Talk:Abu Dharr al-Ghifari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Salaf task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

I agree to the merger (unsigned, was User:FreeAmeli)

I completely rewrote the article. Both articles (this one and Abu-Dharr) were extremely badly-written and Shi'a POV. I don't think that there is anything in the other article that even deserves to be merged. Also, Jundub ibn Junadah is not a good name for the article. The man is known as Abu Dharr in all the websites and hadith I consulted. I think THIS article should be moved to Abu Dharr. I don't think we even need a redirect, as it is extremely unlikely that any user will be looking for this man under the name Jundub. Zora 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a small merge. Also I moved "Jundub ibn Junadah" to "Abu-Dharr" because that is the name that he is known by as mentioned by Zora. Now we just have to find a way to merge or delete the "Abu Dhar" article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems to be consensus to merge to Abu Dharr. Will go ahead and merge. Kerowyn 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Completed the merge, but it may still need some NPOV editing and copyediting. Specifically, in the "Exile" section the town of "Madina" is mentioned. Should that be "Medina"? Kerowyn 11:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed probably ALL of the merged material. It read like a copyvio from a religious site. There were no references at all, and the language was extremely pious. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia, in my POV at least. Pious traditions can be restored if referenced. At least everything is under Abu Dharr now, where users would expect to find it. Zora 03:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

lord, this is complete shia POV. i wont edit it, zora...here read a sunni source about abu dharr and make the appropriate changes: http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/companions/English/abudhar.html --Blingpling 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's Shi'a-POV, because I'm not Shi'a. The version that I replaced WAS extremely Shi'a-POV.
The site you wanted me to read is a later fable, with no references. It glosses over some of the things that Madelung clearly documents -- Abu Dharr DID criticize Uthman and Muawiyya, not just "people" in general, as the fable has it. For that article, I used Watt, Madelung, and hadith from the MSA site. Neither Watt nor Madelung is a Muslim; they are reputable secular scholars. They read Arabic (which I don't) and used all the earliest sources, which they carefully cite. BP, do consider the possibility that you have been taught sanitized pious fables and that when you start looking at things more closely, history is going to seem raw, gritty, and ugly. Zora 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rafidis

Make sure you remove rafidis. Rafidi is not in any way an early term. The early term is Shi'a. Rafidah and rafidi is a slur by people who hate shi'a. It first came into existence at the Time of Zayd bin Ali bin al-Hussein. Although early shi'a refused at the beginning to pledge allegiance to caliphs, they never referred to themsleves as Rafidis. they always refer to themselves as Shi'a and they are named so by the prophet according to their sources. Shi'a unlike rafidi is a qura'n-ic term and they surely are not the same. you can look for the history of the term rafidi and you will surely never find it in shi'a sources to refer to themselves.User talk:TPW TPW 01:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a is just an abbreviation for Shi'at Ali, party of Ali. Shi'a today believe that any use of the word "shi'a", party, in the Qur'an refers to them, but no non-Shi'a experts believe that. It's as if I decided that any reference to the verb "quake" in the Torah was a reference to the Quakers, who arose thousands of years after the Torah/Old Testament was written. I found a text in the Ahlul Bayt Digital Library which discusses the early use of the words Shi'a and Rafd; see [1]. Note that Shafi'i is said to have been somewhat "rafd" -- and this was in the early Abbasid period. Rafd is not a late invention, it is an EARLY name for the Shi'at Ali. You might accept that source because it is Shi'a.
Moojan Momen's book Shi'i Islam is more representative of academic opinion. He believes that all the early Shi'a were political followers of Ali, that they did not hold any religiously distinctive opinions, and that most of them did not believe in an imamate descending from the sons of Fatima. They just wanted a ruler from the Banu Hashim. Many so-called Shi'a supported Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, who was a son of Ali by one of his other wives (not Fatima), even though al-Hanafiyya was not directly descended from the prophet.
I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that the early Shi'at Ali did not called themselves Rafida, that it was a term used by their opponents, and that contemporary Shi'a hear it as a derogatory term. I still think that it's important to mention the term, in case anyone studying early Islamic history encounters it. They might, as I did, start using it without knowing that it was offensive. I found it in history books. I don't read Wahhabi anti-Shi'a rants, so I wouldn't have found it there.
Consider the importance of learning all the dirty words when you're learning a foreign language. Even if you're too cultured to ever use them, it is good to know when other people are doing so.
I should perhaps add that Quakers and Mormons don't have conniption fits when people use those terms, even though they were originally derogatory terms used by their opponents. Quakers call themselves Friends, or Society of Friends, among themselves, but they don't mind when people use Quaker. I don't see why Shi'a have such a horror of being Refusers, given that they are proud of refusing to follow Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Zora 03:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, it is good to have you on board with this intensity of going out of your way to represent what you think is true. But you have few miconceptions and maybe you need some clarifications. Please do not attack Shi'a because of the fact that I think that the word rafidi is not feasible in this article. Did I mention anywhere that I am shi'a? I agree with you that some early "anti-shia" historians used the term rafidi for shi'a and therefore and for an objective encyclopedia you can not use those slur terms to describe an insignificant name calling to shia' unless you are explaining them. Zayd bin Ali, I am talking about is before the Abbasid's time . His revolution was at the time of the Umayyd. Shi'a say the prophet Mohammad and his cmpnions used to refer to Ali friends as Shi'at Ali or Ali and his Shi'a. The word shi'a as such is not mentioned in the Qura'n but is mentioned in many hadiths. You can find one on Al-Sistani website[[2]] that says in arabic the prophet said to Ali: "You and your shi'a are in Heaven" and it is referenced to Alm'ojam AlAwsat lil-Tabarani. The word "Shi'a" by itself means "group that follows" and not really party in some of its contexts. Party in arabic is 'Hizb'. Shiya'e pl. of Shi'a means groups and is mentioned frequently in the Qur'an. Also when guests leave a house in the Islamic world the host will go out with him and in arabic they say Shaya'ahu. Also when poeple walk in a funeral after a dead person they call it Tashiyy'e. The Qur'an uses the word shi'a to describe the followers of Moses and to decribe that Ibrahim is a follower of Noah and so on. No shi'a would say the word shi'a in the Qur'an means Shi'a of today. But surely shi'a is a qura'nic terminology, say classy terminology for Muslims. As to the term Shi'a without the mention of Ali was used is pointed in the reference you mentioned and that was right after the death of Imam Hasan bin Ali. And this Shi'a webiste sometimes have sunni articles under the twhid magazine. But the question is which is earlier Shi'a or Rafidah? Imam Sadeq despised the Rafidah as he hated what they did to his uncle Zayd and as he has learned from the prophet through his ancestors. The shia' are proud to refuse to follow abu Bakr, Umar and Uthamn while Caliphs but they do acknowledge their good deeds as compnions of the Prophet. Their main believe is to be Shi'at Ali and AhlulBayt and not to refuse those caliphs. Rafidah for shi'a and some early and late sunni historians are known who they are and they are different from Shi'a. Imam Shafi'i did use the word rafd at the time when anyone who dares to mention good things about Imam Ali would be called Rafidi rather than shi'i or even sunni. And in that way any shi'a would be proud to recite the poetry Shafi'i recited but at the same time denying that they are Rafidi as Shafi'i did. It is all rethoric.

Here is an Arabic article on Sistani website that tells you the exact difference between the Shi'a and Rafida. [3] Have a happy learning experience and please remove the Rafidi from this article. People can click on shi'a and I am sure the term rafidi is discussed there. The Peace WorshipperTalk 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and give me one source that class Abu Dhar Rafidi. So even with your clarification this word should not be in this article The Peace WorshipperTalk 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read Arabic. It's going to take me years to learn!
As for Abu Dharr being a supporter of Ali -- Madelung (a well-respected Oxford scholar) really does a good job of pulling out the references to Abu Dharr and showing that he opposed Uthman and Muawiya, and that Ali showed him respect when everyone else abandoned him. I'm not sure that Abu Dharr would have described himself as being Shi'at Ali (Shi'a sources to the contrary) but he and Ali were definitely on the same side as being unhappy with the way things were going in the ummah.
But you're right, there isn't any support outside Shi'a scholarship for claiming that he refused to support the first two caliphs. It was just the third that he criticized! So I'll remove the Rafidi.
As for "no Shi'a today would say that the word Shi'a in the Qur'an refers to the Shi'at Ali" ... they do. Right here, on Wikipedia. I've had several furiously angry Shi'a claim that any instance of the word "shi'a" in the Qur'an referred to them, and how dare I say otherwise! Ditto your claim that Shi'a accept the good deeds of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman -- they don't. There is a party of Shi'a on WP who are determined to blacken their names in any way possible. Striver and his friends seem to regard it practically as the ESSENCE of Shi'a Islam to hate the first three caliphs. I don't think this is just contemporary Shi'a either -- Burton's account of his mid-19th-century pilgrimage to Mecca, disguised as an Afghan Sufi, mentions Shi'a pilgrims visiting the tombs of Abu Bakr and Umar in the mosque at Medina and cursing out those caliphs, and trying to spit on their tombs.
I would rather believe that there ARE Shi'a who are purely positive, trying to follow the Qur'an, perfect their characters, and love their fellow humans (Shi'a, Sunni, or kufr), but they don't seem to be evident on WP. Zora 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari VS Abu Dharr al-Ghifari

I have so much to mess to get out of and it’s just because of our friend Grenavitar. Grenavitar prefers Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari instead of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari. I believe Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is the write way to state the name of Hazrat Abu Zar. Since Abu means father of and if he wants to use Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari just because it is going to be easy for westerners to read, then let me tell him that we should tell/show/explain westerners the right way of pronouncing Arabic names. Thank You Salman


[edit] Info

This old version might have some info that is now lost. --Striver 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sunni Views

I have edited and expanded the sunni section. It was way to heavily biased on the Shia sid with alot of POV misleading for any looking for a balanced look on things.

Greensleaves112Greensleaves112 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)