditions. This type of information has no place in a page devoted to Shi'asm. If there are no objection, I will delete it. -- IHusain 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this piece into the Misconceptions section where is sounds much less offensive. -- IHusain 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency between English and Chinese version of the document

In the English version, it said that about 85-90% of the Muslims are Sunni's, while 10-15% are Shiite's. In the Chinese version, the split is 65-70% Sunni's, and 30-35% are Shiite's.

Which version is correct?

Shi'a compromise 10-15%, not 30-35% as per [Blanchard xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic map

There should be a demographic map in this article. I find some maps . Please choose 1 or 2 of them to put it in the article. [3] and [4]. I propose to use both of them as fair use.--Sa.vakilian 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current map should be removed. There should be a demographic map of Shias all over the world. Not a demographic map of Iran. Shias are majorities in many other states such as Bahrain, Azerbaijan, and Iraq, with significant populations elsewhere.
The current map is completely irrelevant to the article, unless similar maps of all other Shia countries are added as well.--Zereshk 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I add to demoghraohic map. One of them is released under Public Domain and I put the other one as fair use.--Sa.vakilian 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Those are very good maps. dastet dard nakoneh.--Zereshk 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The second map shows uzbeckistand going containing Krygistan and tajikistan and shows it's own capital outside it's borders. total map malifuction. Zazaban 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's Family Seed: Truth or Untruth?

I have read somewhere that most of the contemporary descendents of Muhammad's family lineage in the middle east are Shi'as. I know that some might think that it is very convenient for them (only the Prophet's line as rightful leaders, in a way), but what significance does it have after all? Are Muhammad's kin worthy of being relied upon for guidance or it doesn't matter anymore?

Well, it depends on who founded your madhhab. --Striver 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No it does not depend on who founded you madhab. Prophet Muhammaed had no male descendants. ~~Unflavoured November 14, 2006
Muhammad had no male children.Isaac Crumm 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but relatives close to him DID have male children, particularly Ali. If I understood the question well, it refers to Muhammad's family as a whole, not his children.

[edit] Map and table issues

The table shows Oman being 75% Shia but the map doesn't show anything! Zazaban 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The table is wrong in some cases. For example according to official statistics only 89% of Iranians are Shiite.[5] There is another problem about the table. It is sorted on the basis of Shi'a population percent. It means this table doesn't include India with 10 million Shi'a. Also the map may be wrong in some case like Yemen.--Sa.vakilian 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There are two seprate aticles about the demography of Shi'a Shi'a population and Demographics of Islam. So I propose to remove the table from this article.--Sa.vakilian 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Image:Shiite-1.jpg map but it's a pity as i see that it was removed by a bot because of its disputed status of fair use images. I believe it is more accurate than Image:Muslim distribution.jpg. I don't have Photoshop or an image software but if you have you can recreate it yourself. -- Szvest 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

There should be done some corrections about Yemen and uzbeckistan.--Sa.vakilian 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatically incomprehensible

As a native English speaker, I find this line in the into paragraph of the article to be nigh incomprehensible:

Although Alawites known as Shi'a but because of their idea about Ali this claim is disputed, though mainstream shias denounce for taking an extreme view of Ali, and not actually following the pillars of islam.

Unfortunately I do not know enough about the topic to give the line a good copy edit. Can someone knowledgeable on Islam fix the sentence's grammatical issues and make it understandable? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph with proper grammar, though I did not research the claim: "Alawites are also Shi'a, due to their beliefs regarding Ali. However, mainstream Shi'as denounce them for taking an extreme view of Ali, and for not actually following the pillars of Islam." If no one objects, and the paragraph is comprehensible, replace it. ~~User:Unflavoured, 11:05, 14 November 2006

[edit] Number of Shi'a Muslims

The article states that 15% of Muslims are Shi'a and then goes on to say that there are 400 million Shi'a Muslims. This would imply over 2 billion Muslim people in the world, which is not correct. I am suggest dropping the 400 million, as almost all sources agree with the 15% claim. Elijahmeeks 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiites are 130 million to 190 million people.[6]--Sa.vakilian 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I made the change based on your source Vakilian. OLD: Today there are roughly 400 million Shi'a (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) all over the world, and around three quarters of those reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3] NEW:Today there estimated to be between 130 and 190 million Shi'a Muslims[1] (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) throughout the world, about three quarters of whom reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3]--Chobbs138 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theology

Being a twelver, it is not easy to come to this conclusion, but the principles and and practices of religion does not belong her, since they are twelver doctrines. Hence, i am moving them to the proper article. --Striver 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Shia Islam. It's the most supported option in the straw poll below, and seems to be the consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Shi'a Shi'a Islam → Shi‘a Islam — Can we please agree to change the title from Shi'a to Shi‘a. It is terribly technically inaccurate to spell it with an apostrophe. Most people won't notice the difference anyway, and I will fix all the redirects to point to the new title, so it won't affect any other pages. Cuñado - Talk 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey – Support votes

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  • oppose move as per User:Evv and User:WilliamThweatt in Discussion below. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Either use a correct transliteration (e.g., Shīʿah) or the English form but not a hybrid. — AjaxSmack 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Personally, I believe that Shia Islam makes more sense as it is commonplace in English language. I am perfectly aware that it is not a correct transliteration. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I also thought (with a certain amount of prejudice) that "Shia" would be more common, but then I checked it:
Best regads, Evv 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is the English Wikipedia. "Shia" is the English word. We should use the English word for the title, not a transliteration. Where else do we use a transliteration instead of the English word? That having been said, however, for the sake of convenience I am not opposed to keeping the current version.--WilliamThweatt 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't now how we can transliterate "شيعَه" in English. There are many other words which have ع like Ash'ari, Murji'ah and Mu'tazili. We can look haw they have been transliterated.--Sa.vakilian 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have already mentioned this. There are very organized standards for Arabic transliteration. See here, here, and here for more information. There is no question by any standard that the current version (with apostrophe) is wrong. Cuñado - Talk 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the word "Murji'ah" has a hamza, not an `ayin. Cuñado - Talk 10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Cunado, no disrespect intended at all, but I think you are missing the point of all the arguments here. I am familiar with the Arabic language and it's script. I totally agree with you that there are established standards for transliterating letters such as ayin. However, the arguments are that this is the English Wikipedia. In naming articles, we use English words that conform to English standards of orthography, not transliterations. English has a word, namely, "Shia" for this topic, hence the English word should be used instead of a transliteration. For example, the article on the Italian City of Rome is entitled "Rome" not "Roma". The article for the Southeast Asian language of the Khmu people is called "Khmu" not "Khmu'", as it would be in a proper transliteration. The point is we are not trying to get the transliteration correct in the title because the title is not a transliteration, it's an English word based on or adapted from the Arabic. I hope this makes a little more sense now.--WilliamThweatt 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The preferred spelling of the English word Shia seems to be the version without an apostroph/quotation mark. —Ruud 12:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary Spelling
MW Shia
AHD Shi·ah or Shi·a also Shi·‘ah or

Shi·‘a
OALD Shia (also Shi’a)
CALD Shia

I'd support a move to Shi`a Islam, seeing that we have Qur'an (viz., apostrophe for hamza, 'reverse single quote' for `ayin). A move to Shiʿa Islam or Shi‘a Islam would be over the top (also inconsistent, if anything, it would have to be Šīʿah Islām), seeing we have Qur'an, not Qurʾan or Qurʾān. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that to standardize we should use the 'grave accent' (`), but when used in the middle of a word it becomes ugly. The MOS was created with a standard transliteration that is easy to use and type, hence the grave accent (on the keyboard), but when I tried to move it to Shi`a (grave accent), I received a lot of opposition (see discussions above). The 'turned comma' (‘) looks much better, and is actually the preferred way to transliterate, just not as convenient to type. I suggest either using Shia (English, per discussion above) or Shi‘a (turned comma). I think the important part is that we don't use the apostrophe, which is just wrong. Cuñado - Talk 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to use the apostrophe because it's not a huge stretch for my little finger, and it's a lot easier to type. I want to keep Shi'a because there are thousands of articles with Shi'a. Yes, I know it's not a proper transliteration. Yes, a different character might be better. If I were publishing a book, I'd probably use the upside down raised comma, or left quote mark. BTW, a lot of readers know that the ' is a glottal stop as well as a contraction. When science fiction writers invent alien names, they often throw in apostrophes for glottal stops. See the WP Apostrophe article. Zora 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll for clarification

The discussion above has gotten rather complicated. I'm going to try and sum up opinions. Please feel free to add yourself to multiple lists. ~Cuñado

[edit] Shia

Pros: Can avoid all this discussion by using no marking for the `ayin, the English way of spelling.

[edit] Shi`a

Pros: Following the MOS, this would be the easiest to type, but looks a bit funny.

[edit] Shi‘a

Pros: Follows the majority of Arabic standards, and would be an accurate representation of the `ayin. Most people will not even notice the difference.

[edit] Shi'a

Pros: Zora likes this better because her pinky doesn't have to move as far when typing it. If I was a dictator I would have Zora jailed for this suggestion.

[edit] More comments

  • I would definitely question the assumption that <Shia> is an English word. The dictionary.com entry gives a variety of spellings, including: Shiʿah, Shiʿa, Shiʿite, Shiite, Shiʿa, Shiʿah, Shiʿi, Shiah, Shia, Shi'ah or Shi'a. Almost all of them use the half circle representing the `ayin. The sheer variety of possible spellings in English means that a standard transliteration should be used, per the MOS for wikipedia. This fact sheet shows the transliterations of `ayin from the 6 most widely used standards. 4 of them use the half ring <ʿ>, and the UN and LC use the turned comma <‘>. The wikipedia MOS is based off of the UN and LC standards, but two other standards, Qalam and SATTS use the grave accent <`>, which is what wikipedia uses as the standard version to make it easier to type. So in other words, the grave accent is preferred, then after that the turned comma. The half ring is not used due to browser display issues. Other than these three, there is no other option unless we start making stuff up. The apostrophe is not used by people who know what they're doing. Cuñado - Talk 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Then how come this bring up pages like al-islam.org and its Shi'a encyclopedia? Are they both ignorant? --Striver - talk 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've already shown that every standard for Arabic romanization differentiates between hamza and `ayin. Showing examples of Muslim sites that are ignorant of transliteration standards is not an argument for using the wrong version on wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, you keep confusing transliteration with naturalizing a word in English. If it's naturalized -- stolen, per James Nicoll's famous quote --

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary.

-- then it's not going to have any letters or symbols that aren't on the standard qwerty keyboard. I agree that Shi'a or Shia hasn't been fully naturalized into English yet -- there's still a lot of variation. However, we're going to to have to move in the direction of naturalization, not transliteration. We can't expect a bunch of random editors, many of whom know no Arabic, to cope with Arabic transliteration. I agree that we should have a proper Arabic transliteration at least once in every article, so that people who do know Arabic know how to pronounce it. We very very much need editors like you who can do that.

I don't care as much about names. Minor Arab generals' names are never going to be naturalized into English. But a word like Shi'a/Shia is going to be naturalized. I'd plump for Shi'a just because we've standardized on that so far. If the non-WP world eventually standardizes on Shia, then we'll run a bot to do a search and replace. Zora 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the grave accent is on the keyboard (left of the 1). And I don't totally oppose using <Shia>, but I don't see any evidence that a majority of professional references use the same naturalized form. Besides the debate of how to represent the `ayin (or not represent it), there is another debate of how to represent the ta' marbuta (or not represent it). See above for possible spellings and google rankings. <Shia> doesn't even get the largest number of hits, let alone a majority.
Here's a few more examples from major news media. CNN uses: Shiite, Shia, Shia and Shi'a in the same paragraph, Shii, and Shi'ite. BBC uses: Shii and Shi'i in the same paragraph, Shia, Shi'a, Shia, Shiite, and Shi'ite. Al-Jazeera uses: Shia, Shi'a, Shiite, and Shi'ite. here is a page using Shi'a, Shia, Shi'ite, Shiaa, Shiite all at the same time. If you think that this is a word that has become standard English, then what word are you talking about? It's exactly for this reason that standards were created, so there is some kind of order. Cuñado - Talk 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. There is no standard or common word for transliterating شيعة. A CNN article that uses Shia and Shi'a in the same paragraph is solid proof. So let's just standardize it here. Forget about strict transliterations; we need to use a user-friendly word, which most editors, around the world, would find easier to use. So right now, I think it would be better to move to Shi`a. It is both easy to use and, most importantly, correct. ← ANAS Talk? 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Either use a correct transliteration (e.g., Shīʿah) or the English form but not a hybrid. — AjaxSmack 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] muslim_distribution.jpg

The Map is not correct. The provinces Gilan and Mazandaran are shown as Sunni, while they are Shi'a. Please replace the map with another one. Sohanaki 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits by 84.255.151.106

I've just reverted four edits by this user; I thought it worth commenting on my reasons here, since the first one looked helpful — it was a removal of a number of external links, which if you ask me this page needs! The second was changing "10% or more" to "15%" (and a change that I missed at first, from a Brittanica reference to a weasel-worded "some estimates" — it wasn't good grammar either); I say that the former phrasing better represents the conflicting nature of the statistics, but since I was the one who phrased it that way, all the more reason to defend my decision to revert, right? The third one removed the NPOVifying phrase "Shias believe that they adhere to..." and just made it "Shias adhere to..." (but again, the original was my phrasing). The fourth was blatant misinformation, cutting words to make the article say that 85% of Muslims are Shia. It was that one that sealed the decision for me to revert -- and I figured it was best to go right back and undo the link pruning, since my ability to assume good faith on the part of this editor was lost.

Incidentally, I still think the article needs its external links pruned. Anybody want to volunteer to examine them? -- Perey 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaand this would be the other reason for documenting my revert here: so I feel more justified in coming along and redoing it. 74.104.154.50 reverted my revert and then added some external links. 24.249.27.77 reverted way back even further, without an edit comment, reintroducing a lot of cruft to the introduction. 72.66.216.159 and Shadow gost then kindly undid some of the absurdity (the former fixed the 85%/15% problem, Shadow gost reverted the uncommented revert), but I think a wholesale revert to before 74.104.154.50's revert is justified. (I will preserve Shadow gost's last edit, removing Tijani from the list of Shia sects.) -- Perey 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've been reverted by Namez 2007 (a one-minute old account, incidentally). This will be the last revert I will perform, so as to not get into edit wars or run afoul of the three-revert rule. Could people please discuss here before reverting more? -- Perey 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to the Falsely Alleged Quranic Documentaion Created by Zereshk

Hello bro !

Quran 5:55 { Your friend is ALLAH and HIS Messenger and the believers who observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat and worship God alone.

The word Used is (waallatheena Plural from single arabic word Allazy, meaning those) whom all Belivers , whom do what?...yes..

yuqeemoona (plural from single arab root word Yqeem, meaning establish) Prayer,pay the Zakaat and worship God alone.

I dont know where you get the idead that verse 5:55 talk to one person, where as it is talking to groups in plural forms?.

Verse 5:3 word used AAalaykumu (means upon you) not Alikom ( means you Ali).

Verse [5:67] O Messenger ! convey to the people what has been revealed to thee from thy Lord; and if thou do it not, thou has not conveyed HIS Message. And ALLAH will protect thee from men. Surely ALLAH guides not the disbelieving people.

What revealed to the Prophet is Ali? If that is the case it will contradict the Quran itself which says

Quran {Alif, Lam, Mim, tsad. (It is) a Scripture that is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) - so let there be no heaviness in thy heart therefrom - that thou mayst warn thereby, and (it is) a Reminder unto believers, saying :Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow authority(a besides it , how little do you mind} (Quran 7:1-3.

[003:105] Do not be like those who splintered (into sects) and differed (among themselves), even though clear proofs had already come to them. It is they, for whom there exists the severest (most awful) punishment.


That is the Quran that crash all your Claims, anything else be it Hadith or scholars works , is just water under bridge if Contrast or oppose the Quran.81.156.147.250 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

انما ولیکم الله و رسوله و المؤمنون الذین یقیمون الصلوة و یؤتون الزکوة و هم راکعون
1-Wali doesn't mean friend. Because of "Ennama". All of believers are our friends but Ennama is used for restriction. It has restricted something or somebody among a group. Thus it doesn't mean friend.
2- Who are they? They're believers who pray and donate while they're genuflecting. The "Va hom rakeun" is Haal and means while they're genuflecting.
3- We should refer to Hadith to find who are them. Who are these guys which has restricted from the other believers and for what reason.--Sa.vakilian 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).



Before Going to Hadith...and verify it/ proof it ....[and because we don’t have Doctor who space and time travel Machines to verify the Hadith or proof it and to know what verse 5:55 talks about]..

Lets Look at Verse Quran 5:55..and lets subject your Hadith to Quranic X-RAY.

The verse says

انما ولیکم الله و رسوله و المؤمنون الذین یقیمون الصلوة و یؤتون الزکوة و هم راکعون

The verse does not say ... والذي أمن وأقام الصلاة ...meaning one person. BUT the scripture says....المؤمنون الذین یقیمون ....Meaning Many people Plural forms ..not one Individual person.


Therefore it is NOT one person....as shia keep saying, and by only ..pointing that to Immam Ali Radiya allah Ahnhu

Therefore any Hadith that Says ... 5:55 talk about one person and named Ali….sorry to say ..that Hadith is Buffoons, Because it Contradicts...The all verse 5:55 its words, the grammar and its context itself

Meaning The Verse Talk about Given allegiance to Allah , His Messenger and to the People of faith, whom establish Prayers, and Paying Zakat and doing that in submission to Allah.

Who are they? ......Answer..All Muslims and any Muslim being woman and man who Follow that Criteria..not just one person from a blood line family the Messenger PBUH..because Prayer is established for all of us, and Zakat is compulsary for all of us ..the verse talks about any Muslim being woman and man.


Quran is not only for specific people( bllod line ),and at specific time..It is for all Humanity ...This is supported by many verses in Quran see, and All Muslims should be Awliya= allegiance to Allah , his messenger and to each others(bening Male and Female).

‏9:71 والمؤمنون والمؤمنات بعضهم اولياء بعض يامرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ويقيمون الصلاة ويؤتون الزكاة ويطيعون الله ورسوله اولئك سيرحمهم الله ان الله عزيز حكيم


..see also.. ‏38:87 ان هو الا ذكر للعالمين

‏68:52 وماهو الا ذكر للعالمين

‏21:107 وماارسلناك الا رحمة للعالمين

‏81:27 ان هو الا ذكر للعالمين


I don’t Subject Quran to Hadith..but ..I subject any Hadith to Quranic x_ray.. because Allah say

And if the apostle (Muhammad) were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath). But verily this is a Message for the God-fearing. And We certainly know that there are amongst you those that reject (it), But truly (Revelation) is a cause of sorrow for the Unbelievers, And, surely, it is the absolute truth, So glorify the name of the Almighty, your Lord [69:044-52]


Therefore any Hadiths Should Be subjected to Quranic X-ray.

a) if it is Comply with the QURAN then NO Choice but to accept it coz Definitely it is from Muhammad PBUH

b) if it opposes the Quranic teachings and tenets ..then Drop it out, coz it is defiantly false

LET the Quran itself FUNCTION as the Furqan (CRITIRION ) , …that is WHY QURAN is Called the CRITIRION.


81.153.30.157 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer anybody who likes to follow this debate to especial sites which includes Sunni and Shi'a Tafsirs Tafsir comparison, [7] and [8] . Because there isn't appropriate place to discuss about tafsir.--Sa.vakilian 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem some one has to THINK for you..you can not Think for yourself..as if as you are brainless..come on The Quran text are clear.217.44.222.210 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Sahaba? /notable shia muslims

I'm recommending that this section be removed. Shias did not exist at the time of the Prophet or Sahaba.

that's absolutely right. i support your remark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.69.135.151 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Shia sahaba are the ones who supported Ali's right to the caliphate.

>>> No, that is incorrect. There's a difference in supporting Ali's right to caliphate and believing in the 12 Imams, and other things that today would fall under Shia doctrine. Shia Sahaba did not exist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pisceschica (talk • contribs).

i concur. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a big mistake in that chapter. because salman farsi and bilal for example were NOT shia muslims. they were followers of the prophet, hence they were sunni. maybe they are considered notable by actual shia, but they are not part of the shia movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.69.135.151 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Although Shi'a doctrine as well as Sunni doctrine was formed 100 years later, we should mention that Shi'a was existed in the first century but in different context. In the first century non of the sect which we are familiar with were formed. But the term of Shi'a (Follower) was used for followers of Ali, Otman , Muawia, etc. Because of relationship between politic and Islam we can't say it was just a political term. Thus you can see some Sahabas and like Zushahadatayn and Ammar fought with Muawia beside Ali. Some of these Sahabas also refer to Ali as a teacher of Islam and ask their questions from him and believe that he knows the reality of Islam. Shi'a Sahaba means Sahabas who believe in Ali's right to succeed the Prophet(PBUH) and the rightful teacher of Islam after holy prophet. Their faith has confirmed by Ali and later Imams. The style of these Sahabas has remained as an example of loyalty and truthfulness for later Shi'as. Today Shi'a has recognized them as authentic sources for Sunnah of the Prophet. This doesn't mean that Shi'a are against other Sahaba but it means Shi'a hasn't recognized the others as authentic sources for Sunnah of the Prophet.--Sa.vakilian 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
describing individuals like Bilal and others as "notable Shi'a Muslims" is wrong (see: anachronism). as you said, the shi'i doctrine came into existence much later. i understand that the word is being used here with two meanings, one which you believe is accurate (i.e. the lexical), and one which makes itself apparent to the readers (i.e. they were "Shi'a Muslims"). if we use the lexical meaning, then a) it shouldn't be a subsection of "notable Shi'a Muslims", b) everyone was a "follower", but of different personalities c) they didn't have the same views as those later personalities also listed who are venerated by the Shi'a (you would disagree on this) d) referring to them as "Shi'a", when common encyclopedic usage (there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a lexicon) of the word implies "Shi'ism" or "Shi'a Islam", is misleading. i have not addressed the issue of how exactly listing such individuals would be verified (using academic works), because that requires the premise that it's actually correct to have a list like this in the first place. it becomes even more absurd if we consider doing the opposite in Sunni Islam, i.e. listing "Sunni sahaba", justifying it by saying "what we mean is sahaba who followed the Sunnah." i think it's best that we avoid this kind of classification altogether, as it's rather misleading. thanks. ITAQALLAH 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
However some of Sahaba are authentic for Shi'a and the others are not. We can use another title for it. --Sa.vakilian 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. To be honest, I'm offended that anyone would label any of the Sahabas as Shias. They did not believe in many things Shias today believe. Please do not keep putting that section back up.Pisceschica 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree Pisceschica or any other of them, they were indead Shi'a, but writing that as a fact would violate NPOV, so we need to settle with "Shaba favored by Shi'a Muslims". --Striver - talk 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Overall, I find this a very poor effort. There are huge gaps (history of the shi'a, the Ishraqi School, details of Shi'i Sufi orders, the Akhbari/Usuli division, Shaykhism, Babism, the structure of the clerical hierarchy, etc.). The transliteration is inconsistent and often plain incorrect. There is too much that reeks of the unscholarly, such as discussion of Salafi arguments against the Shi'a. It needs quite a different, better informed, and academically trained writer.

[edit] The logo of "Shia"

Qassoom 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the logo put there in green suitable for the representation of Shia. The logo is mainly used by the "Alaweya" group; which is a far cousin to Shia. Shia simply don't have a "symbol" or "logo" to them...

I agree. Maybe a caligraphi of the "14 ma'ssumin" would be better.

Please look at this debate:substitution of zulfiqar symbol by "Five persons" (PANJ TAN) symbol--Sa.vakilian 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer a golden dome - which is an internationally recognized as a result of recent bombing. the green colour of the template might then become gold --Gerash77 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV intro sentence

I hate to seem too picky, but can we agree that this sentence, "Shias adhere to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and the religious guidance of his family..." is rather biased against Sunni Islam?Proabivouac 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on page

under Overview, found this today (10.3.07) on the page: "Shia Muslims descendents from Prophet Muhamme propheouse") and the father of the Prophet Muhammad's only bloodline as opposed the caliphate recognized by believe that the Sunn the succession of believe that Ali was appointed successor by the prophet's direct order on many to that of e most worthy of emulation.ts's wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid — the malei Muslims. Shia MuslimsIslamrecognize head of the Ahl al-Bayt , the most trusted carriers and protectors of Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah (traditions), and thor "people of the [Prophet's] h TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE Moda fooka die!! In particular, Shia Muslims occasions, and that he is therefore the rightful leader of the Muslim faith." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.249.44 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Conformity

Should this article be formatted the same as the other branches of Islam? While they are two separate entities, it would help the public be able to compare and contrast the various sects. --D 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/i/Talk%7EShia_Islam_9621.html"