Talk:Shi'a Islam/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Unbiased Article?

This is a request to those who claim this article is biased. I have been reading all these comments where people are simply just shouting BIASED! BIASED! or BULLSHIT! Can people PLEASE provide evidence where the article goes biased and bring forth proof as to how it is biased instead of getting angry at the factual reality. Simply chanting biased and not accepting factual historic events or simply labelling it anti-shia'ism doesn't deserve an ear. As for those who are here vandalising, please go somewhere else. -- Khawaja

after the "occultation" or "hidden" twelth happened in the late 9th century. What year did the council, ulema convene to elect a supreme imam? Or more simply how long the did the Shia wait around for twelth imam to turn up after his disappearrance?

Regarding "saints", I agree that Sunni Islam does not have this concept (indeed, regards it as heretical), but:

According to the Twelvers, the twelve descendants of Ali are Imams and have a special status; they are less than the Prophet, but higher than ordinary mortals. They are regarded as direct corporeal and spiritual successors of the Prophet, infallible, divinely inspired, and chosen directly by God.

This is more or less the same as the Christian concept of saints. -- The Anome 07:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If anything, it would be more similar to popes. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 13:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's wrong. An important criterion of the pope is that there is only one. On the other hand, I think that it is not useful to compare them neither to saints, the pope nor even the apostles, because lots of the concepts involved are much different in muslim and christian religion. -- .~.

Political Correctness

The use of "humankind" in this article is poor style--"mankind" is the correct term even according to our own encyclopaedia. The etymology of the word and its usage throughout the history of the English language show "mankind" to be a completely non-gender-oriented word. I don't feel it's any more sexist than other words which happen to begin with the letters m, a, and n such as "mantra", "manipulate", or "management". --Marlow4 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That's YOUR opinion, not a divine mandate. MY opinion is that mankind is offensive. I'm not PC, not Andrea Dworkin, not even Catherine MacKinnon. In fact, I think I'm in the majority on this. It's customary these days to refer to a postal carrier rather than a postman, a firefighter rather than a fireman, a chairperson rather than a chairman, and humankind rather than mankind. Zora 20:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The last sentence is my opinion and I qualified it as such. I accompanied it with facts to document that the word "mankind" has nothing to do with the male gender. In fact I would challenge you to find the word used to refer to males exclusively anywhere--outside the context of gender studies anyway. That was the point I was trying to make--that the word doesn't mean what you think it means, although I'm quite happy to accept other wordings (see below). --Marlow4 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you might be seeing an example of two things: Firstly, the rest of the world is less touchy about this. And secondly, in a lot of languages, this is not an issue at all. English is a rather unfortunate vehicle in this regard. In other languages (even German, for example, the only other European language I have studied), plurals and large/very significant concepts are often feminine. This helps keep the balance. For example, in Urdu we say Khudha ki hasthee, "the person of God", and that concept is feminine. Similiarly, for "Humankind", in Urdu (and I think Persian), the word would be Khudai, which is definitely feminine. My German is very rudimentary, but I think the same would be true there...

Having said that, English being the language this Wikipedia is in, I agree with Zora. I would vote for humankind, or humanity.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Looked at the article. I agree that "humankind" is a little awkward. Can we use "Humanity" where possible instead?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:59, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sure. Humanity is fine. Zora 05:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually I would propose "the human race" since the primary definition of "humanity" is "the condition or quality of being humane" and in the context of the article "God-appointed leadership of humanity" sounds ambiguous. "God-appointed leadership of the human race" expresses clearly what we're trying to say in the first place and also sounds natural. --Marlow4 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
My personal preference would be for "humankind" rather than "the human race", but I'm prepared to ignore that in order to resolve the matter.
As an example of why I'm touchy about this ... when I was a child, all too many years ago, I read a book called The Ascent of Man, I believe. It was a world history, and on the cover was a naked MAN, seen from the side, trudging up a hill. Why was it a man, and not a woman? Well, because it's the history of MAN. You may say that you don't intend any gender implications when you use the word, but it has them. Zora 12:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Text from anonymous user deleted. See history and WP:NPA Djbaniel 08:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Zora why are you bringing a personal issue as a child into a discussion of word choice. You as an adult, and part of this community, should put those issues aside and be able to discuss the topic with as open a mind as possible. Clearly you can not. That being the case you should be able to admit that you have an usually high sensitivity to this subject and not participate in the discussion due the fact that you are unable to even approach an unbiased point of view. You attacked Marlow when he made valid points and offered support for his argument, while not offering any of your own.


"Man" traditionally refers to both genders. "Mankind" in everyday useage refers to the species of man and so is gender neutral. I see no reason, past or present, to revoke its useage on grounds of gender bias as its usage simply does not have this connotation.

I would agree with the use of "mankind" in this article in lieu of "humankind" simply for ease of speech. I feel that this debate is rather pointless if the meaning of this article is understood. Future use of "humankind" or "mankind" or "womankind" really should not make a difference unless it is intended to insult. Reading and understanding the meaning of an article should be more important than picking apart a word.

After the Ocultation

After the occultation of the 12th Imam, the Shia were advised by the Imam al-Mahdi (12th Imam) himself that no other caliph will exist till the end of the time, when the 12th Imam will appear along with Jesus to bring the Justice back to earth. In the meantime, the followers are advised to read and follow the teachings of the Imam, and the true believers will recieve spiritual aspirations and answers directly from Imam.

Errata

Just correcting my edit comment: the vandalism reverted was of course the three edits by 24.19.181.111, not 67.68.232.172 (whose edit was preserved). Sorry for any confusion. -- Perey 06:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The summary says "The largest sect, the Sunni Muslims, make up about 70% of all Muslims", but the Islam article says Sunnis are 90%. Where are either of these data from?


I've changed the phrase "Shi‘as disregard the three caliphs who succeeded him as illegitimate rulers..." to say "regard" instead of "disregard." I believe this was the intended meaning of the sentence. If this correction is an error, then the sentance needs a major gramatical overhall for clarity.

Redirects Galore!

Hi, it seems that there are many more pages linked to redirects to this page than to this page itself. I'd be willing to tackle some of these redirects, but really a large-scale effort is needed to fix some of this up. Is it correct to say shi'ite or shiite? Or is it preferable to refer to followers as Shi'a? I would need some guidance before I even knew what to do with this. In any case, it seems to me that it makes sense to try to standardize references across Wikipedia. If some places in Wikipedia people are called Shi'a, and others Shi'ites or Shiites or Shia or Shia Muslims or Shiite Muslims, then readers will be confused. I've been trying to standardize spellings of Qur'an and Muslim, and have now removed all of the links to Koran, Moslem, and a few uncommon variations, and some of those to Quran. If anyone wants to help out and cut out the middle men in a few links, as it were, go to what links to Shi'a Islam, and find one of the pages that links to a redirect, read through it, and standardize the spelling (the browser's find function is rather useful here). Let me know what the correct term is at my talk page.

--Jacobolus 05:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


This article should probably include a map

I think it would be a good idea to include a map in this article. Perhaps someone should upload this one http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/muslim_distribution.jpg, as far as i can tell the owners don't seem to mind [1], though IANAL.

Asharite beliefs mentioned here

"The Mu'tazilites have similar beliefs to that of the Shi'a, however, the Ash'arites believe that God has a body and therefore shape."

As far as I know, the Ash'arite school refuted many of the beliefs of the Mu'tazilies which they believed to be Anthropomorphic. I think the statement here which says that Ash'arites ascribe a shape and body to God is wrong. One of the 50 points of Ash'ari thought is that God is unlike all his creations so they disagree with ascribing concepts like shape and space to God (this was one their points of disagreement with Ibn Ta'miya).

Sources: The Asharite page on wikipedia has a mention of their ideas. Also [2] has some more information.

Page extremely POV

I looked at this page for the first time and found a Shi'a polemic against the Sunni position. While the Shi'a position should be presented, it should not be allowed to dominate the article. I'll be working on this page in the future, trying to make it more NPOV. In the meantime, I'm going to try tagging it, to see if that will attract some attention. Zora 21:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I suggest we add to the article to bring balance to the article, instead of the usual deletion method.--Zereshk 06:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:AladdinSE did not pay any attention to my suggestion, and deleted an entire section. So I reverted his changes back too.

I would like to remind all that we are not here to judge what the Shi'as say, but only to report it. And the documentation section I added is in fact the basis of and axis of Shi'a beliefs.

And this page is precisely about that: It's about Shi'as and what they believe in.

If you feel the page is biased, add equivalent balance to it. Do not delete.

Because if you do, you will only be deleting what Shi'a Islam believes in, whether "fabricated" or not.

Thank You. --Zereshk 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:AladdinSE

1) User:AladdinSE keeps deleting the section that discusses the basis of Shi'a beliefs. His actions in doing so are pure censorship and tampering, and should not be allowed.

2) This is a page about Shi'as and their beliefs. hence people should know what and on what basis Shi'as believe in what they believe.

3) I, as a Shi'a, and as the great grandson of Ayatollah al-Shirazi, have full authority and knowledge in explaining the beliefs of Shi'as. User:AladdinSE is a Sunni, and does not. (Do you see us tampering with the Sunni page?)

4) The documentation he calls "partisan publications and POV interpretations" have been published by 2 of Shi'as LEADING scholars of the 20th century. I PROVIDED DIRECT REFERENCE.

5) Nobody has a right to censor us. I hope our rights are respected here.

Thank You.--Zereshk 23:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, you are unclear on the concept of vandalism. Vandalism would be blanking the entire page, or inserting rude words, or some such frivolous action. AladdinSE is trying to make the page encyclopedic. This may be a page ABOUT Shi'a, but it is not controlled by Shi'a. It is not the Shi'a forum on Wikipedia.

Any statement of the form "Shi'a believe X" should of course be statements that any Shi'a would accept -- that's just accuracy. You will be extremely useful here in fixing any inaccuracies. However, this article should also be acceptable to Sunnis. The statement that "Shi'a believe X" should be acceptable to any fair-minded Sunni, because it's a report about what some people believe. But any Shi'a POV statement that attacks the Sunni position, and is reported as fact rather than "Shi'a believe that ..." should be removed.

I put a POV notice on the Sunni article too, and invited the Sunnis to come over here and make sure that this article is NPOV. Similarly, Shi'a should go over to the Sunni article and make sure that it's NPOV rather than a brochure to recruit people to Sunni mosques. I may have invited the nastiest flamewar of Wikipedia history; I hope not. It is possible to fundamentally disagree, but cooperate! We just try to step back and outline both sides of the argument, rather than deciding for one side or another.

I should perhaps add that those of us who are arguing religion should do our best to live up to the highest standards OF our declared religion in the course of the argument. If I say that I'm a Buddhist, and then act like a complete jerk, I am not doing much for the cause of Buddhism. Actually, I do act like a jerk sometimes, and it's only because I'm a bad Buddhist. We can't be perfect, but we should do our best to show kindness and consideration.

BTW, all this does NOT mean that anyone holding position X is therefore entitled to hold forth at any length, in any manner that he/she so chooses, as long as it concerns position X. Articles have to be reasonably short, and readable. If anyone edits your prose, Zereshk, it is not necessarily vandalism or censorship. I think that sometimes you write at too great a length, and are too legalistic in your presentation of the Shi'a case. This is not necessarily the best thing for the Shi'a. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the repository of ALL knowledge; it's OK just to outline a position, in a lively and readable way, and point interested people towards web sites or books that discuss the matter in more depth. If you bludgeon people over the head with reams of documentation, you turn them away, when perhaps one pithy sentence would lead them on.

Oof! Perhaps I've gone on at too great a length. I just got back from lunch with my old Zen teacher, and I'm just too bubbly! Zora 00:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

An anon editor just changed the stats opening the article, upping the percentage of Muslims who are Shi'a from 15% to 25%. Is this right, or is the anon just engaging in primate chest-beating behavior? Where would I look to get religion stats? Zora 01:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zora, but you are simply wrong.

  1. Meriam Webster defines "Vandalism" as: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public property. Precisely what AladdinSE and you have been doing; deleting and censoring any perspective from SHIA POV, calling them "unrelaible", "fabrications", "partisan publications", and "POV interpretations". That's pathetic Sunni politics. If you were truly impartial, you would allow both Sunni and Shi'a documentation on the same page.
  2. I have provided SOLID documentation from LEADING top clerics and scholars of the Shi'a faith. That is sufficient corroboration.

There is no room for debate here.--Zereshk 02:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, you don't get to define vandalism. It's the Wikipedia community as a whole that defines vandalism for Wikipedia, and I can't think of a Wikipedia admin that would call anything that Aladdin or I have done, vandalism. Furthermore, you seem to be confusing disagreement on a talk page with censorship. This is simply nuts. I can disagree with you, fundamentally, but we can nevertheless produce a piece of prose, the article, with which we would both agree. At least as to its truth value -- what's good and bad prose is even harder to adjudicate.

Don't confuse talk pages and articles!

Furthermore, don't confuse disagreement with you, or disapproval of your tactics or prose, with persecution of the Shi'a. You are not the whole Shi'a faith. I believe that there are many wise and kind Shi'a scholars who would say the same thing to you. Zora 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry Zora, but you cannot fight with FACT. I would be happy to send you copies of Shi'a publications if you cannot find the references I have given about our faith.--Zereshk 07:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

I have tried to make the article more readable (succinct, organized) and less POV. Zereshk, I have taken out your long "documentation", because it was really much too detailed for an overview of Shiism. It belongs in the Succession to Muhammad article. I have saved a copy and will slot it into the Succession article as soon as I can.

Please don't get angry. You are not being censored. It's just that the information belongs in a different place. If I don't get to it within a day or two, you are still not being censored. It's simply that, even though I'm an unemployed computer geek with NO LIFE, I can't write Wikipedia articles twenty-four hours a day. (I'm writing this at 3:30 AM here in Honolulu ... ) If you can't wait, feel free to move the material yourself.

I did NOT write the history of the Shi'a because it was not covered well in the previous version, so that there wasn't much of a basis for further work, and because I anticipate some real problems when we get to this. We're probably going to have to separate out Shi'a versions of Shi'a history and Western academic versions, because I don't think you'll accept the academic version. I'm very tired and I don't want to tackle something so difficult when I'm less than fresh. Zora 13:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. Actually, separatimng the histories is something that should be done. I'm glad you finally accept the Shi'a version of their history.
  2. In return for changing the article so drastically, I expect the succession artcile to be linked on both the Ali and Shi'a pages. I will myself make sure that happens.
  3. The problems with the ALi article still remain.
  4. I too am sustaining heavy damage in my studies because of this Wikiholic tendency. Youre not alone.--Zereshk 02:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hadith

The main question this article leaves me asking is: what hadith collections do the Shia regard as primary? Are there any collections that Shia regard with the same level of trust that Sunnis place in Bukhari, say? - Mustafaa 18:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is case dependent. Many factors must be considered for the chain of transmission to be deemed authetic. The answer to Q2 is yes. The Hadith-i Thaqalayn and Hadith-i Qadir-i Khumm, which Shi'as consider central to their beliefs (and which User:Zora deleted from this page so diligently) are examples of this.--Zereshk 02:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see. But aren't those individual hadith, rather than hadith collections? I was wondering if there are certain books of hadith that the Shia consider especially authoritative. - Mustafaa 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. However the number of commonly held authentic hadiths is quite sizeable.--Zereshk 19:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Also, if Shia regard the prophets as infallible, what's their take on surat Abasa? - Mustafaa 18:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is exactly the question there?--Zereshk 02:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sunni tafsir says that surat Abasa was revealed when the Prophet turned away from the blind man to continue attempting to persuade the rich man, rebuking him for not teaching the blind man; since this would seem to imply the Prophet's fallibility, I was wondering how Shia interpret the sura. - Mustafaa 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those questions are addressed here, here, here, here, and here.--Zereshk 19:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about 'AlKaafi'?

Deletion of imamate section

Zereshk, you removed the whole imamate section, and replaced it with a list of beliefs that don't even refer to the imamate. Belief in the Imamate is "the" defining feature of Shi'a theology. You can't just remove all reference to it. You said that the section was "poorly written" -- does that mean that you disagreed with it? Zora 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have modified/added to it instead of deleting it. Sorry about that. Though the article does need a lot of work. The way it is writen now, it's more about how Sunni beliefs contrast with Shi'a beliefs. It doesnt say much bout The Shi'a themselves. e.g. theres nothing about Furu' deen, the system of Shi'a scholarship, their ranks, hawzah, leading figures, etc.--Zereshk 21:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the article needs a lot of work. I primarily modified the previous article, which was basically a Shi'a-Sunni contrast, so that's how it ended up. I agree that it would be an enormous improvement to add some non-comparative, descriptive material. Zora 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Shi'a schools

Zereshk, that list is too long. It would be much better just to mention the major centers (Qom and Najaf, right?) and then link to a page called something like Shi'a institutes of Islamic learning or some such title. Then each school could have a little bit of a blurb, saying why it's notable.

It's as if we added a list of all the Christian schools (thousands long, I'm sure) to the Christianity article. It's out of proportion. Zora 11:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then we shouldnt have a list of the 12 Shi'a Imams, the Shi'a holidays, the Shi'a countries as well either. They should have their own separate page, based on your argument. I dont think a list of 19 names (not "thousands") is long at all. The page has hardly any real info about Shi'as. Thanx to your edits, it has become a Sunni-contrasted-with-Shia page. Not very useful at all. Besides, it is not uncommon to use lists in pages. Example.--Zereshk 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I already agreed with you that the page is too Shi'a-vs-Sunni and needs to be refocussed. But that is because the existing page, which I edited, was already that way. You're blaming me for something that isn't even my fault! Give me time ... it takes a lot longer to digest and shape information than it does to cut-n-paste.
Just a list of schools is completely uninformative. More to the point would be the account given in the Wikipedia article Ayatollah, which links to an external article called, "So you want to be an ayatollah". We could use a better description of the whole process: how one gets admitted, how students support themselves, courses offered, methods of instruction, certificates given, if any, how faculty are hired and supported, how schools are governed, school endowments and how they are managed. Write a WHOLE article about this -- you could, if anyone could, based on your self-description -- and then condense it into one paragraph for the Shi'a page, then link to the more detailed article.
Given that Shi'a, and Shi'a educational institutions are much in the news these days, a handy reference for the uninformed would be a boon to all. Zora 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S. You have a very clerico-centric view of Shi'a Islam if you think that the clerics are more important than the holidays. Holidays are one of the ways in which the laity practice their faith, and there are a lot more people observing Ashurah than there are studying at Qom. Zora 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any other monkey wrenches you'd like to throw in? What else is there to erase about Shi'as from Shi'a pages, I'm wondering.--Zereshk 02:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, Zereshk; Zora is a very sincere and active contributor. Let's stay in good faith here.
Zora, I have to say, I haven't followed the whole discussion and whatever the underlying ideology might be and however those us new to it see it, one of the characteristics that makes traditional Shia practice different from Sunni interpretation is precisely that it is actually has a formal clergy to begin with. And if I am not mistaken, Zereshk is coming from a Shia background him/herself (I am a Sunni who tries to keep his mind open; but I am still a Sunni with not too much knowledge of the Shia side of things), and it would be useful to listen to him/her on that.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

iFaqeer, if you follow the discussion, you will see that not only does Zora not accept the views of any Shi'a Grand cleric as representative of "the Shi'a view", but he/she also claims Hadiths to be "academically" "un-relaible" and "POV" as well, whether it be Sunni or Shi'a. That's highly problematic.--Zereshk 20:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zereskhk, trust me, Zora does listen to reason. I mean take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shi%27a_Islam#Deletion_of_imamate_section
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure he/she does. --Zereshk 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She. I hope I didn't offend you by using "he/she" for you. I wasn't sure which you were. In Zora's case, we know—and being familiar with the culture you and I should be able to guess from the name, no?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I know. But I feel that she despises any references that might be made to her personally. That's why I was trying to be neutral in the dialogues. Trust me, the only reason she edits any counter-arguments at all is simply to try to piss me off. Otherwise her edits are most often filled with illogical discrepancies. I dont know why she hates Persians and Shi'as (despite her claims to the contrary). She literally lives to write anything against them on wikipedia. Mustve been something in her childhood.--Zereshk 07:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Have I mentioned this here? A little while ago, I started Muslim educational institutions. Would you folks like to add to it? Maybe a categories of Shia or Shia-leaning institutions would need to be added, maybe we need to provide information o each institution about its ideological leaning...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Percentage of Shi'a in Iraq

Thulfeqar changed the percentage from 62% to 82%. This is unbelievable. All the news sites I've been reading have quoted figures like 40% for percentage of the total Iraqi population. In fact, the whole para is badly laid out and confusing. Percentages of total population, or percentages of Muslims? We need a table, like the one I recommended for Sunni Islam. I should have fixed this when I did the last major edit, but, hey, I didn't. For the moment, I'm going to modify the para with a placeholder rather than just reverting. Zora 23:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone better at Wikisyntax than I am please fix the formatting on that section! I wanted to get rid of the odd words that straggle up between the logo and the pic, and I did so, but at the cost of adding extra white space at the bottom. D'oh. Zora 23:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Zora, um what’s the website for the Iraqi senses bureau? Oh I’m sorry, they don’t have one do they, as far as news agencies go, they are about as reliable as anything considering the fact that most of them get their foreign information from the AP.(IE there is no real research envolved) I don’t see why that’s such an unbelievable figure it is more or less correct, I should have changed it to 90%! But that’s not even the issue at had, if there are no reliable statistics, then I don’t believe that any should be posted. Thulfeqar 3:41 AM, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the statistics aren't completely reliable. I've read that Saddam Hussein had any government figures modified to show fewer Shi'a than actually existed -- just to prevent any uppity notions about "majorities". But I believe that the Kurds are all Sunni, which would increase the Sunni figures. Zora 07:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page has been modified and trashed beyond repair. I'll have to come back in a few months and start afresh.--Zereshk 08:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

One word, Bias

Salame Alaykum,

I have to say this is one of the most Bias pages ive ever seen, in almost every aspect. When i read this page i get the impression someone wrote this with a clear religious agenda to discredit the Shia school of thought. Please leave your Fitna elsewhere and come to terms that you need to be objective and neutral in order to contribute to this page. Someone even went to great hights as trying to imply that "The Shias are not considered part of the Islamic faith". These little childish comments are not only seen as hurtful by people that potentially read these pages but also completely ridiculous and hold no basis, regardless of what prejudice you have.

But it is true that some Sunnis think Shi'a are kaffir, and should be killed. There's no POV about it. Just look at recent news from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Zora 11:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the people claiming they are Seyyeds and descendants of other religious scholars, Look man, Ive met people that claim they are descendants of King Cyrus, Darius, Prophet Mohammad, Ali, the whole nine yards basically, remember that this is an internet site and i too can claim many things i am not, even if you are this does not give you any additional privellige on this site as to dictating what others should write or not, even if you dont agree with it.

Anyhow, enough of my ranting, Kholase, Please review and re-do this entire page because it has "Bullsh*t" written all over it. Ill try doing my own part in a couple of days if i get to it Inshallah, Thanks in advanced.

Some of the things i found not necessarily to be accurate, did not agree with or found it could be improved drastically:


-some 10-15% of all Muslims are said to follow a Shi'a tradition.

Well, do you have other figures? It's true we need a table or chart.

-The map depicted on the page does not seem accurate

What's wrong with it?

-The complete fixation on what differences Shias and Sunnis have, Why instead not write about what they have in common and throw the rest in the garbage, Since these disputes have been going on for more than a thousand years and will not be resolved on Wikipedia to begin with? Even if you do post something that illustrates the differences please put Quranic refrences or from other scripture like the Hadiths in order to make the reader understand as to why this is believed by the school of thought

If we write about what the Shi'a and Sunni believe in common -- well, that's the ISLAM article. But I agree that the organization by comparison leaves out some important aspects.

-Improving the subjects such as "Muta" where did it begin, Why was it banned according to Sunnis and why do Shias still believe it is permitted but is even frowned upon by them? Elaborate on these little things

The article would be too long if we covered everything in such detail. I haven't researched this in depth, but I believe that temporary marriage was a pre-Islamic practice in Arabia. It isn't forbidden by the Qur'an, that I know, but by hadith. It's a hadith that the Sunni accept and the Shi'a don't, I'm guessing. We should have an article on this. Zora 11:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern Sunni-Shi'a relations Many Sunnis refuse to accept the Shi'a as fellow Muslims, calling them "bringers of bid'a" -- bid'a, or innovation, being regarded as necessarily wrong. The Shi'a in turn believe that the Sunni have yielded to power and the temptations of ease and wealth, and that only the Shi'a have kept faith with Muhammad's original intentions. The communities have remained separate, mingling only during the Hajj. Modern Shi'a have generally been tolerant towards the Sunni, tolerating them even when the state religion is Shi'a, as in Iran. However, when attacked (as in Pakistan) they have retaliated violently Modern mainstream Sunni have also become less confrontational. The renowned al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, one of the main centers of Sunni scholarship in the world, announced the following on July 6, 1959:The Shi'a is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought.Al-Azhar's official position in this regard remains unchanged to this day. However, Muslims like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Pakistani Islamist parties still regard Shia as heretics, and have been responsible for many attacks on Shi'a gatherings at mosques and shrines.

I found this complete and utter garbage and should be deleted immediately as far as im concerned.

But it's accurate, so far as I can tell. How can the truth be garbage? Why does it make you so angry?

I realize this is a sensitive subject for Sunnis and Shias and both have been disputing eachothers beliefs for the longest, however put your differences aside and make this a page where people can read it and leave without having the idea in the back of their heads that a school of thought is dismissed as something theyre not. inform the reader objectively.

Just my oppinion, Respectfully, Salam. --Paradoxic 10:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply

But it is true that some Sunnis think Shi'a are kaffir, and should be killed. There's no POV about it. Just look at recent news from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Zora 11:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So what? The same happens vice versa and has no other basis other than the oppinions of a few. Either way, does this mean we should take the insults of each party towards the other and include it on their pages? i dont think so, we can come up with much better things than that, its not what wikipedia is for.

I don't think wikipedia pages are 'anyone's pages' as you suggest above. I've read the article twice now, and I don't believe that there is any intentional tilt or attempt to convince anyone of any side of the issue. Encyclopedias are not about making things look good or bad, palatable or unpalatable, pleasant or unpleasant but rather to represent the state of affairs. If you believe that any information has been deliberately omitted to affect the neutrality of the article feel free to include it on the page.


Well, do you have other figures? It's true we need a table or chart.

Ill try to look for some numbers, maybe im mistaking, If i recall it used to be around 30%, i dont know how it dropped down to 10-15% from wich legitimate institutions/sources do these figures come from anyway?


What's wrong with it?

looking at the map i just found some areas wich were light awkward, especially looking at Iran and Iraq


If we write about what the Shi'a and Sunni believe in common -- well, that's the ISLAM article. But I agree that the organization by comparison leaves out some important aspects.

When you messaged me you told me this page is a mess, Now i am seriously wondering if you think this page is a mess because it hasnt bashed the Shias enough or that it is truly a mess because of portraying a negative image of Shiaism.


The article would be too long if we covered everything in such detail. I haven't researched this in depth, but I believe that temporary marriage was a pre-Islamic practice in Arabia. It isn't forbidden by the Qur'an, that I know, but by hadith. It's a hadith that the Sunni accept and the Shi'a don't, I'm guessing. We should have an article on this. Zora 11:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well if im not mistaking supposedly Shias and Sunnis do not dispute it was practiced during the time of the Prophet but according to sunnis that it was forbidden at a later stage to their hadith, By wich hadith are they forbidden? According to wich Imams was temp. Allowed? Do the shias acknowledge these Hadiths of Temporary marriage being banned as authentic? It would make an interesting topic in a seperate section wich doesnt need to be a long essay at all.


But it's accurate, so far as I can tell. How can the truth be garbage? Why does it make you so angry?

Nobody is angry, It is easily dismissable as third grade material and poorly researched. excluding the other flaws made, again, why would we even include the insults of other parties in this? We want the general public to get at least a pleasant and informed, neutral point of view on Shiaism, I dont know if you are even a muslim or not but these things do NOT belong in Islam in general.

Respectfully, Paradoxic. --Paradoxic 13:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic, I'm finding your style a bit difficult to read -- it's not customary to put talk pages into bold. It reads like shouting.

I disagree that we want people to get a "pleasant" view of Shiism. Pleasant or unpleasant is beside the point. We want the article to be accurate and NPOV. I think I'm neutral on most of these points, because I'm not even a Muslim; I'm a Zen Buddhist. Sunni, Shi'a, it's all the same to me. But at the same time, I am sympathetic to religion in general.

You may want any info re Sunni persecution (some Sunni, mostly Islamists so far as I can tell) of Shi'a dropped, because it's embarrassing to Islam, but Wikipedia is not in the business of covering up embarrassing things -- or of ignoring good things either. Zora 17:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Page is Biased indeed, Get your info elsewhere.

Just to add to the ongoing discussion that user Zora and AladdinSE indeed have deleted, blanked out, and censored large amounts of material pertaining to Shi'as.

It is not the first time they do this. I frankly got sick of their anti-Shia crap agenda, and left.

But let it be known, that Wikipedia, as it stands, does not reflect the beliefs and true representation of Shi'as.

And I'm telling you this , as a Shi'a.

The information here is simply not accurate. Anything we have posted has been fiercely deleted by them under the pretext of being "partisan", "fabrication", "proselytizing", "poorly written", "irrelevant", "unacademic", "hadiths are not reliable", or whatever other dumb crap excuse they could come up with.

At one point, the excuse for deleting Shi'a beliefs was: "the text is written by mullahs who are not democratic".

I am truly sorry , but certain people on this page have prohibited Shi'as from writing about their own beliefs. This page is factually flawed.--Zereshk 00:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Mutazilah are not a 'Sunni Sect"

Mutazilah were a group that called themselves Ahl ut Tawheed wal `Adl (People of Monothiesm and Justice) not Ahl us Sunnah wal Jama'h (People of the Prophetic tradition and the large multitude/community i.e Sunnis). I know that shia polemical works refer to "Two sects of Sunnis the Mutazilis and the Asharis", but that is wrong, neither did the mutazilis refer to themselves as Sunnis and nor did the Sunnis consider them one of their own. In fact many mutazilah were Shi'ites in belief like Ibn Abil Hadid the commentator of Nahj ul Balaghah. Both Ithna `Ashari and Zaydi Shi'ites of today have beliefs which are considered "Mutazali" beliefs by the Sunnis

That is correct. Mu'tazila could be Shia or Sunni, and many Mutazila authors are still followed by Zaydis. - Mustafaa 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Soorat Alwilayah Added by Shia to the Qoraan

How true it is?

Not true at all. The Shi'as use the same Qur'an used by the Sunnis.--Zereshk 21:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Soorat_AlWilayah.jpg What's this? Can any one explain?

See this Shi'a website. If you DO NOT find "Soorat Al-Wilayah" listed there, then know that the document shown above was fabricated by Kuffar who seek enmity with the Shi'a.--Zereshk 21:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not Taqya? Is it?

nope.--Zereshk 21:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. See http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/forgery.html . - Mustafaa 23:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You say that the Shias and Sunnis read the same Quran. Then explain why in the Shias main book (Asool Al-Kafi), that the shia believe there are 17000 verses in the Quran, which is 3 times more than what God has actually revealed. Also, explain why in some of the shia "Quran" the name of Allah was replaced by the name of Ali. This is shirk. [User: Anon, July 25]

Dear Anon, Yes this is absolutely shirk, no doubt whatsoever. Nevertheless, as a Shia Muslim, I can't find a single copy of Quran in which this thing is done. This is probably wrong information or misconception that you reported here. Moreover, if any one claims or read the name of "Ali" instead of "Allah", he's certainly a 'mushrik'. This is for sure. But again, this is just a 'fabricated' misconception. Haiderhussain 13:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are Sunni traditions that say that there were verses, believed to be "revealed", that did not get collected into the Qur'an. Ibn Warraq (The Origins of the Koran, p. 14) cites three passages from as-Suyuti, from Umar, Aisha, and ibn Ka'b respectively, saying that verses had been lost or dropped. One of those "lost" passages was believed to have been the verse of stoning, ordering that married adulterers be stoned to death. This has always been a matter of controversy. As-Suyuti took much of his material from ibn Sa'd, and I just got a copy of ibn Sa'd today, so I may be able to find those traditions there. Zora 08:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What is 'Taqya'? What are its principles? And How Does it Apply?

Can anyone explain in details please? With evidence from the Qoraan & Hadeeth.

Read here to see your answer in full.--Zereshk 21:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Does Imam get revelation like prophet from God through Angel Jibreel?

Can any one quote verse or hadeeth confirming this?

I don't believe that the Shi'a doctrine of the imamate implies anything like prophethood. A prophet declares new things; the imam is just supposed to be an infallible guide to the application of what has been revealed by Muhammad. For an interesting discussion of early Muslim conceptions of the caliphate, and of the power of the Muslim leader to pronounce on law and doctrine as well as temporal matters, see Patricia Crone's book, God's Caliph. Zora 00:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is. However, it will take me some time for me to look that up. Things are really hectic here in Tehran these days. Keeping the inlaws happy is also a serious challenge I had underestimated.--Zereshk 03:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor re treatment of Sunni in Iran

An anon editor changed the article to read that the Iranian Islamist regime was killing Sunnis. I've heard a lot of ugly things about the mullahs, but killing Sunnis wasn't one of them. I could be wrong, however -- does anyone have any better info? Plus, it might be a good idea to add a short para re Sunni-Shi'a tensions in Pakistan and Iraq, where things have turned violent. Zora 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Al-Asr

Could some Shia have a look at Al-Asr? The "alternate version" does seem to be supported by Shia sources, but it's possible I've misinterpreted something. - Mustafaa 22:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adamcaliph: Protecting Islam-related articles is vital

I am Adamcaliph, a Shi'a Muslim. I have created and edited a considerable amount on some of Wikipedia's Shi'a-related articles, but have done so anonymously because I had never registered. Now that I have registered, may I congratulate not just Zereshk, but also Zora and in fact all the good Wikipedia contributors for the "good" sections of the work they have done. What has been done is remarkable. Surely there is nothing like this anywhere on the net. I only pray for the protection of the Islam-related articles. I am here to help. - Adamcaliph, 3rd June 2005, 03:05 GMT.

I spose it depends on what you mean protected. There is LOTS of vandalism against the Islam and Muhammad articles -- less against the other Islamic articles. Possibly because the idiots that commit the vandalism don't know anything except those two words! We're reverting the vandalism all the time. But as for the other articles -- I care very much about being fair to the Shi'a and the Abadis. There's a tendency for Westerners to ignore the smaller groups. But it is very probable that the articles will include some POVs with which you disagree. As long as we can agree to include all ... Zora 06:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too much airtime?

User Zereshk is definitely the most active when it comes to this page, now I'm just wondering, seeing how involved he is personally, and how charged he is, how he can even be trusted to present a NPOV on this matter. I think it's high time that Shias and other religious minded individuals stopped using Wikipedia as a proselytizing engine and stuck with reporting FACTS. Yes we all differ in what we believe in to be as fact or non fact, but, the intentions here are clear. Instead of trying to EXPLAIN something, people are trying to PERSUADE.

Almost nothing of what I put on the Shia page remains. They were all deleted or changed by people like yourself who claim ignorance as "FACT".
FACT: You cannot have a true page about Shias that is not supported or endorsed by Shias.
Have fun.--Zereshk 07:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Buddy I've never posted on the Shia page, stop acting the victim all the time. A page on Wikipedia does not need to be endorsed by *anyone*. --69.199.216.231 13:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. A page about Physics that isnt endorsed by physicists will be utter nonsense, no matter what you claim about it.

And BTW, *nobody* has the right to accuse editors of Wikipedia of having "too much airtime", buddy.--Zereshk 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is not one version of physics that is accepted by all physicists, so any "endorsement" would be necessarily POV. All that can be expected is accurate summaries on disputed subjects like, say, string theory. Ditto an article about the Shi'a -- it should faithfully reflect all POVs. Zora 05:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is in fact a standard model of physics that is endorsed and accepted worldwide. Newton's laws of Physics, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are hardly disputed at all; they are taught in EVERY university across the globe as the standard accepted view of physics. Except of course for die-hard polemists such as yourself who have nothing better to do.

Some physics is generally accepted and some is controversial. Zora 03:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto about Shi'a. I'm sorry Zora, but no matter how hard you try, you cannot exclude the views of the Shi'a on a page about Shi'as.. We've been through this before.--Zereshk 08:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is saying shias can't contribute to the shi'ism page. What is being said is that it should not be used as a proselytizing engine. Just a question though, does the page on neo-nazism have to be endorsed by a neo nazi? --69.199.216.231 02:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At any rate, the article should, first and foremost, accurately reflect Shi'a beliefs and practices, and this necessitates the use of Shi'a sources, as is common in all religious articles (including Islam). Counter-POV's (from a Sunni perspective, for example) are fine, but should not hinder the first point. I think this is the primary point of contention. If this article does not incorporate Shi'a sources, it cannot hope to accurately present the Shi'a faith as practiced by Shi'a themselves. SouthernComfort 05:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the comparison of Shi'as to Nazis by 69.199.216.231 highly antagonistic and malicious. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is filling up with such bigotry.--Zereshk 06:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If all this is a reference to Zereshk's attempt to incorporate huge swathes of hadiths, note that articles should be READABLE and that there should be a balance between opposing POVs. Zora 06:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, again, as with other religious articles, the first priority should be in presenting the faith accurately, as it is practiced by the faithful. Then you present any opposing viewpoints, ideally in a separate article with summaries presented in the main article. As for specific doctrines which require detailed explanation with hadith references, summaries in the main article with separate articles expanding on these doctrines would be the best course of action. The main articles for Islam, Christianity, and especially Judaism are good examples of how to do this. Shi'ism is very complex and detailed and naturally would require several or more articles to deal with all the relevant doctrines, beliefs, and practices. Incorporating the relevant sources need not be difficult, and is necessary due the position of Ayatollahs (and Grand Ayatollahs) and other theologians in the faith. In Shi'ism they are the ones imbued with religious authority and the faith has evolved over the centuries, so there are a number of schools of thought with varying beliefs. SouthernComfort 10:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, readers can go back and check the history of Zora's deletions and blank outs. I dont need to keep referencing everything again and again to refresh everyone's memory. Though I will if I have to. She and AladdinSE viciously blanked out any material about Shi'as from sources from Qom, Najaf, and even America's top Shi'a academic scholar Nasr. She even prevented me from pasting Hadith e Thaqalayn, calling it "unrelaible", a hadith central to Shi'a beliefs.--Zereshk 07:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Namaaz

Bismilla

I replaced salaat with the Persian equivalent of Namaaz, which is more commonly used amongst Shia, including Arab Shia.-Reza Hussein(formerly Shia'aithna Islam member name)


Guidelines?

People need to write what they know about these topics. IF YOU DO KNOW ABOUT IT DO NOT WRITE IT! There are people like me who are looking for a general idea about topics like Shi'a versions of Islam. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE FORUM! GO TO A CHATROOM IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. -68.41.7.2

A bunch of little revisions

I did some reformatting and copyediting. The article is still severely deficient and too focused on differences between Sunni and Shi'a. I will work on it when I have time. Zora 6 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Zora, its not only al-qada and the taliban that hold deep contempt for shias, you can find that on almost all sunni sites, not all, but almost.

Yabbut, it's only the extremists who are KILLING Shi'a for the crime of being Shi'a. I agree that there's lots of prejudice displayed elsewhere. Perhaps that should be worked into the para. Zora 7 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

"Tabarra (To hate the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt)" - is it really the teachings of Shia Islam to 'hate' people. Might there be a better way to phrase it?

Aha, I think I've got it. There's a reference in Madelung's fascinating book, The Succession to Muhammad (p. 252), to a gathering of Muslims in Kufa, after the Kharijites had quarrelled with Ali and deserted. Those who were left reasserted their allegiance to Ali, swearing that his friends would be their friends and his enemies their enemies. I have a feeling that this pledge is the basis of the Tabarra article of faith. Tabarra (to consider the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt as one's own enemies) -- how's that? Zora 8 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Change in the Taqiyya section

I went ahead and changed the Taqiyya section in a slight, yet what I feel important, way. The sentence that read "Sunni often accuse..." now reads "Some Sunni accuse...". Being a Sunni myself, I have never accused any Shi'ite of using "Taqiyya", even though I've been involved in numerous debates with Shi'ites. Better to say that some Sunnis always accuse Shi'ites of lying, than to say all Sunnis often accuse Shi'ites of lying. I'm also wondering if Sunnis are the only source of this accusation, as this section implies. Albenali 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Map and Yemen

I really like this article and appreciate all the work, thanks guys!, but would it be possible to get another map? Some percentage of the Yemeni population is Shia but the key to the map covers Yemen up. Would it be possible to add a pie diagram showing the figures for Yemen? Lao Wai 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good edit. Thanks. Zora 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Rafida?

I got redirected to the Shi'a Islam article by the page Rafida, following a link in the article Peace be upon him, but I cannot find "Rafida" in either the article or the talk-page. Maybe anyone who knows what Rafida means could fix this?
--BjKa 09:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that must be a typo for Rafidi, Refusers, the very earliest name for the party of Ali. They refused to take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and it took six months to get everyone to agree. Zora 10:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The origin of the word Rafida and its association with Shia has to be investigated. In the Arabic lexicon Lisan Al-Arab, one finds the following:

Rawafid (i.e plural of Rafidi): A group of Shia, who were called by this name for abandoning Zayd Ibn Ali. Al-Asmai said: They gave him the oath of allegiance and then said: Disown the two shiekhs and we will fight with you, so he refused and said: They were the two viceroies of my grandfather so I would not disown them. So they rejected him (Rafadooh) and seperated from hin (Urfudoo) so they were called Rafidah.

Nowadays, Rafidi رافضي is used as a generalized insult for all Shi`ites by Saudis... AnonMoos 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This word is an eqivalent to the N-word used for african americans, so it is a taboo word of insult--Nay 16:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sunni persecution of Shia

AladdinSE removed the part about Sunni persecution of Shia. He wants sources.

How about the 80 year old bani Ummayad practice of cursing Ali? Or Hajjaj ibn Yosuf? Umar? Random Kalif? Salafis pasing death sentence on random shias?

The whole request for sources seems a bit uneducated in my view...

--Striver 11:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Several Shia sects routinely curse Yazid, don't they? You think the request for sources is uneducated?? You're in the wrong place if you believe that. Wikipedia is all about sources, especially in edit disputes. When incendiary POVs like that are inserted into encyclopedias, you better believe it that neutral scholarly sources will be required to back it up. --AladdinSE 22:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, you just confirmed the great barrier that existed bettwen the follower of Muaviya and his son, and the followers of Ali and his sons (as). Ill find some sources for you. --Striver 07:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You may find that not all Sunni Muslims are automatically "followers of Muawiyah and his son." Millions of Sunnis, if I am not very much mistaken, do not accept a dynastic nature of the caliphate whether in the family of of Ali or the line of the Umayyads or any other dynasty. Also, Sunnis believe Ali was the last of the exemplary Rightly Guided caliphs and when they support his caliphate it is not because of his mere accident of birth and marriage ties to the Prophet, but his own intrinsic abilities and his legitimate election to the caliphate via Shura. By the way, when you find those sources, do make sure they are scholarly and neutral. --AladdinSE 16:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Religious calendar

As far as I know, Sunni Muslims celebrate only the two Eids as holy days, the only days reported to be designated by Muhammad as days of celebration for all Muslims. Ashurah is a special day of fasting, though not mandatory. If it and other special days are to be noted in this section, then I don't think "celebrated" is an appropriate term. And I don' think celebrating Mawlid-al-Nabi has any religious basis. If Sunni Muslims celebrate it is a personal choice or local tradition. Some Sunni Muslims even see celebrating Mawlid as unlawful. --Yodakii 17:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wahhabi and Salafi Muslims (both Sunni) have cracked down very hard on the celebration of Mawlid, because they regard it as idolatrous. Babajobu 21:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm most familiar with Sunni Muslim communities in the Levant. (I don't know any Salafi or "Wahhabi" Muslims.) Mawlid is not "celebrated" in most of these communities. and I've never heard of any "cracking down". In any case, among many Sunni Muslims only the two Eids are celebrated. The article should be fixed. --Yodakii 02:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's to be fixed, it should merely note that some Muslims celebrate Mawlid and some don't. Zora 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine for Mawlid. But what about Ashurah? The day isn't "celebrated" by Shi'a, rather "observed", or "commemorated" is more appropriate. --Yodakii 05:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, make the changes! Zora 06:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the Shi'a

Why is there no history section in this article? This seems incredibly problematic. Also, focusing on 632 as the date of the split seems to be rather strongly taking the Shi'a POV on the matter of the split. My understanding is that most modern scholars would date the decisive schism to 661 or 680. At the very least, I'd think the events of 661 and 680 deserve mention in the introduction to the article, and that there should be an actual history section. john k 21:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no history section because I haven't gotten a round tuit. At the time I started working on this article, Zereshk and I were colliding head on and I put off writing something that I was sure would infuriate him, if I took the academic approach.
I would agree that while the Shi'a trace the split to 632, you don't really get a definitive split between Sunni and Shi'a as groups until after Karbala, or even until after the establishment of the Abbasid dynasty. (They came to power in a bait-and-switch move, in which they enlisted Shi'a support for an un-named scion of the Ahl al-Bayt and it turn out to be an Abbasid, not an Alid.) If you start the section, I'll try to make time to work on it. Zora 01:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

God, the section is such a huge task. I imagine that it would have to include:

  1. Discussion of Ali and his sons, and the creation of the Shi'as as a distinct group
  2. Their relation with the Abbasids that you discuss above.
  3. The split between the Ismaili and the Twelver Shi'ites, and the fate of the last Twelver Imams
  4. The establishment of Shi'ite states - the Twelver Buwayids in Iraq and Persia, and the Ismaili Fatimids in North Africa, and their successes and falls. Some discussion of their failure to make an impression on the majority of the population of the regions they controlled.
  5. The career of the Assassins, organization of break-away sects like the Druzes and the Alawites
  6. Then, uh, I'm not really sure what there is to say for the 1250-1500 period
  7. The conversion of Safavid Persia to Twelver Shi'ism in the early 16th century.
  8. And then onwards...

I'm not really sure if I have the resources at hand to make a decent go of this from scratch, and I suspect that I've missed major aspects, as well. What is really shocking here is that there's just nothing at all. That you, Zora, didn't want to start writing a history from scratch is understandable. But I'm just surprised that, in the long history of the article, not even a crude stubby history section was ever created. john k 02:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

We actually had a history section long ago. But Zora took it down in hope of replacing it with her version, while totally ignoring the Shia view. That is how pages like Succession to Muhammad came into existence (a salvaging effort).--Zereshk 02:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This is quite unfair to Zora, I think, who is quite sympathetic to the idea that Shi'a views should be included (more sympathetic than I am, I think). What is desired, though, is that our account of Shi'a history consist entirely of Shi'a apologetics. That probably is worse than nothing. john k 02:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Ask any Shia editor on Wikipedia of what they think about Zora. She has been anything but sympathetic. It's like Democrats calling themselves leftists, when in fact they are nothing but moderated conservative republicans. (as far as the European view goes). Practically a joke.--Zereshk 20:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Could we have a real history section please? Like, why do we have the current geographical distribution of Shi'a / Sunna? Why did some regions go Shi'a and some Sunna? Also, some real history on the development of the Shi'a. Egypt used to be Fatamid at one stage, until Salah ad-Din -- how is that different from Shi'a? Why is Egypt no longer Fatamid/Shi'a? Also, the page at the moment gives the standard story that the Shi'a started with the sons of Ali -- is this actually historical? Or did the story develop later (and when)? m.e. 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be an idea to mention the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It's a bit hard to say you have an article on the Shi'a and not mention him at all... m.e. 07:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The role of religious scholars

Most Sunni scholars, preachers, and judges (collectively known as the ulema) traditionally believe that the door of ijtihad, or private judgment, closed some four hundred years after the death of Muhammad.
I've never heard such a thing from any scholars. Can anyone verify this? --Yodakii 16:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well attested. See Ijtihad. Zora 17:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The way the section is now, makes it look like the view on ijtihad is a fundamental difference between the two. Shi'a scholars believe that the door to ijtihad has never closed. Actually, Sunni scholars also believe that the door is always open. There are many scholars that believe that there are obstacles to its application today. But there are also scholars that believe ijtihad is even more necessary today. I think the main difference between Sunni and Shi'a here is the authority Shi'a clergy have compared to the Sunni scholars, and the apparent difference in the application of ijtihad and other political differences between these groups are directly related to this diffrence in authority. --Yodakii 18:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

WRONG MAP

This map (Image:Shiyemap.jpg ) is wrong, because western and northeastern parts of Iran are Kurds and Turkmens who are sunni muslims.


lol, Northeast Iran is Mashad, thats a Sunni part? But i agree, Its a incorrect map..Probably the most accurate one thus far though. Shia population from '87 to today has tripled due to a baby-boom after the Iran Iraq war and the numbers should definately have to be reviewed and accurately estimated without being undercounted. --Paradoxic 11:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Top redirect

I'd like to remove the disambiguation link at the top of the page that links to Shii-chan. That page is a stub about a cartoon cat that is the mascot of a Japanese bulletin board. I hardly think this is worth putting a redirect notice at the top of the Shi'a Islam page. Shii-chan is linked to by exactly one other article page on Wikipedia. Turnstep 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sugestion: Make a disambiguity: Shii, that links to both Shia and Shii-chan --Striver 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea, that should work. Right now nothing links to Shii except this page anyway. :) Turnstep 13:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The disambig page is fine. I added the redirect on this page because I was searching for something about Shii's Song and searches were either unsuccessful or I ended up hitting the redirect to this page. Shii-Chan is uncredited in the animation. --Billpg 21:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Turnstep 23:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Strange?

Modern mainstream Sunni have also become less confrontational. The renowned al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, one of the main centers of Sunni scholarship in the world, announced the following on July 6, 1959: The Shi'a is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought. Al-Azhar later distanced itself from this position. Many Islamic groups also currently maintain this distance, regarding the Shia doctrine at best as fisq (transgression or severely deviated). (see query from Sunni Imam)


When exactly did Al Azhar distance themselves from this position? As far as i am aware Shia students even today graduate from Al Azhar and study there. So where did this come from? Aside from that what are "Many Islamic groups", care to elaborate? Are these Scholars? Internet chat groups? and where did this "Many" come from? Is it the Majority? 10? 20? 30%? It seems that this poorly written piece of text (Wich i adressed months ago) still exists and is possibly the most vague, over exaggurated article written thus far. Id appreciate the writer to tell me what this is about exactly? Thanks. --Paradoxic 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true. Many "muslims" unfortunately have and do consider Shia as Kafir. Examples:

الإمام مالك رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال مالك : الذي يشتم أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس لهم اسم أو قال : نصيب في الإسلام . السنة للخلال ( 2 / 557 ) .<O:p></O:p>

وقال ابن كثير عند قوله سبحانه وتعالى : ( محمد رسول الله والذين معه أشداء على الكفار رحماء بينهم تراهم ركعاً سجداً يبتغون فضلاً من الله و رضواناً سيماهم في وجوههم من أثر السجود ذلك مثلهم في التوراة و مثلهم في الإنجيل كزرع أخرج شطئه فآزره فاستغلظ فاستوى على سوقه يعجب الزراع ليغيظ بهم الكفار .. )<O:p></O:p>

قال : ( ومن هذه الآية انتزع الإمام مالك رحمة الله عليه في رواية عنه بتكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم قال : لأنهم يغيظونهم ومن غاظ الصحابة رضي الله عنهم فهو كافر لهذه الآية ووافقه طائفة من العلماء رضي الله عنهم على ذلك ) . تفسير ابن كثير ( 4 / 219 ) .

الإمام أبو حنيفة رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

إذا ذكر الشيعة عنده كان دائماً يردد: (مـن شــك فـي كـفـر هـؤلاء، فـهـو كـافـر مـثـلـهـم).<O:p></O:p>

الإمام الشافعي (عبد الله بن إدريس) رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال : ( ليس لرافضي شفعة إلا لمسلم ) .و قال الشافعي: (لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة!) الخطيب في الكفاية و السوطي.

الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

رويت عنه روايات عديدة في تكفيرهم .. روى الخلال عن أبي بكر المروذي قال : سألت أبا عبد الله عمن يشتم أبا بكر وعمر وعائشة؟ قال : (ما أراه على الإسلام).<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p><O:p> الإمام البخاري رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال رحمه الله : ( ما أبالي صليت خلف الجهمي والرافضي ، أم صليت خلف اليهود والنصارى ولا يسلم عليهم ولا يعادون ولا يناكحون ولا يشهدون ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم ) . خلق أفعال العباد ص 125 .

ابن حزم الظاهري رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال ابن حزم رحمه الله عن الرافضة عندما ناظر النصارى وأحضروا له كتب الرافضة للرد عليه: ( وأما قولهم ( يعني النصارى ) في دعوى الروافض تبديل القرآن فإن الروافض ليسوا من المسلمين ، إنما هي فرقة حدث أولها بعد موت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بخمس وعشرين سنة .. وهي طائفة تجري مجرى اليهود والنصارى في الكذب والكفر ) . الفصل في الملل والنحل ( 2 / 213 ) .

أبو حامد الغزالي رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال : ( ولأجل قصور فهم الروافض عنه ارتكبوا البداء ونقلوا عن علي رضي الله عنه أنه كان لا يخبر عن الغيب مخافة أن يبدو له تعالى فيه فيغيره، و حكوا عن جعفر بن محمد أنه قال : ما بدا لله شيء كما بدا له إسماعيل أي في أمره بذبحه .. وهذا هو الكفر الصريح ونسبة الإله تعالى إلى الجهل والتغيير ) . المستصفى للغزالي ( 1 / 110 ) .

شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله رحمة واسعة : ( وقد اتفق أهل العلم بالنقل والرواية والإسناد على أن الرافضة أكذب الطوائف ، والكذب فيهم قديم ، ولهذا كان أئمة الإسلام يعلمون امتيازهم بكثرة الكذب ) .

و قال رحمه الله : (( أما من اقترن بسبه دعوى أن علياً اله أو أنه كان هو النبي وإنما غلط جبريل في الرسالة فهذا لاشك في كفره. بل لا شك في كفر من توقف في تكفيره.

ابن كثير رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

ساق ابن كثير الأحاديث الثابتة في السنة ، والمتضمنة نفي دعوى النص والوصية التي تدعيها الرافضة لعلي ثم عقب عليها بقوله :( ولو كان الأمر كما زعموا لما رد ذلك أحد من الصحابة فإنهم كانوا أطوع لله ولرسوله في حياته وبعد وفاته ، من أن يفتأتوا عليه فيقدموا غير من قدمه ، ويؤخروا من قدمه بنصه ، حاشا وكلا ومن ظن بالصحابة رضوان الله عليهم ذلك فقد نسبهم بأجمعهم إلى الفجور والتواطيء على معاندة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ومضادته في حكمه ونصه ، ومن وصل من الناس إلى هذا المقام فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام ، و كفر بإجماع الأئمة الأعلام وكان إراقة دمه أحل من إراقة المدام ) . البداية والنهاية ( 5 / 252 ) .<O:p></O:p>

العلامة ابن خلدون رحمه الله<O:p></O:p>

و هذا الرجل معروف باعتداله و إنصافه و شدة تحققه من الأخبار. ذكر مذاهب الرافضة بالتفصيل و أظهر بطلانها و صلاتها بالصوفية حتى أنه قال: "لولا التشيع لما كان هناك تصوف"

<O:p></O:p><O:p></O:p><O:p></O:p><O:p></O:p>

--Zereshk 21:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please write talk page comments in English on the English wikipedia. Or at least translate them. john k 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Those are not comments. They are direct quotes from Sunni Imams proclaiming Shias as "Kafir". I pasted the originals to put an end to any doubts about their existence.--Zereshk 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I could surely still doubt it, since I have no idea what that text says. Untranslated text in a foreign language (especially a foreign language written in a non-latin script) which the vast majority of en users cannot understand does not prove any point you may be trying to make. john k 16:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If some people are worried about the unity of Islam, well then maybe they should start acting honest about it. It is not possible (for Shias) to be humiliated and pointed at as a Fasiq or Kafir in a Sunni mosque, but then claimed as a brother in faith here on Wikipedia by the Ahl-sunnah wa jama'ah. That's called hypocricy. My younger brother was ostracized from the mosque of our city for taking the Mafatih al-Jinan with him to the mosque. (The Imam apparently didnt like what he saw on the ziyarat al-ashura section). Unity can only happen when sectarian differences are put to rest, or at least respectfully tolerated.--Zereshk 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, dont get me wrong, Im all for unity. But unity has to have some substance to it, not just a slogan.--Zereshk 23:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please translate the piece of text Zereshk. Id appreciate it.--213.10.28.202 13:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They were extracted from a Sunni website[3]--Zereshk 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


"The Imam apparently didnt like what he saw on the ziyarat al-ashura section". Lol. I dont understand why Sunnis belive it to be of a matter of kufr whether one likes Umar or not, specialy since they dont consider him choosen by God. Really beyond me. Either he was divenly elected or not. If not, why is it kufr to disregard, or even hate him, is'nt he just like anyone? Also, Mut'ah Nikah is just a fiqh issue, and there is plenty of them between the four madhab, why do they make so big of a deal of this one, they cant stand the idea that Umar prohibited it? If its ok to have sex with captives and to have a Nilah Misyar, why is Nikah Mut'ah so horrible? Is those points something to declare somone kafir over`? --Striver 13:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Tell me about it. Having a mistress or "kaniz" is OK. Mut'ah (which is hardly practiced anyway nowadays) is not. That's what I mean by hypocricy. The Saudis are the most extremist of all "muslims". Yet they have the blessing of the US and the west. That's sad.--Zereshk 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam..I realize very well that there are some factions that like to stirr up allot of differences among Shiis and Sunni's, However realistically speaking most Sunni's have no clue what a Shia follows to begin with, the general Idea your average Sunni has to this day is that a Shia believes Ali is God (Astaghforallah), or that they can fly. Let us not dwindle down to the point where we are going to keep making it seem that the Shia are such a defenseless small group that has always been persecuted and are pitiful. This is not realistic. Be objective and keep your personal experiences aside. If your family has bad experiences with Sunni's or Shia's it doesnt mean all have the same case, I as a Shia have had little or almost no problem with any Sunni, wich is perhaps why i have a more pro-sunnite stance on this issue. however lets just stick to explaining the Shia faith objectively with Shia sources and explain the people that are not informed about anything, something. --Paradoxic 15:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What you said about most sunnis not being informed on Shia belives, and not caring either for that matter, them being normal nice people like there should not be any propblems living with is accurate. In manny parts of the world. But try to go and say "YA ALI!, YA HUSSAIN!" on ashura in Wahabi land, and see how manny minutes you can stay contious. Most of what you wrote is accurate, but that does not diminish from the theological, historical and practial death fatwas on Shias.
Does the Kabala suicide bombing ring a bell? No? you know, those that are a part of anual ashura mornings in Iraq... --Striver 17:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

screaming Ya Ali or Ya Hossayn and actually physically being attacked is mainly found in two or three gulf countries and/or Pakistan with a large concentration of Wahabistic beliefs and few Shia's. In most cases Nothing happens, even during Ashoura. There is absolutely no doubt that the Shia have suffered immensely, but my point is to emphasize on persecution in such a way as its written about depicts the Shia as defenseless little creatures that are always the victim of Sunni extremists and are condemned as eternal Kafirs, etc. Although this may be true in many cases, the vast majority has never cared about the differences, nor read about them. There are fatwa's carried out against Shias and in the Favor of Shia's, thats the current situation, it only depends how you adress these on the page. It would be much more progressive to emphasize on Shii beliefs rather than making victims out of Shia and their struggle/differences with Sunnis, at least on THIS page. I think the current piece of text under "Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations" is much more balanced and NPOV, thats a start. --Paradoxic 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dude, We can keep on pushing for unity as much as we can, begging the Sunnis to accept us as muslim. But in the end, we will always be kafirs (or at best, "misguided") in their eyes. I live in America's 8th largest city, and our Sunni and Shi'a mosques are separate. So is the same in Memphis, Knoxville, St. Louis, Nashville, and Little Rock, where I have personally been to.
I for one, have no intention of begging a Sunni to accept me as an equal. Because I know that on Qiyamah, these people (not me) will have a desparately tough time explaining to Fatemeh Zahra their position in defending the massacre of Ahl ul-Bayt. I fully advocate pluralism. But if they cant accept me as an equal, well then I wont go crying about it.--Zereshk 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic

I made some further edits to the section. I highly appreciate your input and pov and would be happy to see your name among the members of the Shia guild :)

--Striver 23:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Hello to all! I was disturbed to see that this article had been transformed from an ecyclopedia article into a gushing celebration of Shia Islam, complete with "the Prophet (peace be upon him and upon his family)", assertions of the truth of Shia beliefs and the error of Sunni beliefs, and so on. Surely no one truly believes this is encyclopedic material. In no way do I quarrel with the beliefs expressed, or with the robust faith of those who expressed them, but this is simply not the place for that sort of thing. I'm going to go through the article and make some changes...I'll move slowly, to give everyone time to assess and digest, but changes are badly, badly needed. Regards to all, Babajobu 21:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Correctness/Incorrectness of term "Shi'ite"

Okay, so like most words and word parts in the English language, "-ite" has multiple senses. When one sense makes perfect sense, and another other leads to the ludicrous notion that Shi'ites are "followers of Shi", then obviously the sense that leads to an accurate definition is the one being employed. Saying that the suffix is employed to suggest that Shi'ites are "followers of Shi" makes as much sense as saying that "ite" is being employed in the sense that indicates that the given word is a form of rock. Shi'ites are not a type of rock and they are not followers of Shi, they are believers in the religious movement Shia Islam, and "Shi'ite" clearly expresses this. Babajobu 23:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The "-ite" is always in reference to the _preceeding_ part so when you write "X-ite", the "-ite" refers back to the "X". In this context it is always incorrect to say "shi-ite" because in this case the "-ite" does not correctly define the shia. DigitalMo
I don't understand...are you saying that Shi'ites are not believers in Shia Islam, i.e., Shia-ites, with one vowel dropped as normally happens in combining constructions with three consecutive vowels? Babajobu 23:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
As I have indicated earlier the extension "-ite" indicates "Descendant _of_, Adherent or follower _of_"(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000). Whether it is written as "shia-ite" or "shi-ite" it doesn't change the fact that it does not correctly define the group known as the "Shia". The "Shia" are not the followers of "shi" or "shia", by definition they are the supporters of Ali and followers of Islam. DigitalMo
And I've already indicated to you that according to Merriam-Webster Unabridged another sense of the suffix "-ite" simply indicates a member of a movement, rather than "a follower of" or "a descendent of". This sense produces a perfectly coherent and accurate meaning for "Shi'ite". Your assertion that the term is incorrect is based on the application of a different sense which produces the manifestly absurd meaning "followers of Shi", hardly better than the sense which would indicate "Shi rock". Neither of these senses are employed here. The correct one is. This is why the assertion that "Shi'ite" is incorrect should be removed. Babajobu 00:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Since at least in the popular definition of the term "-ite" the "shi-ite" term is incorrect, it should not be used at all. There is no need to keep this term since according to the popular use of the the "ite" extension it is blatantly wrong. I prefer removing the entire reference rather than encouraging the use of something that is blatantly wrong. DigitalMo

Perhaps it would suffice to say that Shi'ite is considered both correct and current by most non-Shi'a English speakers, but that Shi'a Muslims do not like the word and do not use it. I've stopped using it just because it's too much like a certain English swear word. Zora 00:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not considered correct, it is used because they are not aware of the alternative or the true reference. This is an education issue, one that should start here. DigitalMo
It? Which "it" does not consider the term correct? You and other Shi'a don't, but most English speakers do. You don't get to write the dictionary. If the article says that Shi'a do not like the term, then that's all the education needed. People who read the explanation probably will stop using the word Shi'ite -- at least in front of Shi'a. Zora 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Most english speacking people don't know what the shia beliefs are let alone whether this term is correct or not. Don't assume too much. DigitalMo
Okay, so how about just a transliteration of the term used by Shia themselves, and then reference to the English term "Shi'ite", with a mention that it is generally not used or liked by Shi'ites themselves. But it seems to me that it's up to Anglophones to determine what is correct English, just as it would be silly for Americans to tell Arabic-speakers that the Arabic "Amrika" is "incorrect". Babajobu 00:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to keep a reference to an incorrect term. However, if it is to be kept, it should only be kept if it is qualified as an _incorrect_ reference. English is not a mystery or secret language, the definitions of the various terms used are quite clear, and they are clearly incorrectly used in this regard. Hence a correction of the terminology used is critical. DigitalMo
Is the true reference not "Shia"? Babajobu 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Your point?
Except that the term is not regarded as incorrect by any of the generally recognized authorities on such things in the English language. I think gendered pronouns are ungodly and should be eliminated, but I don't get to rewrite the English grammar article to reflect this viewpoint, because it is not backed up by the necessary published sources. Babajobu 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That article is disputed. Who are the authorities that have considered the usage of this term? DigitalMo

DigiMo, ou can't just declare it "incorrect". You have no authority to do so. The term "Shiite" is found on page 1148 of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, which is the standard dictionary used by most publishers (I'm a proofreader and copyeditor). MW11 trumps your impassioned personal declaration.

It is clearly incorrect according to the popular english usage of the extension "-ite". New terms are introduced into english dictionaries on almost every edition, this does not mean that the term is correct, it just mean that the term is in use. DigitalMo

You can declare it offensive to you, or to all Shi'a, in which case polite people will adjust their language accordingly. Zora 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not about being offensive, it is about its correctness as a term. It should not be presented as an accurate term. It must be qualified as an incorrect term. DigitalMo
Digital, I've made this point more than once, but you haven't yet responded. In the word "Shi'ite", "-ite" is very clearly used in the sense of "member of a movement". When combined with "Shia", how is this in any way "incorrect"? Please answer this specific question, rather than just insisting again that in fact "-ite" is used in the sense "follower of". Babajobu 01:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, that is not the poular use of the extension "-ite", Secondly, a much more common understanding is in regards tro "-ite" refereing to a "follower of" or "adhert of". For a person ignorant of shia beliefs the usage of this term is confusing and wrong. DigitalMo
DigitalMo, ah, I understand your concern now. Your concern is that, though the term may not be incorrect, people who are not knowledgeable about Shia Islam may misinterpret the term to mean that Shia are "followers of Shi". Well, I must tell you that the most popular use of the "-ite" suffix is indeed to refer to various forms of rocks and salts. The senses meaning "member of" or "advocate of" and that meaning "descendent of" or "follower of" are probably all tied for a distant second. Regardless, if your concern is that the term is ambiguous because open to misinterpretation, and if this is a widely shared concern among Shia, then we can mention this when we address Shia dislike of the term. But this is different from simply and stating that "this term is incorrect". So let's try to think of a formulation that will capture Shia concerns without asserting that the term is incorrect. Okay? Babajobu 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The usage of "-ite" we are refereing to is in a religious context, this doman has its own popular application of this extension distinct from that associated with rocks or salts. I don't see why you insist on wanting to use this term, if it is wrong in the popular sense, then it should not be entertained. DigitalMo
You have repeatedly asserted that the meaning you dislike is the "popular sense", but another perfectly legitimate and "popular" sense is the one that means "advocate of" or "member of". This is why dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., do not describe "Shi'ite" as "incorrect", and because those sources do not, Wikipedia cannot, either. This is true regardless of what you or I may like. The description of the term as "incorrect" cannot be included in the article. Babajobu 02:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The implication that it is correct cannot be included either. The best solution that I see is to remove the reference. DigitalMo
Sure it can, because it is correct, as determined by the people who matter, rather than you or me. Wikipedia is not a forum for my original research and POV regarding terms (gendered pronouns must not be used!) or yours (Shi'ite is incorrect!). Wikipedia reflects the scholarly knowledge and positions of the day, and Shi'ite is not presently considered an incorrect or nonstandard usage by any English dictionary or encyclopedia in the English language. This is why the term will be included in the article, and not referred to as incorrect, though it will be noted that many Shia do not like the term. Babajobu 03:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
How many dictionaries include the term? Who are these scholars that have considered the term? Making unsubstantiated claims does not do your case any justice. I am interested in removing a clearly invalid term as applied to Shia Muslims. The only compromise solution is to remove any reference to misleading terms. DigitalMo
Every unabridged English dictionary includes the term and none of them define it as nonstandard or inaccurate. Regardless, I think we have arrived at a reasonable compromise. Remove reference to the term "Shi'ite"...use Shi'a as the adjective. I think it would be useful for our readers to know that Shia dislike the term "Shi'ite", so I think it's a shame we can't include it just once, so as to mention this. But we can't do it if it is going to be incorrectly labeled as "incorrect". Much more important and relevant to readers is that it is disliked by Shi'a. Babajobu 03:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I will make the change. In regards to your other concern, I don't mind addressing it but not as part of the introduction. I will read through the article and propose a location to include such a discussion if I find a suitable location. Take care. DigitalMo
Okay, I'm glad we arrived at a reasonable solution. You take care, as well. Babajobu 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added a small paragraph in the Shia sects section, but it may need tinkering .. it is a place holder for now until i can come up with a better discussion. DigitalMo
I think it's good, thanks for adding it! Babajobu 06:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was going to propose that we set up an article for Shiite, in which we explain that it's a common term in English, but Shi'a don't like it -- just as we have articles for Islam and Muslim. In the Muslim article, it is explained that Muslims do not like to be called Moslems or Mohammedans or Mahometans. However, it would also work well to have a section in the Shi'a Islam article explaining what terminology is preferred. Perhaps we could set up a redirect article under Shiite, so that people looking up the term would come here and find out that it's disliked? Either way would work. Zora 07:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well d'oh! Shiite does redirect here. OK, let's set up a whole new section for the info. Zora 07:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Zora, I have already added a section to that effect, there is no requirement to duplicate this anywhere else. There is no requirement for any additional work in this regard. DigitalMo
I am going to make some edits based on your changes .. hold off so we don't have a edit conflict. DigitalMo
I have made the necessary changes. DigitalMo

Hi!

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia DigitalMo! We Shia are to few here, and one more or less makes a tremendous diffrenth, since we are 2-3 active editors! Some comments:


It? Which "it" does not consider the term correct? You and other Shi'a don't, but most English speakers do. (A) You don't get to write the dictionary. If the article says that Shi'a do not like the term, (B)then that's all the education needed. People who read the explanation probably will stop using the word Shi'ite -- at least in front of Shi'a. Zora 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A: Correct!
  • B: Agree also.


Perhaps it would suffice to say that Shi'ite is considered both correct and current by most non-Shi'a English speakers, but that (C)Shi'a Muslims do not like the word and do not use it. (D) I've stopped using it just because it's too much like a certain English swear word. Zora 00:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • C: Agree also.
  • D: Agree also.
It is not considered correct, it is used because they are not aware of the alternative or the true reference. (E) This is an education issue, (F)one that should start here. DigitalMo
  • E: Agree
  • F:Im very sorry brother, but that is incorrect. We are not supposed to educate her, only report. However, i must confess that i report to educate :)
The "-ite" is always in reference to the _preceeding_ part so when you write " (G) X-ite", the "-ite" refers back to the "X". In this context it is always incorrect to say "shi-ite" because in this case the "-ite" does not correctly define the shia. DigitalMo


Digital, I've made this point more than once, but you haven't yet responded. (H) In the word "Shi'ite", "-ite" is very clearly used in the sense of "member of a movement". When combined with "Shia", how is this in any way "incorrect"? Please answer this specific question, rather than just insisting again that in fact "-ite" is used in the sense "follower of". Babajobu 01:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


DigitalMo, ah, I understand your concern now. Your concern is that, though the term may not be incorrect, people who are not knowledgeable about Shia Islam may misinterpret the term to mean that Shia are "followers of Shi". Well, I must tell you that (I) the most popular use of the "-ite" suffix is indeed to refer to various forms of rocks and salts. The senses meaning "member of" or "advocate of" and that meaning "descendent of" or "follower of" are probably all tied for a distant second. Regardless, if your concern is that the (J)term is ambiguous because open to misinterpretation, and if this is a widely shared concern among Shia, then we can mention this when we address Shia dislike of the term. But this is different from simply and stating that "this term is incorrect". So let's try to think of a formulation that will capture Shia concerns without asserting that the term is incorrect. Okay? Babajobu 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


  • G: Correct.
  • H: Correct.
  • I: Correct.
  • J: Correct! And Because of "J", the LESS AMBIGUOUSE form is more accurate to use: Shi'a

DigitalMo, let me say a few words: Babajobu is a anti-Islamic propaganda member, dont care or get frustrated over him. Zora is a bhudist, but extraodinarly stubborn and egocentric, so excpect her to make her crazy. The problem with her is that means well, she has no evil intentions whatsover, and realizing that makes it hard to ignore her, garanteeing you to go crazy. The right way to handle Zora is to demand sorces from her when she confuses her own oppinions with facts, and when unable to produce sorces, just threaten her with arbitration if she persist. But as i told you, she means good, unlike the propaganda member.

Thank you Striver .. I don't want to judge them .. i want to be as objective as I can .. I will accept their argument if they can convince me and I will present my argument and try to convince them. I intend to remain civil in these matters. I hope everyone else that I discuss with behaves accordingly. DigitalMo
Incidentally, regardless of what Striver may think of me (and he is of course entitled to his opinion), I appreciate your civility, and I, too, believe that civil discussion is always the best way to resolve disagreements. In a worst case scenario one can just excuse themself if a conversation is not developing well, but the shouting and insults that get thrown around so often on Wikipedia don't help anyone. Regards, Babajobu 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Further, i would love to see you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild --Striver 03:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I will check it out. Thanks again. DigitalMo
I don't object to use of Shi'a in place of Shi'ite, I think that's fine. My only objection is that when I came to the article it described "Shi'ite" as "incorrect". Let's just say it is disliked by Shi'ites, and we can explain the grounds on which it is disliked. I think this important information for people to have, and more importantly it is objectively true. Babajobu 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Or we can remove any reference to this clearly out of place term and not create mis-understandings. This is what I am advocating. DigitalMo

I don't agree to removing it. That's letting someone with an agenda censor information, and it is not appropriate here. Besides, no one will know that Shi'a don't like Shiite if you don't allow this to mentioned. Zora 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I agree that it should be mentioned at least once, mostly because I think the fact that Shia dislike the term is valuable information for our Anglophone readers to know. And I believe, based on what he wrote above, that DigiMo will agree to mention "Shi'ite" (and Shi'ite dislike of the term) without referring to it as in "incorrect" so long as this is done later in the article. My concern was that the term not be falsely described as plain "incorrect". However, I can't think of any reason to object to use of "Shi'a" in place of "Shi'ite". This seemed to me a fair enough compromise. Do Shia and Shi'ite have subtlely different meanings in some way? Is there a reason why the former cannot be used synonymously with the latter? Babajobu 04:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Digimo just added the material on Shi'a dislike of term "Shi'ite". I think this is good. However, Zora, I'm still interested to hear more of your thoughts on the arrangement. Babajobu 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali

DigitalMo, i aprreciate what you are doing, but there is a much more important battle waged here: Talk:Ali--Striver 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Strver. I think we have reached a civil compromise. Every issue is important, and it is even more important to reach a conclusion once an issue has been identified and has escalated, hence I won't leave things half baked. I will check out the other sections. Thanks for your information. DigitalMo

DigiMo's edits

DigiMo, your prose is clumsy. There are a number of grammatical errors. Perhaps English is not your first language? Please let me correct it. Zora 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora, proof read but don't remove or re-word unnecessaily. I will re-add if you remove too much. DigitalMo
I just looked at my edit summary and my note here again. They sound very snippy and snooty. I'm sorry -- tact isn't my strongest point. I tend to be completely focused on the results I want (clean tight prose) and go "full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes". Zora 10:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It's o.k, no offence taken (this time :P). I hope our collaboration can remain productive. DigitalMo


Changes

Salam..I dont see why the above text has to be changed, it is a brief sum up of Shiite beliefs wich allows the reader to understand what the page is about before scrolling down. as far as Etymology goes one could include sayings of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (a) about their view on why one calls himself Shi'a to give a comprehensive explenation to the reader why a Shia calls himself a Shia. Also i as a shia have no problem with "Shiite" being used, so what if it remotely sounds like some American cuss word? But Media as ive noticed are more fond of using "Shiayt" these days. Introduction could also be elaborated on greatly..ill try and improve those.--Paradoxic 13:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Just added some quotes and sayings, i think it would be better not to overpopulate the page and create a new page with the meaning of the term Shi'a and add quotes there as a whole. Also the refrences need some major work to increase diversity (shia and sunni) Also in written text i think its important to differentiate "Imam" with "Imam of Ahlul Bayt" since unfortunately most DO seem to think the Imams of Ahlul bayt are the same of an Imam in the mosque and just writing "imam" wont change that mentality --Paradoxic 14:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Paradoxic, please review WP:NPOV. "Glorious Quran" and "the Prophet Muhammad" are fine for use among Muslims, but not in a generalist encyclopedia. Thanks. Babajobu 16:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Babajobu, thx for the edit. --Striver 16:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic's edits

You deleted all mention of other traditions of Islam, even though that is NECESSARY to orient a reader using the encyclopedia to find out just who Shi'a are. It's like writing an article about Methodism and starting with an explanation that they are the true Christians, without mentioning that they're a minority denomination and that there are other denominations.

No, I deleted it from the top text, I decided its better to focus on Shiism THERE instead on Sunnite and Shiite differences on this article, Its a Shia page where Shiism is explained, not the differences between Sunnis and Shia's so Abu Bakr does not belong on the top page at all so ive ommited any refrence to those and decided to stick with the topic at hand wich is explaining Shi'ism in the most objective manner and a sum up of its belief wich is QURAN and Ahlul Bayt theres enough place to write about them in sections below..go right ahead--Paradoxic 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You claimed that Muhammad had named the Shi'a, which is just plain RIDICULOUS. The first time there was even anything remotely approaching a "party of Ali" was after Muhammad's death, when those who felt that Ali should have been chosen as the new leader refused to give their bay'ah to Abu Bakr. They were called Rafidi, Refusers. Ali continued to have friends and supporters as long as he was a possible caliph -- but so did other prominent early Islamic figures, like al-Zubayr and Talha.

No. I provided the refrence below didnt i? The history of Shiism is very well documented and just because you lack the religious knowledge of an average Shia you think you can refute it merely because it doesnt do the Sunni cause much good. Why do you seem to dispute something ive very clearly pointed out with refrence? This is no secret and its narrated in both Shia and Sunni sources, they were Shia and were refered to as Rafidi afterwards, however these are two different terms used in two completely different timeframes. Im sorry if you cant accept it but thats how it is.--Paradoxic 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am upset that so many of the new editors here think that this article is an opportunity to convert readers, or to expand on "what Shi'a Islam means to me", without thinking about our primary purpose, which is to convey neutral information to people who want to know something about Shi'a Islam. That means research, not just giving a stream-of-consciousness rendering of "what I believe". Zora 18:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am upset that you seem to think you are the only "old" editor here, Ive been watching this page for slightly close to half a year and have seen how you've limited Shia's in expressing themselves about their beliefs, including ommitting so much that we deem as important and truthful so you really have no place to speak. Like i said its no big deal, we can move the "meaning of the term Shia" to a completely new page, since i picked small pieces of Hadith on purpose and can elaborate on it much much more. --Paradoxic 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Paradoxic, I think it's excellent that there are now more Shia editors at Wikipedia. Ultimately, that will bode very well for the quality of our articles on Shia topics. However, it does take a little time to get the hang of Wikipedia and to learn to write in a way that is consistent with the goals of the project. Articles on particular religious traditions are not places for members of the given community to "express themselves about their beliefs". Those articles should accurately describe those beliefs without celebrating them or presenting them as true. Self-expression isn't really a part of it. The same rules apply to articles on Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or any other religion. Any way, glad to see so many knew faces around with so much knowledge of Shia beliefs, I'm sure we'll all get the hang of WP:NPOV eventually. Thanks, and see you around. Babajobu 20:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback Baba, my aim wasnt at all to explain Shi'ism by what a Shia thinks but to explain Shi'ism according to historical fact, if the article doesnt represent Shii thought then its worthless, it seems some people are trying very hard to undermine Shia's from contributing relevant, factual material onto this page and rather have the page looks "cute layout and short" instead of informative regardless of its quantity. If the Shi'a had any agenda here not to aim for NPOV then the first thing that would be posted would be Saqifah and afterwards, including all the horrible details, but ive ommited it in the hope to stick to the basic Shia beliefs, wich is Allah, Prophet and those with authority amongst us (Ahlul Bayt), very simple, I do agree with you on allot of points though, Glorious quran was a bit over exaggurated, I picked it up from a book. My bad.
Paradoxic, well it certainly is in everyone's best interest that Shia editors do present all relevant, factual material about their faith. And I don't think anyone suspects that Shia editors have an agenda...it's just that one of the tricky things about Wikipedia religion articles is that the people who know the most (the members of the given religion) can also find very easily find themselves slipping into POV. That's natural! I appreciate that you have already written in a way that is different from pure Shia POV, and 100% accept that instances of Glorious Quran or whatever are genuine slips, and in no way an attempt to institute an agenda. Regards, Babajobu 03:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
And regarding the above dispute, Paradoxic, remember that often vicious wars over content can be very quickly resolved by saying "so-and-so believe that...". So for example "Muhammad named the Shia", to which many people might disagree vociferously, magically becomes NPOV and a plain fact by rendering "Shia believe that Muhammad named the Shia." This is a great way of resolving Wikipedia disputes in any topic. Babajobu 20:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Zora, i hope you are feeling good. regarding "plain RIDICULOUS": It not. Its acutally considered factual from hadith in both shia and Sunni sources. The term "Shia of" is Quranic, there it refers to Nuh.
"And most surely Abraham was among the Shia of him (i.e., Noah)" (Quran 37:83)
Read more: [4]
Peace! --Striver 20:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a is just an Arabic word meaning "party of" or "supporter of" so of course it is used in reference to other groups. Shi'a as the designation of contemporary groups is just an ABBREVIATION of Shi'at Ali. Therefore you cannot assume that any use of the term Shi'a in the Qur'an or the early traditions means Shi'at Ali. Shi'at Ali is different from Shi'at Nuh is different from Shi'at Talha is different from Shi'at Mu'awiya. As an example -- the Protestant Christian denomination called the Society of Friends is informally called the Quakers. Does that mean that any use of the word "quake" in the Christian Bible refers to the Quakers? No, it does not. Nor does any use of the word "shi'a" refer to Shi'a Muslims. Zora 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Issues

The pov sign was going to get there soner or later, so i just decided to get some credibility by puting it up myself. --Striver 20:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Did the prophet say it?

I am a Shia and belive most of what the page states to be NPOV, but we need to get that confirmed. We need a dialog about the statments. I offer the first proof of Sunnis beliving that muhammad, pbuh, used the term Shia of Ali:

A more complete version of the tradition which has also been reported by the Sunnis, is as follows:
Ibn Abbas (RA) narrated: When the verse "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation (Quran 98:7)" was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said to Ali: "They are you and your Shia." He continued: "O Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your Shia will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. Ali said: "Who are my enemies?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) replied: "He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-'Arsh on the day of resurrection." Ali asked: "Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Your Shia, O Ali, and those who love you."
Sunni references:
Then Ibn Hajar provides a bizarre commentary for the first tradition, saying:
The Shia of Ali are the Ahlussunnah since they are those who love Ahlul-Bayt as Allah and His Prophet ordered. But others (i.e., other than Sunnis) are the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt in reality for the love outside the boundary of law is the great enmity, and that was the reason for their fate. Also, the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt were al-Khawarij and their alike from Syria, not Muawiyah and other companions because they were Muteawweloon, and for them is a good reward, and for Ali and his Shia is a good reward!
Sunni reference:
  • al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, p236
And this is how Sunni scholars cope with the prophetic traditions in favor of "Shia of Ali"! They say that they are the real Shia!

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/13.html

--Striver 20:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Striver, see my above comments. Couldn't you say something along the lines of "Shia belive that Muhammed named the Shia. Such-and-such is often cited as evidence for this claim." Again, this includes the material while also being undeniably factual. Babajobu 20:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
No baba, Because if youre familiar with Hadith then you should know that if theyre found strong and acceptable they should be respected, Striver posted Sunni sources about this. and these sources are found credible because theyre reported by both Shia and Sunni. Some of the Four sunni Imams have commented on these ahadiths as well in support of it in their "own interpretation" without refuting them. On the other hand they have also been fond of calling Shia's rafidi and their understanding of "Shia and Rafidi" are that they are two different concepts, In Shii history Shia's have been seen as "Shia" and "Extreme Shia-Rafidi", there is no reason for a Sunni to dispute what is reported very clearly..--Paradoxic 20:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Right, but Paradoxic, the question isn't whether there is a good reason for Sunni to dispute the claim, the question is whether many of them do contest the claim. In matters of religion and religious history Wikipedia can only record the various positions and explain the reasoning behind the positions, but it can not make a decision about who is right, even if that may seem obvious. Even if all Sunni accept that Muhammad named the Shia, not all non-Muslims accept the accuracy of the Quran or hadith. So even in that case it would be better to claim that "according to [particular verse] in the Quran [or this particular hadith], Muhammad named the Shia". Written in that way, even a non-Muslim would agree. And again, the same logic must be followed by Christians in Christian articles, and so on. Babajobu 21:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to respectfuly disagree with you on the last one, if no relevant and sourced objection can be presented, than it will be equaly correct to write it as a fact, as it is writen as a fact that Muhammad (pbuh) made the hijra.--Striver 22:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, By that Logic, Baba, we should write "According to" in every islamic page in front of every sentence wich is paraphrased directly from Hadith wich is with all due respect not realistic. Nothing contradicts these ahadith and these are not only according to Shia but also Sunni so its a balanced explenation. Not only is it unfair to turn a blind eye and say "According to Shia's" or according to "Such and such" indicating that its exclusively in Shia scripture but its also pointless since this Madhab needs to be correctly portrayed without turning a blind eye to other sources wich confirm its historical authenticity, there are Sunni's who for instance think Mauwiyah is a great man but because Historical fact is presented and made open in particular from the Shia side, many scholars have thought twice about how they view this man in history along with his son. --Paradoxic 22:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
You said my thoughts! --Striver 23:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, obviously we can't cite sources for every single sentence in an article, or state at the beginning of every sentence that "so-and-so believes". The fact of Muhammad making the hijra is a good example of something that virtually no one (as far as I'm aware) actually contests. And I think Striver describes the basic situation well: "if no relevant and sourced objection can be presented" than we probably can present something as fact. But for something for which there are such objections, we need to either qualify a given event as "believed by so-and-so", or we need to say "according to such-and-such source". So for the hijra no such qualification is necessary. But my guess is that for Muhammad's naming of the Shia we can indeed find examples of reasonably well-respected Sunni scholars who disagree. Is this not so? Babajobu 03:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Etymology

That section is to big, make a article about it and link to it, using a few sentences to describ it. see how the "roots of religion" is done for inspiration, i have my hands full with the Ali and Ibn Abbas section. Im going through material to refute the Ibn Abbas talk page. And please: Join the Shia guild! We need more people! --Striver 21:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to! Thanks, Striver! ;) Babajobu 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Babajobu, if it is not an issue with you, can i take this task on? i would like to explore the functions of wiki a bit more and what better way than with a practicle excercise. Let me know if that is fine with you. DigitalMo
Why dont you start it, and Babajobu can complement your work, if he sees the need for it? --Striver 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats what i had in mind. DigitalMo
DigitalMo, yes, go for it! Babajobu 03:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hadith evidence

Already we're starting to get arguments of the nature, "It says X in such and such a hadith, Sunnis accept this hadith, therefore it is TRUE". Folks, there are many people in the world who are neither Shi'a nor Sunni and think that hadith are unreliable as historical evidence. The problem is that early sources re Muhammad and the very earliest Islamic history are actually fairly sparse, and as time goes on, more and more traditions appear. Most of them are made up! Modern academic historians do not trust the Sunni or the Shi'a ulema to be neutral and critical in evaluating tradition, since so much jurisprudence and practice are erected on extremely shaky historical foundations. Academic historians do not accept hadith as evidence UNLESS they have evaluated the hadith themselves. Hence any arguments of the form "These hadith prove it, neener neener" are going to met with an imperturbable, "No, they don't."

Any Shi'a arguments designed to convince Sunni are NOT going to work on non-Muslims. Zora 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then find a source that says that hadith is false, and we will present it as a disputed narration, instead of a factual.
You can't take the general hadit-cautious nature of all scholars of hadith, and use it to declare a specific hadith (that does not suite your taste) un-authentic. To do that, you need a specific claim. --Striver 02:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Striver, it doesn't work that way. Nothing is "True unless disproved" -- everything is "Presumed untrue unless proven". That's the difference between superstition and science. The burden of proof is on YOU, not the burden of disproof on ME. Zora 02:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course, you are right. And that is what i just did, i quoted a sunni and a shia source that regard it as authentic, hence it is proven.
You see, i dont need to prove that everyone on the earth belives it to be authentic, its enough to prove that some scholars have authenticated it. Further, Sunnis have no benefit from forgering such narrations, on the contrary.
Now, you claim that somebody disagrees with their claim. That is a claim on your behalf. now, the burden of prof is upon you, you need to source that claim. --Striver 02:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Striver, just a point here. Now, it's not so hard for a non-Muslim to believe that Muhammad named the Shi'a. It's not such an incredible claim. But I just want to point out that even though both Sunni and Shi'a scholars agree on the veracity of a particular hadith, this does not necessarily mean that it can be presented as fact to the general readership of an encyclopedia. For example, if both Christian and Jewish believers were writing an article on the biblical figure Joshua, they would disagree on some things, but they would both agree that God stopped the sun in the sky to allow Joshua time to complete the conquest of the Amorites. But even if they both agree on this point, they cannot present it as historical fact because people who are neither Christian nor Jewish do not accept it, and have evidence to present that such a thing did not happen. Again, I am *not* saying that Muhammad naming the Shia is as unlikely as God stopping the sun in the sky for Joshua, I am only saying that agreement between Sunni and Shia does not alone make something a fact. A bit long-winded, sorry. Babajobu 05:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Peace Babajobu! regarding the sun, one can simply refer to Atheist not beliving in miracles, hence the stement is contested.
Regarding Muhamamd (pbuh) naming them Shias, i have shown historical prood by that claim it to be factual. Is there any schola contesting it? If not, the narration is undisputed and and can be presented as factual. --Striver 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont at all think thats an objective comparison, Maybe we need to go back to the basics for people that dont seem to understand the simplicity of Hadith and why they are taken the way theyre taken. Everything on this article, including 80% of Islamic articles on Wikipedia are paraphrased from Hadith wich scholars, Sunni and Shia have found authentic. These two factions are the major contributors of Islamic history, Without these sources Wikipedia's Islamic pages would not even be written. the purpose of these Hadiths was to find a concrete way of transmitting historical fact to later generations. There is virtually no difference between the historians Al Tabari's Ketabbayyeh Tarikh and Cornelius_Ryan's writings on World War II for instance. Both here share that with Al Tabari for instance, you would have to make sure the transmission is trustworthy, and if not find an Additional source wich also reported a specific event. Both reported/compiled historical fact and {if found authentic} both can be relied upon to be Quoted on wikipedia. Fadak for instance is a Land in Hijaz, how do you know? Hadith, why isnt it necessary to add "According to"? because there is nothing wrong with taking the hadith as historical evidence. It is in fact a land in Hijaz. So really Hadith is better than your typical historical evidence because of the way its transmitted and preserved, if a non muslim doesnt agree with the Hadith why does he agree with the concept of Islam as a whole? It seems some people here are very quick to claim that Shia's were called Rafidi's first and thats where they first were acknowledged as Shia (this claim by itself ironically being originated by Hadith) but when ahadith in contrast to such is presented wich shows a much earlier rise of Shi'ism all of a sudden one must write "According to" for the sake of pleasing the Non muslim. In this case then all sentences of Islam on Wiki must be revised and start with "According to such and such" Islam focuses a great, great deal on Hadith and if the reader disagrees with such then too bad, this is what the history of Islam is based on and why we know so much about it so theres absolutely nothing abnormal about the notion of "Muhammad named the Shia", since "Muhammad {also} taught Muslims how to follow his example", etc. sorry if i repeated myself but this whole theory of not accepting hadith by a non muslim and therefore just for this small sentence one has to type "according to" sounds typically far fetched and unnecessary.--Paradoxic 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic, apparently you haven't read any modern academic historians. If the "history of Islam" that Muslims accept is based on late and spurious traditions, then it isn't history. If that means saying, "We don't really know very much about this, as there is no contemporary evidence", well, that's what you have to do. It's worse to think you "know" something that is false than to admit that you don't know. See Historiography of early Islam. Zora 02:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Who said those hadith i presented are "late and spurious traditions"? There are chains of narrations linking them to that very time. What is your proof? Name it, source it. Make your case. I personaly are fedd up with your oppinions, i dont care for them, neither do WP. Source it or go do something else! --Striver 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses Paradoxic, Striver, and Zora. I think Striver's point is legit: "Is there any scholar contesting it? If not, the narration is undisputed and and can be presented as factual." If a particular aspect of Shia history is not contested by any reasonably reputable Sunni or secular scholars, and does not involve plainly supernatural events, then I suppose it can be presented as fact. Not because religious beliefs are true unless proven otherwise, but because I would think that if the notion that Muhammad named the Shia (or other such notions) were rejected as historically unsound by sunnis or secularists, then there would be at least one or two critiques available on the internet. Are there? Babajobu 06:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing my point. We are now awaiting for Zora to find a scholar that shares her personal oppinion. --Striver 06:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Scholars do not take the time to refute inane positions. Madelung, who is a Shi'a specialist and has studied the early traditions exhaustively, does not include any of the more dubious Shi'a claims in his authoritative Succession to Muhammad. Madelung respects Ali and believes that he had a good claim to the leadership -- however, Madelung does not accept Ghadir Khum, or the story re Umar killing Fatima, or the story of Ali's birth in the Kaaba, or the fable in question now. (Nor have ANY of the other academic historians I've read, and by this point I've read a lot.)

The Shi'a here are claiming that any use of the word "shi'a" in the Qur'an refers to the Shi'at Ali -- which is ridiculous. (Frex, my example re Quaker.) They also seem to be claiming that certain hadith indicate that Muhammad foresaw the difficulties that Ali would undergo, and blessed Ali and the Shi'at Ali. They claim that the Sunni accept these hadith too. NOT all Sunni accept all the hadith found in all collections! They regard many hadith as da'if, or weak -- especially those from the non-Bukhari or Muslim collections (the ones that the Shi'a here tend to quote). Nor do academic historians think much of hadith evidence. I've got a book right here in my hand, Berg's The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam (Curzon, 2000), which is a survey of academic hadith criticism and an attempt at using a new technique to analyze hadith. Based on his research, Berg concludes:

When my method was applied to exegetical hadiths of Ibn Abbas contained in al-Tabari's Tafsir, the results suggest that their isnads are irrelevant and misleading for purposes of determining the chonrolongy and province of the matns. ... And if the isnads of Ibn Abbas's hadiths are largely or completely spurious, the reliability of the isnads of most exegetical hadiths is in serious doubt. (p. 228)

You can't trust the isnads, because they were in many cases INVENTED. Completely made up. Schacht says that the better the isnad, the later the hadith was created.

Babajobu, as someone with a certain background in the academic sources (far from complete) and graduate training in historical method, I strongly protest against the acceptance of invention as demonstrated fact. Zora 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely do not want to have religious mythology presented as historical fact in Wikipedia, not in this article nor any other. Certain aspects of religious history are accepted by both secular historians and believers, and certain aspects are accepted only by the latter. I'm just trying to determine which category the "Muhammad named the Shi'a" claim falls into. Zora, the citation you offered does indicate that these sources are not accepted as trustworthy by secular historians. So is this not the evidence of dispute that Striver requested? Babajobu 06:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam Babajobu. Zora wrote:

Scholars do not take the time to refute inane positions. Madelung, who is a Shi'a specialist and has studied the early traditions exhaustively, does not include any of the more dubious Shi'a claims in his authoritative Succession to Muhammad.

That is Zoras claim. Have Madelung said that "everything i do not add in "Succession to Muhammad" can be implied to be a inane and refuted claim"? Well Zora, has he? Has Madelung included EVERYTHING that he believes to be authentic in that book? Or is that Zora pov presented as fact?

Madelung respects Ali and believes that he had a good claim to the leadership -- however, Madelung does not accept Ghadir Khum, or the story re Umar killing Fatima, or the story of Ali's birth in the Kaaba, or the fable in question now.

This line clearly proves that Zora his just puting her pov in madelungs mouth: The hadith of Ghadire khum is the most authentic and most narrated event in the entire history of Islam. It is authentic no matter what. It does not matter what criteria you put up, it trancends all demands. If the demands are put so high that the narration of Ghadire khum is not authenticated no other similar event in the history of Islam will survive that test.

The event of Ghadiree Khumm is authentic!

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO REFUTE ME ON THAT. I WILL LEAVE WIKIPEDIA AND NEVER RETURN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE IF THAT CLAIM IS REFUTED!!!

That event has over 100 first hand narrators, even if 95% of the narrators are fabricating it, you still have 5 authentic narrations, more than enough to be called authentic! Madelung would never in his life dare to claim that event to be fabricated. If he did not mention it, it does not prove anything more than he did not mention it. Madelung deeming it to be fabricated since he did not mention it is Zora pov presented as fact. This proves two things: Madelung did not present everyting in the history of Islam in that ONE book, and Zora assuming to much. Omittion is not proof of rejection.

(Nor have ANY of the other academic historians I've read, and by this point I've read a lot.)

Yeah, what about Nasr? But maybe he dosnt count since he is not secular? You know what that is called? Secular pov. But no matter, to refute you: One historian, Simon Ockley, retold it as a "strange" narrration History of the Saracens page 331.

So much for "ANY"...

But you know what? Why dont you just tell me where Ali was born? If not in Kaaba, then where? In a barn? In a hotel? In a hospital? Where? And dont give me any Zora pov, give me a scholarly quote. This proves one thingle thing: Secular scholars just started to take Islamic history seriously in the last 100 years and simply have not had the time to go through the incredible amount of material. If anyone where to reject Ali being born in the Kaaba, it would have been the Sunnis, not the seculars. The seculars dont care for where he was born, Kaaba dosnt mean anything for them. But the sunnis, they should be happy to reject it and would never in their life dream to fabricate it, since it would be a sacralige if untrue, but they are glad to write that he was born there. I quote witness-pioneer.org, a 100% sunni site:

Birth of Ali
Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother.

Actualy, sunnis dont like that narration, but they dont dare to discredit it. What do they do? They invent some other guy that also was born there! Their next-most trusted Hadith scholar says in his collection that the other guy was born there! "Cant deny it? Inflate it! Say some other guy was also born there!"

Zora, i challenge you to bring me one single quote from any scholar that refutes Ali being born in the Kaaba as a fabrication! Silence is not proof of rejection.


The Shi'a here are claiming that any use of the word "shi'a" in the Qur'an refers to the Shi'at Ali -- which is ridiculous. (Frex, my example re Quaker.)

No, what Zora just said is ridiculous, she yet againg manages to say uterly false things and claim them to be factual. Bring me one singel human- Shia, non-shia, non-Muslim, ANY HUMAN (other than you) that claims "any use of the word "shi'a" in the Qur'an refers to the Shi'at Ali". You are the one that is ridiculous!


They also seem to be claiming that certain hadith indicate that Muhammad foresaw the difficulties that Ali would undergo, and blessed Ali and the Shi'at Ali. They claim that the Sunni accept these hadith too. NOT all Sunni accept all the hadith found in all collections! They regard many hadith as da'if, or weak -- especially those from the non-Bukhari or Muslim collections (the ones that the Shi'a here tend to quote).

The hadith where Muhamamd (pbuh) blessed Ali and his partisians (shi'a) is included in a collection whom its (sunni) author claimed only contained authentic hadith. C'mon, is it soooo incredible that he blessed Ali and his supoters? IS IT SOOOOO INCREDIBLE?!

Nor do academic historians think much of hadith evidence.

Look at that!!!

JUST FREAKING LOOK AT THAT!!!

She just claimed that academics historians dont think much of hadith evidence!!!!

WTF ZORA, IF NOT HADITH, THEN FROM WHERE DO HISTORIANS GET THEIR INFO? TIME TRAVELS?


I've got a book right here in my hand, Berg's The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam (Curzon, 2000), which is a survey of academic hadith criticism and an attempt at using a new technique to analyze hadith. Based on his research, Berg concludes:

When my method was applied to exegetical hadiths of Ibn Abbas contained in al-Tabari's Tafsir, the results suggest that their isnads are irrelevant and misleading for purposes of determining the chonrolongy and province of the matns. ... And if the isnads of Ibn Abbas's hadiths are largely or completely spurious, the reliability of the isnads of most exegetical hadiths is in serious doubt. (p. 228)

So? Whe are not talking about Ibn Abbas exegis. Not that i agree whith that conclusion, but it has nothing to do with this topic, this is not about exegis.


You can't trust the isnads, because they were in many cases INVENTED. Completely made up. Schacht says that the better the isnad, the later the hadith was created.

Yeah, the Bani Umayyad gave handouts to anyone creating fals hadith, that is the reason we have a science to find out which ones are fabricated. C'mon Zora, be serious!

Zoras complaint can be summarised in this way:

  1. Everything that is not in Madelungs book is to be interpreted as he rejects them as fabrications.
  2. Scholars have not commented some things very much, therefore they are fabricarted.
  3. Some Hadith have been fabricated, therefore everything i dont like is fabricated.

All three objections are uterly nonsense.

And just for the fun of it, lets quote that one again:

Nor do academic HISTORIANAS think much of HADITH evidence.

Omg...

Babajobu, as someone with a certain background in the academic sources (far from complete) and graduate training in historical method, I strongly protest against the acceptance of invention as demonstrated fact. Zora 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So far, you have proven ZERO. Could you pleas state something that IS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT?

Sweeping non-sense as "All hadith are weak", "Scholars dont like hadith" or "Madelung didnt mention it in his book" is patented non-sense.

State something that is relevant to THIS PARTICULAR HADITH or stop wasting my time!. --Striver 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Include

This should go somewhere:

Shi'a Muslims do not believe in absolute predestination (Qadar), since they consider it incompatible with Divine Justice. Neither do they believe in absolute free will since that contradicts God's Omniscience and Omnipotence. Rather they believe in "a way between the two ways" (amr bayn al‑'amrayn) believing in free will, but within the boundaries set for it by God and exercised with His permission.

--Striver 02:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Salam..definately Thats right, If i remember correctly youre quoting Imam Jafar (a)..or Ali (a)--Paradoxic 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Link density

Guys, I notice this article tends to get very thickly linked. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style we shouldn't link terms each time they come. We should link them only roughly once per screen. So, for example, we shouldn't link Ahlul Bayt every time it comes up in the introduction, but only once. Small point, I know! Babajobu 04:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But a good one. Thanks. --Striver 04:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

More on hadith

I should add one thing -- Berg's book is extremely useful as a survey of the various academic attitudes towards hadith. He divides academics into sceptics and non-sceptics. The non-sceptics, like Madelung and Watt, are willing to accept hadith evidence if they themselves have done the sifting out of what they regard as authentic material. I think it's significant that none of the non-sceptics -- the ones MOST likely to believe hadith material -- accept the stories that the Shi'a here insist are historical fact.

What's also somewhat bemusing about all this fuss about what I would regard as medieval fables is that, IMHO, they are simply not necessary to the Shi'a position. So far as I can tell, all that's necessary is to believe that Ali was wronged, and that he headed a group of pious Muslims who felt that the early ummah had taken a wrong path. Also, that Husayn's stand against tyranny was noble and admirable. Reza Aslan, a Shi'a who has written an extremely readable book on Islam, seems to accept all those "non-supernatural" positions, and none of the supernatural ones. Well, he doesn't seem to believe in occulted imams, so perhaps Shi'a would consider him a heretic ... dunno. In any case, there doesn't have to be a collision between religion and modern learning unless you hang onto outdated understandings and ignore the important stuff -- like kindness, and self-discipline, and humility. What's the good of Shi'a Islam if it doesn't lead you towards love rather than hatred? Zora 08:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghadir Khum

Ibn Ishaq, one of the earliest sources, doesn't mention Ghadir Khum at all. Neither do Tabari and Ibn Sa'd. Madelung mentions Ghadir Khum on page 253 of The Succession to Muhammad, in which he says that the first claims that something happened at Ghadir Khum can be traced to a speech that Ali gave in Kufa after the split with the Kharjites. The Kharjites had refused to believe that Ali was necessarily the rightful ruler. They claimed that only the most pious of the Muslims was fit to lead them and that Ali, by negotiating with Mu'awiya, had descended into mere worldliness. Ali therefore had to establish his claim to the caliphate based on something besides his piety. He did this by standing in front of the mosque at Kufa, announcing that Muhammad had proclaimed Ali his successor at Ghadir Khum, and by appealing to all the Companions who had heard this proclamation to step forward. At which a number of Companions who supported Ali stepped forward.

Madelung traces all the reports of Ghadir Kuym to this one historical event, which seems to have occured in 658 CE (I could be wrong on the date by a year or so -- Madelung doesn't give a date for this specific assembly, just dates for the split with the Kharjites and the Battle of al-Nahrawan.) Now consider the pressure on the Companions who were Ali's supporters to publicly accept Ali's claim. If they didn't come forward, in public, they were publicly branded as traitors. I don't think that it's at all surprising that so many of them stepped forward and accepted Ali's claim.

Now it's interesting that even though Madelung doesn't accept the Ghadir Khum tradition, he does believe that Muhammad might well have expected Ali to take his place as leader of the Muslims. That is, Ali had a case, but the case wasn't as DRAMATIC as a declaration in front of numerous witnesses. Therefore Ali's proclamation.

(A parallel might be found in the case of some hadith that are found in EARLY versions, with a very short isnad that traces back only a few generations, which then reappear in later works with a fancy isnad going back to Muhammad. That is, secular historians are willing to accept these traditions as early, because they appear in early works, but medieval Muslims felt that they were unacceptable without a proper isnad, which was then invented. I'd have to read through Berg again to source this, howver.) Zora 09:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora wrote:

Ibn Ishaq, one of the earliest sources, doesn't mention Ghadir Khum at all. Neither do Tabari and Ibn Sa'd.

That is easy to explain: the Umayyad where on the hight of there rule. Cursing Ali was standard, a friday cermon was not considered properly done without it. many where ledd to belive that Ali did not even pray. Any mentioning of positives values for Ali was meet with death. How would you think a public naration of Ghadire Khumm would be meet? With arguments?

Striver, did you know that all of the above early sources I mentioned were writing at the start of the Abbasid dynasty? That reviling the Umayyads was A-OK then? That the Abbasids based their claim to rule on belonging to the Ahl-ul-Bayt (by their definition)? Zora 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
If you read the narration of Zaid ibn Arqam in Sahih Muslim, collected much later, proves it. Before i show you, remeber that Sahih Muslims author is a hardcore Sunni, that have in various places put in directly pejorative hadithes and regarded them as authentic. He would not regard this hadith as aouthentic, unless he was sure he had no other choise than authenticating it:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid ibn Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).

Now, remeber this is in Bani Ummayad time, everyone are wathing their tunge. Look how much thei need to praise him for him to even start talking.

He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that.

He puts a disclaimer, as if to claim "i have dementia, so dont bother with me" and then he says "and dont ask me any more that i say" ie "i dont want to tell the juicy bits".


So there you have the reason for it not being widely narrated in the years following Alis Caliphat.

As for "Ali, by negotiating with Mu'awiya", he did no such thing, why would he do that when he was on his way of killing them? He had massive suport in Medina and Mecca, he had subdued Aisha and Malik Ashtars death proved to Muawiyas troops who the fasiq was. And he was winning his last battle. What happened is that people did not want to fight, and they forced Ali to take arbitration rather to kill Muawiya ones and for all. It is these same kind of people that prohibited Ali from taking back Fadak from Marwan I, who had gained the land from Uthman. Remeber, even if Uthman was killed by rebelion, Ali could not take back Fadak from Marwan, since he had gained it from Uthamn. In other words, even if Umars supporters where in Alis army, they still did not obey him unconditionaly. And it is them that accepted arbitration rather than killin muawiya (Uthman and marwans relaive) and then some other group of his army reacted to the opposite and left him.

Ali therefore had to establish his claim to the caliphate based on something besides his piety. He did this by standing in front of the mosque at Kufa, announcing that Muhammad had proclaimed Ali his successor at Ghadir Khum, and by appealing to all the Companions who had heard this proclamation to step forward. At which a number of Companions who supported Ali stepped forward.

What part of that seems strange? Isnt it the perfect time to reiterate history?


Madelung traces all the reports of Ghadir Kuym to this one historical event, which seems to have occured in 658 CE (I could be wrong on the date by a year or so -- Madelung doesn't give a date for this specific assembly, just dates for the split with the Kharjites and the Battle of al-Nahrawan.)

"all the reports"? What is that supposed to mean? It might mean that the earliest report mentioned that event, and that is undersandalble: It was closer to history, and not as dangerous as caliming the event it self had happened. "I heard Ali say it, and his companions where wittneses for 10 years" is not as risky to your neck as saying "I saw Muhamamd say Ali is the first Caliph for 50 years ago, but Abu Bakr didnt care".

Furthere, what did Madelung do with all the Sunni testimonies that survied and surfased after the Umayyad dynasty began to weaken? Are they all forgeries? When did they get the time to conspire a common story? Did all the Sunnis that narrat from 30-40 diffrent sahaba lie? How about the 70-80 Sahaba cited by Shia sources, did they also lie? It is one thing to claim it something happened, but something else to actually narrat what happend. Did Madelund deam the text of the narrations to be contradictory to eachother? They should have been if they where the invention of 120 diffrent individuals!

Now consider the pressure on the Companions who were Ali's supporters to publicly accept Ali's claim. If they didn't come forward, in public, they were publicly branded as traitors. I don't think that it's at all surprising that so many of them stepped forward and accepted Ali's claim.

Now that is a serious allegation! Not only are you calling Ali a blatant public lier, you are claiming that he would use such deseptive acts for political aimes. Is that the Ali you know? A manipulating lier?

And not only that, you are claiming that he had invented a atmospher where his best friends felt they had vouch for a great lie. Does that rhyme whith the actions of Ali?

And not only that, you claim that a big amount of people where ready to bring fals testimony, without being required to do so! Did he named them and asked them to come forth, or did he made a general reqest for those that where there to come forth? Even if 10 Shia of Ali came forth, what makes you think that anyone whould have anything against a Shia that claimed he was not there that day? How would that make him a traitor?

That story does not convince me. First of all, it does not explain why Sunnis narrate a narration that goes against their core belifes. Second, it does not consider the political arena created by the Banu Umayyad. Third, it does not explain how so manny wittnes report the same thing, without totaly contradicting themselves. Fourth, it brands Ali as a public liar, a man know for integrity and truthfullness. Fifth, it does not expalin how anyone could have been made to feel expected to claim being a wittnes, without ruining the credibility of the speeach. I mean, it was for the bennefit of a audience, and they where not stupid.

Now it's interesting that even though Madelung doesn't accept the Ghadir Khum tradition, he does believe that Muhammad might well have expected Ali to take his place as leader of the Muslims. That is, Ali had a case, but the case wasn't as DRAMATIC as a declaration in front of numerous witnesses. Therefore Ali's proclamation.

Why not? What better time to do it then on a pre-anounced farwell hajj?

What makes more sence, to publicly anounce a successor, or just ignoring the whole issue? Isnt it expected from someone that used inteligence, politic and determination to unite a whole nation that he should proclaim a public heir, so as to avoid the risk of his whole life long stuggle to vanish?

Think about it, Muhammad was not after big palaces and huge gold stashes, he did not raid mecca, he forgave everyone for the sake of unity. Is it fitting such a man to proclaim a farwell hajj, but ignore the issue of succesorship? What makes more sense?

If a election was supposed to happend, whould'nt it make more sense for him to have said they should settle it while he was alive, not only to minise diputes and disention, but also to know forhimself?

I mean, c'mon, he didnt die in a battle, he died in a house due to illness, does his life reflect a man that did not bother to proclaim a heir?

And you miss the whole point of the controversy re the succession. You believe that Muhammad would have thought just like you, shared your values re the proper and sensible thing to do. But according to the Sunni, the proper procedure is for the prominent men of the tribe to choose the next leader AFTER the previous leader's death, not before. The Sunni say that Muhammad expected his followers to choose their own leader, as was customary, and that THIS is the reason that he did not name a successor. Fred Donner has done a survey of historical and ethnographic literature re Arabian tribes and agrees that shura was the usual procedure. Now the Arabians were also familiar with the customs of the surrounding kingdoms, where it was common for the ruler to declare a successor fairly early and give him much responsibility -- in effect, letting the crown prince gain a following so that his accession would go smoothly. So it's possible that Muhammad may have wanted to follow this example. I'm not taking sides -- however, you need to see that both arguments are plausible. You can't just dismiss the Sunni arguments as ridiculous; they have a sound basis. Zora 12:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And i repeat, why would Sunnis acknowledge or fabricate something that goes right against their core belife?

(A parallel might be found in the case of some hadith that are found in EARLY versions, with a very short isnad that traces back only a few generations, which then reappear in later works with a fancy isnad going back to Muhammad. That is, secular historians are willing to accept these traditions as early, because they appear in early works, but medieval Muslims felt that they were unacceptable without a proper isnad, which was then invented. I'd have to read through Berg again to source this, howver.)

Intrestly, those hadith are much closer to the shia view of what happend, including Aisha advocationg for the death of uthman and Umar burning Alis house, both in Tabari.

How do you reply to that?

I liked that reply on Ghadire Khum, it was a sourced and relevant evaluation of the event. I can agree to not depicting that event as factual on WP since Madelung does not agree, even if all Muslims agree. But i still see many weak points in Madelungs conclusions. Im geting intreseted to read more about his view of Ghadire Khum.--Striver 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: Madelungs concclusion can be sumarised as "it seems seems fantastic that Muhammad whould have claimed him to be his successor in fron of all people, but it not happening. Therfore, he did not"
One can observe that he is not knowledgeble about the siencs of narrators, otherwise he woul have commented that, ie, how come there is over 100 Sahaba narrating it. He just stublemed on the time Ali reiterated history, something very common for Ali to do, and then concluded that that must have been the time it got fabricated. A very shalow analysis, something that not even the one most likely to do it did: The Sunnis. --Striver 18:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just looked over the Encarta article on Jesus to see how they dealt with these issues. I sympathize with Striver's frustration that if the most basic aspects of early Islamic history are not accepted as factual, then how do we even write an article on these topics? Christians deal with similar frustrations in articles about Jesus, because many secular historians reject absolutely everything about historical events recorded in the gospels, right down to the existence of Jesus. Because similar doubts are expressed about the very early history of Islam, it seems like encyclopedic handling of Jesus might provide a model here. Encarta weaves a narrative together about the life of Jesus, but it is a very densely sourced narrative, with most every event cited to a source. This compromises the narrative flow, but I think in these sorts of matters that's a sacrifice that needs to be made. They vary the way they cite: not every sentence begins "According to...". Often they just include a book and verse number in parentheses at the end of the sentence. Or they say "The book of Matthew describes..." or some variation. Striver, Paradoxic, and company, could we not just do the article like that? Otherwise it seems like this article (and others) will be plagued by endless debates and edit wars over what is factual and what is apocryphal. Why not just get all the information in there, with citations, and tolerate a little clunkiness in the narrative flow? Babajobu 09:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As for not claiming anything as factual, sure, if we do it for EVERYTHING, including the whole Muhammad article.

As for having sources over the whole place, i already do that, i hardly write anything withouth a explicit and long source at the end.--Striver 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support doing that for all articles on religious history, including Muhammad. Firstly because otherwise they descend into edit wars, and two because the academic study of religion regards so many of the stories as religious fanfic. It's simpler just to do it for all points than to debate endlessly which don't need sourcing, and which do. Babajobu 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, just go to the main articles, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad and then we can continue with the smaler articles.--Striver 18:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Jesus article has a separate article on the historicity of Jesus. The Muhammad article has two narratives (one, sceptical, the other, more accepting) AND all the controversial stuff is spun off into breakout articles. I've already suggested that we have a breakout article (or several breakout articles) for the claims that the Shi'a are advancing and that I, representing the academics, am opposing. Then there would be room to go into the pro and con on each issue. Cite hadiths. Whatever. Zora 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It already haves its own article: Shia Etymology. Go and present any relevant and sourced objections you have to that article. I have not seen any yet. --Striver 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Blackwind removing POV tag

Blackwind removed the POV tag and replaced it with a statement that this article should assert the Shi'a POV. Sorry, Blackwind, that is just not so. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Shi'a do not "own" this page. Zora 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


I never stated that they "owned" the page but in terms of history EVERYTHING is POV but for factual things such as population amounts and statistics it should not be POV also I not state that the article should be POV but that in almost any situation it will be.....though I will admit my wording was a poor choice to assert that point Blackwind 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Blackwind

It is true that we are limited, fallible human beings, driven by our passions. We try to tell the truth, but fail. Nevertheless, we shouldn't just stop trying. Wikipedia makes this easier by its policy of giving room for all views, rather than demanding that editors agree on "the truth". In this case, it means framing assertions as "Shi'a believe that ... " instead of "it is true that ..." The article as currently written states as fact many things that Shi'a believe but that non-Shi'a would dispute. Therefore it is POV. Also, I'm not sure that all Shi'a are necessarily as resistant to modern learning as some of the editors here seem to me to be. Zora 19:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Very true I myself am not a Sunni nor a Shi heck I dont even have a religion so my bias is very small in the matter of religious matters if any. But yes we are human so history must show as such, also true Zora is that certain wordings are more apporiate then others i.e. your example "Shi'a believe that ... " instead of "it is true that ..." there has been much anti-whatever toward many different groups, its very strange to watch and read this happen and wonder why it does.....what is the whole problem anyway? On a side note, I do need some help learning the wikipedia way of formatting I know normal html but this is very different then what i'm used to, PS we need to remove some of this extra "stuff" in the discussion area because its too big by what and it will prevent further discussion here Blackwind 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Blackwind

Guild

there seem to be lots of new shia editors around. I sugest you join the Shia Guild, so we can coordinate out efforts. Ma salam. --Striver 19:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the Arabic?

Back on "21:24, 6 November 2005" [5] I replaced all the Persian words that were claiming to be "Arabic" (but weren't) with real Arabic forms, and organized the etymological/liguistic discussion in the first paragraph and a half in a logical and organized manner. Since then, there have been almost 150 edits on this page, and now the bogus Persian pseudo-"Arabic" forms are back. AnonMoos 00:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, I think we have a bunch of new Iranian editors. Very very new editors. The article was decent for a long time and has descended into chaos, IMHO. Zora 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Zora, I'm out, sorry. Good luck. I'll try to make a return sometime down the road. I'm glad we have new Shia editors, ultimately that's a good thing. But I think it's going to be a hard slog to get NPOV into the articles, and I don't have the stamina or time for it. Anyway, these guys seem to have genuinely good intentions, I'm sure the articles will be more informative if somewhat POV. Striver seems like he's got a sense of NPOV, if not quite the same sense as ours. I'll stop in for honorific patrol at some point, probably. Babajobu 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Restored Arabic in first paragraph

I have nothing against Persian, but if you say that you're including Arabic words, then you should include Arabic words, not Persian ones. Also tried to restore the logical flow of the etymological discussion. AnonMoos 14:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Table problem?

There is a prob with the table of shia cities I put in. On some screens on some computers, the html code messes up the visuals of the page. I cant figure it out. Can someone please check it out?--Zereshk 06:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It worked fine for me... --Striver 06:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Works fine for me, too, using Firefox. Babajobu 21:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is not about Mut'ah, it's about Shias

What is wrong with you people? Do we see a dis-proportionate section on the Sunni page on how it is OK for muslims to indefinitely have sex with servants/kaniz/slaves? Do we see overgrown sections discussing polygamy on the Islam page?

Please.........transfer all that malicious negative shit to its own page. A paragraph should be more than enough here.

It makes the WP reader think all we do is sit around and practice Mut'ah all the time, whereas I've met only one or two people in my entire life whove actually practiced it.--Zereshk 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, one thing that happens a lot in wikipedia articles is that contentious points receive disproportionate space, because everyone wants to make sure their point of view is well-represented. One example is that in the article on Afrocentrism the skin color of ancient Egyptians took up over half the article at one point because people disagreed about it so much. Not sure what the solution is. Babajobu 21:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... didnt think about that... How do we solve that? I mean, you know that we always get "can i make muta with you mother/sister?"... while Sunnis dont get "can i buy your slave/sister". I dont think silence is the best aproach, better to confront the allegations and missunderstandings... i dont know... should we take it all of, or minizi it? Maybe take away the apologetic sections? I love wahabis...--Striver 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Well to the extent that it's possible, I think it would be better to summarize the debate in the main article and then let people put in their full-blown debate material in the article for that specific issue, in this case Nikah Mut'ah. But of course people will edit war over what constitutes a fair summary, so this doesn't completely solve the problem. But people should be able to recognize that Shia Islam isn't the place for eighteen paragraphs on one specific practice, even a controversial one. Babajobu 20:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we can avoid the expected edit war in the summary, if we just provide a short definition, followed by a link to the main article.--Zereshk 07:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


The page is still dominated by Mut'ah. It's ridiculous how usul-i deen each get half a sentence, while almost a page's worth is spent on mut'ah on the main article of Shia. Is anybody going to address this, or do I have to step in and delete 90% of the section? Or maybe add an entire section on the Sunni page about how they allow to have sex with mistresses?--Zereshk 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Better? *smile* --Striver 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx.--Zereshk 03:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tables

سلام

Was wondering if these 4 Shia-related trees could be integrated somehow on Wiki, one way or another. id appreciate suggestions..

  1. --Abbasid tree
  2. --treeCaliphs/Ummayad Table
  3. --Hashem tree
  4. --Abraham tree

--Paradoxic 22:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, what's their copyright status? AnonMoos 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
No such thing, theyre universally known trees of political succession. Theyre taken from a book i bought in Iran called 'commentary on the holy Quran' however i wasnt thinking of actually using the scans on wiki itself, rather to have a tree similar to [[6]] (Scroll down).--Paradoxic 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually don't find it very easy to follow that table, partially because it apparently includes a lot of arrow and line characters which don't show up in my browser. Much simpler is to use a list format, indented for later generations:
  • Adam was the first ancestor. His wife was Eve
    • Cain was the first son of Adam and Eve
      • Enoch was the first son of Cain
    • Abel was the second son of Adam and Eve
    • Seth was the third son of Adam and Eve
      • Enosh was the son of Seth
        • Kenan was the son of Enosh
          • Mahalalel was the son of Kenan

etc. etc. AnonMoos 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with misconceptions about the Shia

It has been proposed that Misconceptions about The Shia be merged with this article. I strongly support this move. At present the Misconceptions article is a strongly POV personal essay. There is no straightforward way to turn it into an acceptable article without this merge. Once merged, it does seem that there might be some points that deserved to be NPOVed and amplified. Zora 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree as it is an obvious attempt to delete, censor, and suppress information. It has been already voted once, only 2 months ago, and the vote failed.--Zereshk 03:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Zora, that is non-sense. --Striver 04:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the current Misconceptions page is strongly POV, but there is a genuine core topic, which one might describe in more NPOV terms as opposition to and misrepresentation of the Shi'a community and its beliefs. I think it would be worth having an article which documents (in a more NPOV way, and without simply being anti-Sunni) some of the polemic and misrepresentation that the Shi'a community has historically encountered, but that the main article on Shi'a Islam is not the place for it. I support the retention and rewriting of the separate article.193.63.239.165 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Shia" vs. "Shi'a", and "Shia's"

Guys, can we choose a standard rendering of the term? Should it be Shia or Shi'a? It looks unprofessional to have it vary throughout the article. Also, I've noticed that when the term is written in plural in this article it's often written as "Shia's", with the apostrophe after the A, rather than before it. This makes the word look possessive, rather than plural, and is confusing. This is a mistake, correct? Can I change "Shia's" to "Shi'as" or "Shias"? Thanks. Babajobu 07:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for "Shi'a" and "Shi'as". --Striver 08:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to change it so that's how it's rendered throughout the article. If anyone objects, we can always change it again. Babajobu 09:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Good job :) --Striver 11:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Babajobu 11:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is again inconsistent in the use of the term. What is the correct singular in English? What is the plural? -Pgan002 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"

Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Branches of Religion (Furū al-Dīn)

i think we should add something other than "another tax" to the khums section of Furū al-Dīn. but im new so maybe not Yahussain 05:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)