Template talk:Shia Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title

Why is the title "Ahl-al Bait"? This is arabic title, why not english "People of the House"/"Companions of House". MirzaGhalib 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As a term you know, its "Hajj", not "greater pilgrimage". --Striver 16:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What? MirzaGhalib 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an Islamic term, they usually do not get translated. You know, Salat, Halaal, Mosque ... not "Islamic church". --Striver 05:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Mosque is part of engilsh vocab. Halal is getting there. I have never seen Salat written in english, just prayer. Ahl-al Bait means "companions of the house" and should be written as such, as no english speaker has any idea what it means. --MirzaGhalib 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, i disagree. They had no idea what "mosque" or "halaal" was either at one time. But i won't persist, change it if you really want to. --Striver 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at one time. But not now. Ask the average college educated American what "halal" or "mosque" is, and they will know. Ask them what "ahl al-bayt" is, and they will not have a clue. MirzaGhalib 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big changes

I made this template look more like the Islam one, almost exactly like it, however it is a bit smaller. Any information that was specific to Twelverism was taken out, and more information that applied to all Shi'ah groups was added. This correlates with the big changes on the Twelvers template front, and the Ismailis template front.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enzuru (talk • contribs) 20:21, April 21, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] For those undoing my changes

We have a talk page, can we please discuss why there is a problem? Streamlining here is important. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enzuru (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Revert-warring

Re. the protect request on WP:RPP, can someone possibly outline what the issue is here that people are revert-warring about? Right now, it's been going on for weeks and I'm about to fully protect the article at an arbitrary revision to simply stop this waste of time and energy. - Alison ☺ 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't help with the issue, however it seems one side is from a banned user. User:Dreamz rosez has an indefinate block (revert wars, and sockpuppetry), User:Pink revers also indefinately blocked (vandalism only, suspected sockpuppet of Dreamz), User:Little hearts 24 is probably also a sockpuppet of Dreamz (similar edit history), not currently blocked. Most recent changes back to Dreamz version are from nonregistered users, so perhaps just semiprotecting the template for a period of time might help. --Celain 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a person whose only job is to revert, without engaging in discussions. Uses dynamic IPs and multiple accounts to evade blocks. I reported to block Pink reves, as an obvious sockpuppet, and later asked for full protection of templates: twelver and Shia Islam [1][2], but the lack of understanding of an admin User_talk:John_Reaves#Request, resulted in a ridiculous decision. I will report little hearts for blockage, however this will be my last attempt to deal with this weird troll, and further protection of the articles of interest, would rest in the hands of admins.--Gerash77 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume some good faith on Mr. Reaves' behalf, please. What he has stated on your talk page is correct; semi-protect on an article when an array of sock-puppets have been created for longer than 4 days will not work. It will need to be fully protected for it to work. I wouldn't regard his decision as "ridiculous" at all.
To clarify my own position; I'm an administrator and I'm here as a result of your WP:RPP request. I'm trying to understand here what you need and why. I've no knowledge of the template nor its subject matter. Right now, an anon editor has reverted it again. I could very easily apply full protect here now and let you guys try to work out your differences and get back to me when you are ready. Is this what you want? - Alison ☺ 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say apply full-protection to all articles of interest of this editor [3]. It seems like he is causing problems on a few other articles as well. I reported little hearts and he is now blocked, nevertheless, I am sure this weird reverter would be back under a new account, hence a change from semi to full protection on twelver templates would be of necessity as well.--Gerash77 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just semi'd it anyway before reading this. Duration: two weeks. That'll keep anon vandals at bay. I note that the template syntax was a little broken, so I fixed that, too :) I'm still very reluctant to go with full prot and will monitor things for a while instead. You might want to 1) think about warning the revert-warriors, because nobody is and 2) think about opening a case at WP:SSP about this Hearts editor - Alison ☺ 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wtf?

The "belief" section is totally garbled and reflects not any official stance. Bring back the old and correct version. Or don't, that would be typical of wikipedia... --Striver - talk 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Although some of them like Ghadir Khumm and Karbala are important but they don't relate to belief. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So I should guess you're the coward(s) constantly reverting my edits to the template? KlakSonnTalk 13:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert-warring and template protection

This revert-war and sock-puppetry has been going on for months now and has not abated yet. I've previously semi-protected this to allow dialog to begin but instead, people are just creating accounts to get around the protection. As a result, this template has now been fully-protected against editing. Please discuss your changes here on the talk page until some form of consensus is reached. It's time for dialog to finally start because revert-warring is simply a waste of everyone's time and will not ensure "your" version prevails - Alison ☺ 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign

Just wanted to note I did a redesign, and took information from the Twelver template that could be applied to Shia in general here. --Enzuru 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign Controversy

Is there any problem with the current image? What are your opinions of it? --Enzuru 07:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what does it mean. How does it relate to Shia in particular?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But this picture Image:Panjetan.jpg represents what all of the Shia branches believe.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a picture of a Shi'ah Imam with bismillah, and it shows two things: 1) Imamate is what distinguishes Shi'ism from Sunnism, and the Imam is holding a book which represents his authority. 2) Shi'ahs, especially Twelver and Ismaili, are allowed to show depictions of their Imams and this is very popular in Iran and Turkey. Sunnis cannot do this, and this shows an important artistic aspect of Shi'ah tradition. And your picture is good as well, but one might argue that Nizari Ismaili do not believe Hassan was infallible or an Imam. --Enzuru 07:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
How does somebody find it's a picture of an Imam. I really thought it's the picture of the Prophet(PBUH&HF). But I found Panj tan image in Ismaili site as well. In fact, the picture has derived from an Ismaili site[4]. However I'm not certain about the copyright situation of both of them.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you're right and it is on an Ismaili website. Anyway, whether it is a picture of an Imam (AS) or Prophet (AS), only Shi'ah do images, showing how we are different from Sunnis. Hadith of the Cloak, (the five) is in Sunni books too. And how do non-Muslims know what that calligraphy represents? A picture might be more clear for them. --Enzuru 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've the same problem with what you've proposed. I know what does it mean, but I guess almost all of the readers can't understand the issue. I think current picture is better than that.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So, anyway we can negotiate this? I really like the Imam picture, it makes the template look very unique and goes good with the colours too. --Enzuru 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he's more like The Prophet(PBUH&HF). Please pay attention to Shahadatain under the picture. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But did not Imam Hussain (AS) die for the shahada? I have seen very few pictures like this of the Prophet (AS). And even if it is the Prophet, a picture of the Prophet and Imams is very important to Shi'ah Islam and Sunnis don't use them. --Enzuru 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm temporarily changing it to my version till we have a consensus, because something is harassing this version as ugly. Please don't be upset, we will take a vote or discuss this further and make a final decision. --Enzuru 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it's unfair. I put Imam Ali mosque which is not the favorite picture of both of us. --Seyyed(t-c) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize very deeply, I am very sorry brother. I did it only to show my design to FiveRupees who wanted to start an edit war. He has stopped, so it's fine to put it back to the mosque now. --Enzuru 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second redesign

Any issues with this one? --Enzuru 00:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the picture?!

Asalaamalaikum everyone: I am very tempted to delete the picture of Imam Ali (a.s.) for multiple reasons:

1) Putting up pictures of the Ai'mah is controversial even among different scholars. Some say makruh, some say haram...

Which scholars exactly? The major Twelver scholars, Sayed Sistani, Sayed Khamenei, among others are fine with it. I think we need to stay contemporary and mainstream about this. And most Ismailis have no issue with this altogether either: Shi'asm isn't just Twelvers. I don't know the Zaidi position, but I believe it mirrors the Ismaili one. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I, too, have the opinion that it is not plausible to sketch pictures of Infallibles. NEDian (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Now, I'm not discriminating or anything here, that's obviously not the point. But you are a Punjabi, a malang correct? Meaning, you don't do taqleed, nor are quite under Akhbari fiqh? How wide-spread is that, considering there are still many Usuli in Muhajir-areas such as Karachi? --Enzuru 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, you're Usuli, which I suppose, if you're not doing taqleed under Sistani or Khamenei may have some reason for being against this. --Enzuru 06:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2) Sunnis think that we worship Imam Ali (a.s.) or over-glorify him as it is. This picture will cause more misunderstanding

They need to read the article then. Honestly, putting a picture up shows what you'll see all over Iran and Turkey among Shi'a: we have images of them (AS), we have images of the Prophet (AS). This is a fact, we don't worship him, and they should read the article about that. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

3) The drawing of the 12 Imams only came about within the past few centuries. These images do not reflect Shia Islam.

They actually reflect Shi'a Islam well, considering this is a huge aesthetic distinguishing factor between us and Sunnis. It not only shows our beloved first Imam Ali (AS), it shows him in an image, which most Twelvers and Ismailis have no issues with. Once again, I'm not sure about Zaidis. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This creates an impression that we just emphasize Imam Ali (AS) NEDian (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But we do emphasize on Imam Ali (AS). We emphasize on his wilayat. Whoever does not know the Imam of his Time dies the death of one in the Age of Ignorance, and even more hadith go on about the importance of wilayat, and the first Imam (AS). Is he the only thing that has to do with this faith? No, they can see the Islam template for the generics that we share with Sunnism. For example, go to Calvinism. Do Calvinists worship Calvin? No, but he is the founder of their theology, no where near the importance of even Imam Ali (AS) to us. --Enzuru 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

4) Don't you think it would be better to put up calligraphy of Allah (swt) or calligraphy of the Holy Prophet (phuh&hf)?

All Muslim groups believe in Allah and the Prophet (AS), this is a bit silly. We need to show how we're different, and that is our partisanship of Ali, and how most contemporary scholars of the two biggest Shi'a branches have no issues with images. Look at the Eastern Christianity template, and you'll see Christ drawn in an Eastern-fashion. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not put some image with Allah-Muhammad-Ali on it, or having names of 14 Infallibles on it. NEDian (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, how can we put the Fourteen Infallibles? Only Twelver Shi'a believe in that: Ismaili don't, Zaidi don't. Putting calligraphy is iffy, though I realize I have done it with Sunnism and Twelvers (though in this case the calligraphy has 12 points, and is referring to the hadith that the first is Muhammad (AS) and the last is Muhammad(AS), and any non-Muslim can see that they are the same image twice). This is a reason why calligraphy on the Islam template is not done probably as well. The issue here is most people don't even know what the calligraphy is of, for them it's simply scribbles, not much to even differentiate the Sunni one with. Yes, if this was a Muslim site it might be different. Anyway, as I've explained before, the fact the vast majority of Twelver and Ismaili Shi'a do accept images is a huge defining factor of our faith, so images themselves do represent something. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, images are very common there, even of the Prophet (AS). And the Usulis of the Subcontinent, most of whom do taqleed under Sayed Sistani, have nothing against it. --Enzuru 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

5) Look up "Sunni Islam". On their box, they have "Bismillahirahmanirahim" written in Arabic. That shows that they are putting emphasis upon Allah (swt). By putting a picture of Imam Ali (a.s.) we are sending the message that we would rather put up a picture of the Imam rather than honor the page by beginning in the name of Allah (swt).

You know, I'm actually the one who made the Sunni template, as well as redesigning both this and that one several times, even though I am a Shi'a. I will change the image on their template to put their focus. I'll try to put something that represents the khilafat or something. Anyway, the point is, our job is not to appease Sunnis, we need to show how both sects are diffent. Most Shi'a are okay with images, most Sunnis aren't. This is a huge difference between us, and in fact, we need to dispell the idea that many non-Muslims have that Islam prohibits images. That's not true. Sunnism does. This is a bigger concern: there are more non-Muslims than Sunnis. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Just an update, I've changed the Sunni Islam template. Check it out. --Enzuru 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know someone went through the trouble to put the picture up and that is why I refrained from deleting it.

Thank you so much for talking about this before taking any action. You have no idea how many people just decide to go ahead and delete things without any concern. Thank you so much, and I hope you understand my reasoning now. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reply as soon as possible so that we may discuss this matter further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longlivepalestine (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm really too much of an artist. I admit to being upset when people want to change things around, but this is Wikipedia, and I need to handle it better. People often just want to change images or colours in a template, without understanding that both are essential to each other, especially in the ones I design like this one, Twelvers, and my kinda ugly Alevism one. The entire template was designed for this image and its colours (I even changed the colours of the image!), as was the template before it (which I also spent hours on), but then brother Seyyed changed that because he said it was a picture of the Prophet (AS) which is too generic for Shi'a Islam. And you know what, I couldn't argue against that for long, because he was right. But in this case, I believe I've created a very nice-looking template that both represents our faith in both content and aesthetics. --Enzuru 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Zaidi position towards such an image would probably be the same as the Sunni position. Oore (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is sensible reasoning, so to play devil's advocate, I'll assume they do mirror the Sunni position. --Enzuru 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I thank everyone who has taken place in this discussion. Everyone has been extremely intelligent, mature, and terse in their opinions and beliefs. But, I'm going to be blunt as well. Many Shi'a editors are missing what the point of Wikipedia is. Wikipedia Shi'a articles should not be the following:
  • Public relation campaigns to appease Sunnis ("They're going to think we worship Ali!")
  • Public relation campaigns to (purposely) infuriate Sunnis ("Let's put pictures everywhere just to rile the Wahabis up!")
  • Downplaying esoteric Shi'a beliefs, such as Aql
  • Downplaying important parts of the faith in order to give an impression of Islamic solidarity to non-Muslims (repeating a million times how we affirm the shahada)
  • Allowing majorities to control articles and terminology (referring to Nahjul'balagha as a Shi'a book, instead of a Twelver Shi'a book)
  • Allowing fringe minorities to dictate articles (some Shi'a believe Ali to be God should be stated as small heterodox groups consider Ali to be God)
  • Turning articles on Islam into battlegrounds of apologism and copy-and-paste scholarship
The job of Wikipedia articles on Shi'asm is to present a accurate, fair, broad, and conclusive presentation on the topic of Shi'a Islam, whether it is in the form of writing, images, or templates. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone, it is not a place for dawah, it is not a place for the forerunners of a new political/religious/theocratic movement to spread their ideas.
--Enzuru 06:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Controversy

First, I would like to say that I am against the drawings of the Ai'mah for two major reasons: 1) According to Dr. Hamid Algar, the drawings of the Ai'mah only began until the 18th century.

I am a fan of Algar myself, and he is correct about this. But, there is a reaction where a minority tries to differentiate themselves from the majority, which can be seen very strongly in this picture issue, and it is increasing among Shi'a. The fact is Usulism is no older than the 17th century itself, yet the majority of Shi'a (even outside of Twelver statistics) follow this school. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2) Ever since the drawings of the Imams, people have been putting in their own ideas of beauty into the drawings. Dr. Algar even notes that the drawings of the Imams have gone from dark-skinned to light-skinned when this is completely false. It's obvious that they could not have had rosy cheeks, yet we see a hint of rosiness in their drawings.

This is true, and it's horrible. But nonetheless, it does not change the fact that these pictures are becoming more prominent, and are becoming a symbol of Shi'a Islam from Sunnism. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, Imam Redha (a.s.), Imam Kadhim (a.s.), and Imam Muhammad Taqi (a.s.) were black. Their mothers were African. According to Dr. Algar, Imam Mehdi (a.s.) is black as well (stronger hadith show that his mother was Nubian, not Greek). Even with all of this, we see asabiyah in these drawings.

This is so true, dear brother. I hate this aspect too. Our beloved Imam al-Mahdi (AS) was the son of a humble Nubian slave, not of a Byzantine princess, most likely. It is sad we try to paint it otherwise, it shows a somewhat innate racism among the followers of Shi'a Islam. Many of the latter of our sweet Imams, the Lords of the Time, were dark-skinned, and I do hope more people accept this. But nonetheless, we have to realize in Shi'asm, the majority of Shi'a in the two major branches (someone disproved the third branch), there is not an issue with this. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You made a point about the Christians having a picture of Prophet Isa (a.s.)...but we are not Christians. As Shias, we are prohibited from using qiyas.

Actually, as Twelver Usulis we are prohibited from using qiyas. The rest of the branches differ on it. Anyway, it was a really bad point, but a comparison where we can see the culture of a religion's branch expressed in its image. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to find you a source, but according to Ayatollah [Sistani], putting up pictures of the Ai'mah is makruh.

See here: [5] under Questions and Answers, under Pictures. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for changing the image on the page for Sunni islam. Longlivepalestine (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'd like to clarify something. On Wikipedia, we have to understand that we are representing an encyclopedia, and in particular with Shi'a Islam, we are representing a dynamic and vibrant faith, as Corbin once noted about Twelver Usulis, but in a way applies to most of Shi'asm. I feel brother, and I don't think this is a bad thing, because even my edits have a flavour of this, is that we try to put our own views of morality and ideas into our work on this encyclopedia. But we simply can't. No, I don't believe Ismailis or Zaidis have any right to the title Shi'a. I think the Shi'a template should just be Usulism, honestly, even most people mean Twelver Usulis when they use the phrase Shi'a, because the other schools have failed at any attempt to get acceptance in and outside of Shi'asm. I cringe at the fact that we have to allow a faith like Ahmadi parade themselves on here without being able to mention the women their second caliph raped without descending into an edit war that we will probably lose. But what I've discovered brother, is there is a great reward in doing this work nonetheless, and we should continue in it. Right now, most articles on Islam are only the Sunni perspective on Wikipedia, and you'll find yourself as you work on this encyclopedia run into articles where you need to insert Sunni into every sentence that has Muslim in it. And likewise, I've discovered that I'd had to put Twelver and Usuli in lots of articles dealing with Shi'asm. You feel very strongly about this picture issue, and the fact is, from your perspective I can certainly see your point, but I feel still, unbudgingly, from the perspective of a person who knows nothing about Shi'asm or perhaps Islam, sees this picture, tells him much about our faith's history, struggle, and unique beliefs that the majority of its adherents have that separate us from the Sunni majority. --Enzuru 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arbaeen.JPG Note, this is in Karbala, the the third holiest site in Twelver and Mustaali Shi'a Islam, along with significance to Zaidis and Nizaris. --Enzuru 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


  • My opinion... I don't think it needs to be removed because it's offensive. It needs to be removed because we're not a shrine. I think it looks more like a Shia site than it does the template on an encyclopedia. Simplicity. We need to keep to that like we had until a few months ago. It looks good but it's not what I expect on an encyclopedia. gren グレン 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So to clarify, you feel that we are being excessive with design, and that this isn't the point of Wikipedia. Once again, this was a suggestion by the community that we don't turn templates into designer outfits. However, it really no longer has any validity. Major templates such as Template:Buddhism and more recently, Template:Christianity have gone this route. The major concern is that they are readable and cleanly coded, unlike Template:Alevism. --Enzuru 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You may disagree but I think Template:Christianity and Template:Buddhism are both clean and not overly fancy. I don't mind simple religious symbols... but, a large colorful and far from universally accepted (or neutral) cross or mosque outline as is on Template:Islam. gren グレン 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you had an issue with for example Template:Twelvers, yet I personally don't see a huge difference between it and Buddhism. If anything, Twelvers is cleaner. And, pictures aren't quite far from universally accepted as far as mainstream Shi'a doctrine goes. My only concern is it may perhaps misrepresent the Zaidi, since the other two branches in majority accept it. --Enzuru 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible

Should this template and Template:Twelvers be collapsible? It is hard to work an overall collapsing system for this design, but we can do it for Twelvers like we did before, but how about this one? What goal should we have for this template in general? --Enzuru 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The template should be aesthetic, and both templates, especially the Twelvers template, looked very good and much better than they do now. FiveRupees (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just made it considerably smaller like you said. Do you think this is acceptable? --Enzuru 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more acceptable now. But I think the templates shouldn't be collapsible but just as they were before. FiveRupees (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Asthetics-wise I think the previous one is nicer looking. I don't personally have a preference of collapsible over expanded. I think that if we wanted to keep the collapsible version that we should incorporate some of the style elements from the previous version into this one, but that is just my opinion. Also I think that the ambigram image is very gritty looking at the small size, and should probably be converted to a vector format. Still, I think that we have a lot we can work with. Peter Deer (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I incorporated some of the style from the older Twelver template into the newer one just now. --Enzuru 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the extended version of the template. It looked much more aesthetic than the current version. Anyway, my compliments for the author of all these wonderful templates on Islam. --87.15.80.165 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Everyone preferred the old version, so I brought it back with some changes. Tell me if everything is fine. --Enzuru 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)