Talk:Views on Shia Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep 8/3.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2006. The result of the discussion was cleanup and merge; I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


There was a claim here on Feb 3 by Johnleemk to delete the article and it was disputed justly by Zereshk here below. There is no consensus to delete. Johnleemk on the page [[1]] it said do not edit and yet you still edited it. I would say KEEP and DO NOT MERGE but there is no place for voting. 129. 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim about merging as a result of voting is incorrect. No consensus was reached. Neither was any supermajority.--Zereshk 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


picture does not work



Contents

[edit] Take a grade school English Class Please

Who wrote this article, an undereducated old man with high blood pressure? You're making Shias look stupid, what happened? Did you write one sentence and then let the anger take over? It's full of run on sentences, incomplete and incoherent thoughts, poor organization, and ranting. BOLDING IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR PUNCTUATION. I would write it again, but it is a such a mess it would take six hours to fix it.

[edit] Diatribe, not article

This is not an article, this is a diatribe. There is an article entitled Historiography of early Islam which covers some of the same material. A Historiography of Islam article would be more inclusive. I just got Chase Robinson's book on Islamic historiography, so would be able to contribute a little more.

Zereshk, you should at least read some of Wilferd Madelung's books before you condemn the all non-Shi'a Islamic scholars. Madelung has spent his long scholarly career working on Shi'a material, especially Ismaili. Zora 05:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


The article is from the perspective of the Shia, not Maudelung, me, or anybody else. It is what 100 million Shias believe.
How do we know that you've been elected to represent 100 million Shi'a? Zora 22:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to the Shia journal Message of Thaqalayn, Vol 3, No 1-2 where you will find a 40 page article discussing this very exact issue in full length. Im sure you can find a copy of the Shia publication if you have access to a good academic library, in which case the call number is BP193.5 .M47 --Zereshk 02:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't have access to a good academic library. I'm crippled and have a hard time accessing the University of Hawai'i main library -- plus Islamic studies is not well covered at UH. They have one professor (MA only) who teaches Arabic. The article isn't online or available through my Questia account. Do you want to scan it and email it to me?
I should add that I don't accept an Iranian journal as representing all Shi'a. It clearly represents SOME Shi'a -- that is, more than just Zereshk. Zora 02:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
That is unfortunate that you dont have access to any good resources. The burden is up to you, not me, to find the sources cited. It's not my problem that you live on an island.
Hmmm. Qur'an 90:17. Zora 03:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Im sure you noticed that the journal is endorsed and published by al-Islam: Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which is an international collaborative body. (More info)
And please, for the last time, stop pestering me with ignorant dumb-ass comments like "I don't accept an Iranian journal as representing all Shi'a". You dont accept them? Well then tough shit. Iran is theeee major, top, foremost, largest body of Shia scholarship, clerics, followers and center in the world. Even Sistani (in Iraq) is from Iran. Even Madelung will tell you that. Every fuckin ayatollah has a foot in Iran if not based in Iran, including the ones from Lebanon and in the UK. My fuckin great grandfather built half of Najaf's seminaries. Iran is literally crawling with Shiism. There is no place on earth where you will be closer to the source than Iran. If youre truly not biased against the Shia, then I find it hard that you refuse to accept this daylight fact. If you choose to stay ignorant, then fine. But please stop trying to spread your Shia refusal syndrome malady to Wikipedia.--Zereshk 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Therefore your claim of POVness is dismissed, even if considered relevant at all.--Zereshk 19:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Zereshk, you conduct disgraces Shiism and Islam. As a Shia Muslim, I urge you to show restraint and due respect when dealing with individuals as has been explained in our creed. Further, there is _no_ need for the language you use which degrades yourself and those attributed to it. Comments such as [explicit] ayatollah is just indecent. If you cannot show calm when debating Shia issues, then don't debate them at all.66.108.59.171 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above Zereshk. As a practising Shia myself, I must condemn your language. I respect your efforts and I understand your frustration. Zora does put a great deal of effort in conforming with Wiki policies even though at times even she must admit that she has flaws in her approaches to historiography and acceptance of issues that are clearly indisputable. Anger is one of the works of evil that is shared by many people. Please remember the patience and dignity of God's prophets and vicegerents. This is our path Zereshk. Anon. 16:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.G. Browne

You're quoting E.G. Browne, who died in 1925, as saying that there are no good works about the Shi'a. That is 80 years or more out of date. Please do look at the works of Madelung. He has spent his entire academic life writing about Shi'a. Zora 01:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So it was 1925. So what? Why do you think that would make Browne's statement illegitimate? Madelung himself uses and discusses sources such as Lammens, Laecanti, and many others from the same time period. Some he supports (like Vaglieri), some he does not (like Lammens). But he uses them.
About Madelung,
  1. Madelung is just one person. How many such authors can you find like him and Martin Hinds? Not many. Hence my point.
  2. Take a look at the references that even he uses in his "Succession to Mohammad" book. Even he uses questionable sources like Goldziher. (see page 389). Also, look at the list starting on page 388 (bibliography). How many Shia sources can you count in that list? Or how many sources do you see devoted to Shias? How many? What percentage of the overall sources does that make? Madelung is just one person. You have to agree that Shia studies are vastly underrepresented in Islamic studies.
  3. Now that we're talking about Madelung, I'll take the opportunity and mention this here: You in fact need to read his book carefully. Whereas you dump out any hadith as "unreliable", Madelung doesnt act that way. Says he on page xi of the same book:
"work with the narrative sources, both those that have been available to historians for a long time and others which have been published recently, made it plain that their wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified and that with [not without] a judicious use of them a much more reliable and accurate portrait of the period can be drawn than has so far been realized."
One glance at madelung's book, and one can see how he himself bases his analyses on works by Tabari, or Sirat Ibn Hisham, Musnad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, et al, which you have dubbed "unrelaible" time and time again. In fact any hadith we put in, you labeled unacceptable and unacademic. The academic madelung, however, constructs his entire arguments while maneuvering between various ahadith. He in fact does what Ayatollahs do for a living: Trying to interpret or establish historical fidelity by looking at chains of transmission in narratives.
OK. Now I really got to go.--Zereshk 02:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes Madelung is seduced by the "story" of the hadith, and accepts things I don't think he should, but on the whole I trust him to revisit the hadith -- much more than I trust any of the ulema, traditional or modern. One, he's looking for "what really happened", not just to prove a pre-determined theological or historical point. Two, he's applying all the resources of a thousand years of later scholarship to the task, not just accepting the work of earlier scholars as a given. He is RE-DOING the judgements of earlier scholars, with more tools. Finally, he has an amazing grasp of who was who in early Islamic history (genealogy, tribal alliances, etc.) and knows just who would be likely to hold a given view. Somewhat like the early Shi'a scholars, he is looking keenly at "cui bono" when he evaluates statements.
There is all the difference in the world between this approach and the traditional hadith-hurling mode of argument. Zora 06:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
My point holds anyway:
  1. There is bias against Shias when it comes to "Islamic studies", as if the Sunni POV get to decide what and how Islam is defined.
  2. Madelung is just one person. hence my point again. How many books can you mention like him? Not many in comparison.
  3. Madelung does what scholars in Qom do for a living: investigating the veracity of narratives. Many hadith are in fact considered dubious by the Shia. What I provide as a hadith in an argument is one that is unanimously agreed upon in the Shia community as verified documentation from Shia POV.--Zereshk 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Patricia Crone and her students have hit back hard at the Sunni bias, and their works have a lot of material re Shi'a. Crone's book _God's Caliph_ argues that the Shi'a view of the Imam is closer to the early Islamic beliefs re the caliphate than the later Sunni view that has been imposed on history.

Perhaps we've got the ulema-academic debate in a nutshell here, because you are condemning all of academia without having read much of it, and I'm ready to reject most of the conclusions of the scholars of Qom just on the basis that they don't use the latest methods and they don't start from a position of doubt. If you know what you want to prove before you approach the material, all your conclusions are vitiated -- unless you are an incredibly honest and brave scholar. Fawn Brodie was a Mormon scholar who set out to write a biography of Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, and in the course of her research, decided he was a con-man. The resulting book, Nobody Knows My History, is referred to as that book by Mormons. A good book for losing your faith.

So far as I can tell, the only Shi'a scholar who's willing to tackle modern scholarship head on is Reza Aslan. And I'm not sure how much of a Shi'a he is, or you'd consider him to be. Judging from his book, he doesn't seem all that fond of the ulema. Zora 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. The difference is that I dont reject the academic view, while you do reject the Ulema. Which is very unfortunate, because you are ignoring the source. If you want to study something really in depth, you go to the source, not to second hand sources, as good as they may be.
  2. As with many other westerners, naturally, you seem unable to distinguish between political and non-political ulema, even though both are so called clerics. There are big differences. Ayatollah Taleghani, for example, declared that Hijab was not mandatory. Did you know that? Ayatollah Borujerdi even believed in the separation of church from state, even though he was Khomeini's senior in rank. When I say "Qom", I'm not talking about the current in-the-news group of clerics that are (ab)using religion to maintain their grip on power (like Jannati, Rafsanjani, Khamenei, etc), and which are, by the way, a minority, despite their unchallenged political power.--Zereshk 13:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

I suggest the title of the article be changed. It's too essayish, and I was in a hurry, as always, to get 10 things done at the same time (hence a poor title). Any ideas anyone? --Zereshk 00:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier, turn this into an article called Historiography of Islam and merge your essay, Historiography of early Islam, and possibly Orientalism. Zora 03:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I dont think any of this article will be left if we were to merge it with something else. Especially something like "Historiography of Islam" which can be written to be quite irrelevant to this topic.
I'll change the title's name for the time being.--Zereshk 17:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Zereshk, you deleted the POV tag because Dy Yol didn't justify it. He's a new editor and probably didn't realize that he had to do so. I put the tag up again and I'll justify it. This article is an extremely POV personal essay. It focuses ONLY on the instances of persecution, and says nothing about times and places where toleration has been the norm. Or even about the time before the Shi'a separated out as a sect, when they were just one current of thought in an Islam that was split into numerous political and religious factions (all of which worshipped together ... ).

I haven't felt like fighting with you re this article, but I don't think unsuspecting readers should be allowed to think it's accepted by all Wikipedia editors. Zora 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora -- you appear to be knowledgable on the subject. Have you considered adding information to help balance the article? Or perhaps if you know of some references which have the type of material you're discussing, someone else could research and add the alternate point of view? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jareth, I started work on what I hope will be a NPOV article on Shi'a history, but it's going to take lots of reading and research. If Zereshk were cooperative, I wouldn't mind having a go at NPOVing the article as it stands now, but my interactions with Zereshk in the past have been so difficult that I'm not sure I have the patience and self-possession to tackle this article, not when I've got so much else on my hands. A good refutation would demand a solid grounding in Islamic historiography, which I'm only starting to get. If you have a yen to research, a place to start would be this journal article:

Mythology of Rage: Representations of the "Self" and the "Other" in Revolutionary Iran Journal article by Haggay Ram; History and Memory, Vol. 8, 1996

I have it through my Questia account; you might be able to find it if you have access to a university library. Zora 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to a university library at present. I'm glad to hear that you've begun work on a more comprehensive article, I look forward to having the chance to read it! I'm sorry you've had bad experiences editing in the past -- if you feel its a continued problem, you might want to look over the dispute resolution policies and see if there might be a way to resolve your differences. If there's anything I can do to assist, please drop me a note. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This article announces that it is not NPOV - "This article intends to address just that, and is written from the perspective of the Shi'a" - so it ought to have a POV tag (if it belongs in an encyclopedia at all). There is also a lot of 'scholars have said...' and 'some people think...' which is vague and unverifiable. An example is 'There are those that even consider the Shi'a as an invention by some groups of enemies of Islam.' The whole thing reads as polemic. -- Squiddy 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I refuse to be "cooperative" with someone who openly calls all Shia sources, scholars, and editors as liars ("suspect" and "unrelaible"), especially when trying to edit a page about Shias. That is outright ridiculous.--Zereshk 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, this is surreal. If I oppose you on anything, you erupt into a fury and accuse me of things I've never done. I have never called all Shi'a liars, I have never hated Shi'a, I have never hated Iran. You are the one who accused me of being Jewish, and asserted that Jews are known to hate Iranians. I do dislike your editing style, use of threats and epithets, your copyvios, use of hundred-year-old references without giving the date, and refusal to look at more modern publications. However, disagreeing with YOU does not mean that I hate the groups with which you identify yourself. Zora 01:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you think people are that stupid Zora? Fixing, adding, mentioning as an altenative is one thing; deleting them altogether and erasing any mention of them is something else, and it clearly demonstartes your intentions. And dont give me that Shit about 100 year old sources. Every source you have provided uses those hundred year old sources, and you have called modern Shia sources even from Nasr as "suspect", "unreliable", and "partisan" a.k.a. liars. Not to mention your absolute priggery in trying to correct me and all other Shia editors about Shi'a doctrines.--Zereshk 05:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing POV tag

Zereshk, it is just not done to remove the POV tag on the grounds that it's vandalism. You have to resolve the issue, not just remove the tag. Also, please do not leave physical threats on my talk page. Zora 00:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. "Physical threats". Like what? Like me telling you that I'll kick your a** in every debate as long as you remain adamant on your racially hostile position? And how about your slanderous attempts to portray me as an anti-semite, in order to remove me? After all, I am the only one here who counters your monopolizing edits by bringing documented references that you simply cant delete, with your response instead being in slandering me.
  2. If you put up a tag, you have to discuss why you think what you think, not me. And besides, putting up POV tags and then leaving it there indefinitely (which is what you do all the time) does not abide by WP protocol. It can legally be taken down after one week of no explanations given.
  3. Furthermore, unfortunately, if you truly were after balancing the article, you would be providing additionmal information to balance its so called biasness. However, your efforts are entirely circled on deleting all information provided, instead of adding to balance it. I simply wont alow you to delete nd censor this information. Add to bring balance, but do not delete.--Zereshk 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Seems to be a personal essay. Obviously POV with things like "In cases where such works intend to discuss the works and virtues of the Shi'a, they fail in doing so..." I say Merge with Shi'a. Add to that page. You could make a new section in Shi'a about Discrimination. The History of the Shi'a is not even filled out on the Shi'a page and there is actually more here about the history. Maybe they don't have to be "misconceptions" anymore :p.--Ben 03:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed a merge --Ben 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. This page and other related pages to it about the history of Shia in fact were initially part of the Shia page. You can check the history. The initial core of the material was incorporated in the Shia page. The consensus was to branch it off and have them as separate pages each after much fighting. That's why the section on thehistory of the Shia page remains unfilled, because it keeps getting deleted.
  2. A vote was already conducted on Sep 9 to have this page deleted or merged. Both failed.
  3. The material on this page is too vast to incorporate on the Shia page now. Especially considering that material is being prepared to be added to what already exists.
  4. If you so adamantly insist on merging (i.e. deleting) this page, then please do be consistent and merge all other "misconception" pages with a similar logic. Examples: Merge Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS with AIDS and/or HIV.--Zereshk 01:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrry. I wait three days for a reply, get none, then propose a merge and you reply as if I just slapped you in the face. No wonder there's so much fighting when you have such a piss-poor attitude. --Ben 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC. The topic seems interesting and important; however, this article as it stands is unencylopedic because it is written in an editorial style that violates WP:NOR. No article is supposed to be from one perspective either, so it also violates WP:NPOV. For example, to say things like "Bias against the Shia is quite evident in many Islamic academic institutions. This official letter from Malaysia illustrates an example."..."quite evident" to whom? The article should give the sources of who precisely makes that claim. If it's just a WP editor who's making that claim (whether true or not), then this is original research. Same thing with the list of "A few reliable sources about The Shi'a"...reliable to whom? "Reliable" is a biased adjective and cannot be used in the voice of Wikipedia (which is supposed to be neutral). You can give a link to a Shia website that lists what *it* considers "reliable" sources. Statements like "In cases where such works intend to discuss the works and virtues of the Shi'a, they fail in doing so" is an opinion that needs to be sourced (i.e., "Source x believes such works fail to describe the virtues of the Shi'a"). Also, admonitions such as "Researchers must be cautious..." is completely unencylopedic. Words like unfortunately need to go. Opinions like "What is often found on the Shi'a in some encyclopedias are full of errors, baseless accusations, and superficial confused statements" or "Perhaps the historical background of the west is the major reason behind this blemish" should only be described through the voice of some source, not the WP editor. Also, articles cannot be one-voice articles. It needs balance, so it would be appropriate to describe diverse viewpoints and counter points to the topics discussed. The article needs a major overhaul to change its editorial tone to an appropriate neutral narrative encyclopedic voice. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

MPerel, he started the whole thing with saying that the following is in Shia persepective. Would you be happier if he remved that and wrote "Shia belive" in front of every single sentance? --Striver 03:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't actually see any disclaimer that the article is from a Shia perspective, but even if it were present, it would be inappropriate, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to endorse any particular view, just describe various relevant views and source them. The content in this article is interesting and relevant, but it needs to not be written as an editorial. I suggest looking at the article Zereshk mentions above: Common_misconceptions_about_HIV_and_AIDS as an example of how it should be written in a non-editorial style. For example, list a common misconception, then quote a source that addresses the particular misconception. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Y'all, I'm flying out of town tomorrow. I'll only be available for limited time spans for help. But around mid december, when I have some more free time, I plan to make use of the extensive holdings of the Perry Castaneda Library and further document/reference this and all other related pages to the point of saturation. For the time being, we can work on modifying the text to sound a bit less essayish or so. But I dont think anything should be expunged. Even if there is counter evidence, let us add it in to create balance, instead of deleting it.--Zereshk 21:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ill try to hold the deletionists in check :P --Striver 04:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


I don't understand why there is an article called "misconceptions about the shia?" Just the topic, standing by itself is more an essay or an editorial... it's practically a thesis.

Why not just merge this into the shia article. A section on misconceptions would be nice.

I would say the same thing for any "misconception" page.....

Sethie 20:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] MERGE??

WTF?

There was no concensus for merge in the vote, how did they come to that conclusion? 7 Keep and 6 Merge does NOT make a consencus for merge! Typical, we dont win even when we win... --Striver 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging is illegal

There was no consensus to merge, in both votes.

The attempt to push for a merge despite the vote results is a continued violation of Wikipedia rules.

[edit] No!

This article will NOT be deleted, TWO afd have proven that! --Striver 00:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


What are you trying to push here? You KNOW that this article does not fitt inte the Shi'a article. Do NOT readd the merge tag without giving solid arguments for it! --Striver 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

User:Johnleemk added this to my talk page:

AfD is a debate, not a vote. If your only reason for objecting to a result is the votecount, you probably don't have any basis for objecting. You were the only person supporting a keep who gave a valid reason to do so; it's not enough for people to show up to the AfD and vote. They have to explain the basis for that vote so there can be a discussion. Those in favour of a merge were not persuaded by your arguments, so technically there is a rough consensus in favour of a merge. AfD is not binding WRT such decisions, however; if you can muster consensus on the talk page that the article should not be merged, that consensus will overrule AfD's. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--Striver 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on rules. The rules specify that we must respect the wish of the consensus. The consensus does not wish this article to be merged or deleted.--Zereshk 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of everyone but the Shi'a editors is that this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia (and to the Shi'a) and that it should be merged, and any salvageable bits salvaged. Zora 09:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And yeat again: Fuck you you fucking Shi'a hatign bigot. I dont care. Ban me. I Ban myself. --Striver 11:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't say that. I don't think the article is an embarrassment at all and saying so could hurt many editor's feelings. And Striver you really shouldn't leave over something like this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Striver/Yes, i said "fuck you"...--Striver 03:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single reference system needed

This article has confusing footnotes due to multiple reference systems in use. I would suggest you convert to the new Wiki system: New Reference style, which is very easy to use and allows multiple citations of a single reference. --Blainster 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Shi'a Islam

The result of the last AFD on this article (See Here) resulted in a vote for merge into Shi'a Islam. The merge hasn't been done yet and User:Striver has repeatedly removed the merge tag from the top of this article.--Jersey Devil 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin said that if there was opinions of not making such a thing on the talk page, that would overule the afd. And ther is no consencus to merge here, just read the talk page, you have a Anonym, 129. and Zereshk. Further, just take and count the votes in the afd. --Striver 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and that is apparently what the Administrator told you on your talk page. I have told the administrator who closed that afd to come back here and comment. The decision is ultimately his.--Jersey Devil 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If WP "is not a democracy", then why are you basing your argument on the votes counted? There was no consensus in the vote to merge.--Zereshk 05:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

His conclusion is wrong, he concluded that ALL the people voting "keep" did not count since they did not say "keep per striver" or "keep per all" or any other two more words. --Striver 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


See bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion --Striver 15:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Outsider's Point of View

Upon reading the article in question, and the ensuing debate, I've noticed that people have seemed to have lost track of the central question the debate hinges upon: What is the purpose of Wikipedia, and does this article conform to standards in furtherance of that purpose?

The purpose of Wikipedia, as I see it, is (or at least should strive to be) the same as any encyclopedia: a place where someone who doesn't know about something to come and learn about that thing, and to do so with a decent degree of confidence that what he is reading is unbiased, accurate, and widely accepted. I am a non-Muslim, and thus know very little in the way of specifics about the Muslim faith. It is of course for that reason that I happened upon the article. If I already knew everything I needed to know about Islam, then I wouldn't be here in the first place.

Here is what Wikipedia is not (or at least should not be): a forum for experts in a given field to debate the finer and more contentious points of their subject. Even less should it be a place for someone to work to further his/her view of a contentious issue, far removed from the interests of someone who is just trying to learn the basics of something.

I have been using Wikipedia for several months now, and am a firm supporter of its mission to be a reliable and free source of information. Had this been the first Wikipedia article I'd ever read, I can tell you without a doubt that I would not have come back. In fact, I could tell after reading just a paragraph or two that I was not going to learn anything by reading it (which, ironically, only compelled to read it further, being the first Wikipedia article about which I could say that). It contributed virtually nothing to my understanding of Islam or Sunni/Shi'a dynamics. Finally, the grammar is utterly and unforgivabely bad.

There are plenty of forums on the internet where a post of this nature would be appropriate. Wikipedia should not be one of them. It should be permanently deleted.

If nothing else, a competent writer should go over this article and correct its truly atrocious grammar, spiteful tone, adolescent sniping, gross lack of style, and incompleteness. I second the writer above. This is a useless 'resource' and makes the general article on Shiites less useful, not moreso. Waxbanks 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. As a non-Muslim, I have found this article completely useless in its current state. 121.44.145.181 07:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make note

Please make note that this page has already been put to vote for deletion 3 times, and failed, so that we wont ridiculously have to go though this business once every other week, and can instead focus on making the article better.--Zereshk 08:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on April 13, 2006

I've made a bunch of edits in an attempt to make the article less POV and more neutral. Wiki sais be bold, so I did what I could:

  • I removed the merge tag. If the article was nominated 3 times for deleting or merging, and if it failed 3 times, can we assume that it's here to stay? :) (This is the bold part -- I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so if this was out of line please let me know.)
  • There were large sections -- especially in the Misconceptions section -- that were blantantly biased to no end. That sort of thing I've rephrased if possible and outright removed if I couldn't rephrase it. In general, I cleaned up the Misconceptions section in an attempt to make it more neutral. I refer specifically to the following passage (all formatting -- bold included -- retained from the original article):
.[It is IRONIC that while sunnis deny this idea of inheritance with regards to Muhammad's progeny, they, willingly approve of this type of inheritance with regards to their own Khalifa's; as we see in history that first the Ummayyad's ruled over the muslims for many years(people like muawiyyah and yazid) and after the Ummayyad's, the Abbassid's(people like haroon-ur-rashid.) ruled for many years in the same manner of inheritance which they sought to deny in case of Muhammad's progeny.]
  • Finally, I did some semantic cleaning -- removing words like "viciously" and "some sort of presumptave", etc. One thing I did do that may cause me some flak is I renamed the "renowned philosopher" Nasr to simply the "philosopher". He may be renowned in some circles, but it still seems like a biased statement.

--Pyran 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are fine with me. Editing is OK. It's a constructive step, unlike many who just keep itching to delete the article.--Zereshk 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

I've added {{fact}} tags to stuff I think needs sourcing, fixed some formatting and spelling/grammar. - FrancisTyers · 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article originally to Shi'a and Islam, as I thought it a more appropriate title and more in keeping with WP:NPOV. Subsequently, after a discussion with User:Aminz, I realise that this was not as good as it could have been, and moved the page to Views on Shi'a Islam, which I believe more accurately represents the content of the article. - FrancisTyers · 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV intro

Sorry Aminz, just by sticking that extra heading on top of the introduction won't make the problem go away :-) Just look at this text:

  • Image: ... Bias against the Shia is evident in many Islamic academic institutions. This official letter from Malaysia illustrates an example
    • The letter is an unpublished document in the personal possession of the Wikipedia author. Hence, the Wikipedia author is putting forward his own, original, idea that this particular document illustrates a widespread tendency. The very definition of WP:OR.
  • There are numerous books [...] that undermine the scholastic, literary, social, and cultural rights of the Shia.
    • How much more clearly POV can it get? It's stating as a simple fact that the Shia is wronged by the literature.
  • In cases where such works intend to discuss the works and virtues of the Shi'a, they fail in doing so...
    • Ah, so now the Wikipedia author is stating as a fact that most books on the Shi'a are wrong? How much more POV and OR can it get? Of course, providing a reference here does nothing to help.

And it goes on and on and on in this vein, I really don't see how anything of this could be salvaged into an NPOV article. I think this page must be the single worst case of POV writing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I'm absolutely appalled it has survived for so long. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I haven't had a chance to look closely into this article so far. I also request you to discuss major changes to the article before removing them. True, that picture is OR unless one can find support for the very same statement from a reliable source. The picture then could be added as a support for that statement. Future Perfect at Sunrise, Similar to the historical biased view of west towards Islam (as scholar such as William Montgomery Watt, Edward Said, or Karen Armstrong(if one call she an scholar (not a writer) of course), and philosophers such as Voltaire point out), there has been a historical bias toward Shias. Wikipedia should somewhere cover this if not in a separate article. My problem is that I don't know renowned scholars who have written on this issue. If you think the article heavily lacks reliable sources, it is not (and is) sometimes a good idea to bucher the article. I don't know. I am almost new here like you. --Aminz 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that *I think* it is true that Western scholars haven't intensively looked into the Shia'sm. Bernard Lewis for example doesn't seem to me to have studied shiasm intensively. --Aminz 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[After edit conflict] I disagree. Stating, as a fact, that "there is a bias against Shi'a", in whatever wording, is and will always be non-NPOV. Blatant, unredeemable, POV. No amount of sourcing will ever change that. You might say, "such-and-such an author has described the stance of XY against Shi'a as biassed". That might work. As for "butchering" the article, I'm apparently not the first to find this text appalling, it's such an extreme case of POV-pushing that minor changes won't work. Honestly, when I opened the edit window this morning I intended to rewrite and not just delete the intro, but when I was working my way through it I simply didn't know where to to start. Sorry for being blunt, but it's a hopeless case, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I didn't want to defend the article as it is. All "X is so" statements should be re-written as "Y says X is so". There is a section on the sources in this article. We should wait for those who know the sources to have every sentence referenced. --Aminz 06:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misconceptions/arguments sects

these sects are wholly unencyclopedic, in terms of presentation, neutrality as well as factual accuracy. it requires a complete rewrite :|. ITAQALLAH 13:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


The source of much information: http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_answering.htm is pretty poor in itself.

Overall, this is a pretty poor article.

Codeviolation 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for these views about Shi'a

I have tried to improve this article and make it more objective by adding some descriptions about why people may have these negative views about Shi'a. My intention is certainly not to support these negative views, but only to improve the article so that readers may get a more accurate perspective on this topic. Perhaps we can get some more additions to make this article more objective and accurate.

      • Well, I guess that all my additions have been deleted as of January 29, 2007. I really don't see how this regression improves anyone's access to this information and will give up on trying to contribute to a mature discussion of this topic.

[edit] Editing this page

Hi,

I'm editing this page and trying to start a useful contribution as I think I know a bit about this topic and have the references available. Please bear with me as I add (and learn to add) all the needed references and citations required for the material I have entered on this page. I have all the main stream books here with me but I need to google the ISBN numbers and all the authentication material as required by Wikipedia.

- All arguments have been answered and most have been linked. - I am in the process of linking to the books with ISBN numbers. - Many grammar/spelling mistakes have been attempted to be fixed. - Some links to proper websites have been added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphreydus (talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Of course, like many have pointed out before me, this "article" has no place in any self-respecting encyclopedia (and I'm not saying this because I'm "biased against Shi'as" by the way). However, since this article apparently has some vocal and resilient supporters, I realize it's here to stay. Having said that, we can at least fix some of the more egregious errors. For example, this statement:

Misconception: That the Shi'a believe in the distortion of the Qur'an. [9]
Fact: Shias have the exact same Qur'an as the Sunnis, but believe that the Mahdi will bring the Quran which is in its true form, not distorted by Uthman(RA)[10]

The "Misconception" seems to be true based on the "Fact" stated. So, either the author should modify this to reflect an actual contradiction, or the the whole thing should be removed. Slackerlawstudent 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/e/Talk%7EViews_on_Shia_Islam_357c.html"