Talk:Ghadir Khumm/Archive 1

Archive 1

stubification

yes the article is wholly unencyclopedic. eid al-ghadir appears to be a day of celebration amongst some shi'a. i don't know if it is considered an official religious holiday (or if they just prefix the word with eid on its anniversary), but some good sources would be needed to substantiate that. i propose stubifying the article, and prodding to see if any sources turn up (i couldn't find any from a brief search) ITAQALLAH 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact, the article appears to be directly copied from passages found here. the website maintains copyright over its material, and as such i have stubified earlier than planned. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

good job very helpful....sometimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.50.219 (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, Shi'i?

Why is the bulk of this page taken up by a Sunni view of a holiday mostly prevalent in Iran and other Shi'i countries? 98.225.113.3 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC) When you study about the Shiites around the world then you will learn that after Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Azha, Eid-ul-Ghadeer is the most important day for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedraza1460 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied over text

Seems like the material found in this article is a copy from the main article of Hadith of the pond of Khumm. Considering to remove the duplicate information in the near future. Nerrf (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about the picture

By chance, I have found the following complaint on another page (Talk:Jimmy Wales), where the author requests removal of the picture, since in his faith depictions of Ali are forbidden. Personally, I have no idea, so could someone look into this? Thank you!
Quoting "Dear Jimmy Wales. I appreciate your work as this is really helpfull in our daily life.I can not imajine what the world would be without Wikipedia.You have done an great job and still doing it while the whole world is getting benifit out of this site. I have a request that while searching to for EID-e GHADEER, I found it on Wikipedia as Eid al-Ghadeer. The page is very informative but there is one thing which is not acceptable and that is a Potrait or some kind of Picture attached at the left corner of the page written below to it is "The inventure of Ali(A.S) at Ghadir Khum".It is forbidden in Islam to draw Pictures of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) or Mola Ali (A.S).I am from a Shia sect and if you want Shia's to visit this page I would request you to Please, remove this picture immediately.I know its just a picture for you but it is not acceptable for us.I would be very obliged if you can do this favour and remove this picture.
With Regards. ALI RIZVI. ali_ned@hotmail.com" 156.62.3.26 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Corvus cornix_talk 01:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember voting recently on an a matter that would allow images to say "Do you find this offensive?" and people could disable them on their own ends, and the setting would be cached in their browser. Did this get passed? If so, when the feature is implemented, we can incorporate pictures (which some Shi'a do find appropriate) without worrying that others will have a major problem with it. Obviously, what is offensive and always offensive is never appropriate, but what is for some appropriate and for a minority offensive may sometimes be appropriate to include, given this feature. Just an idea. --Sawyer207 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Vandalism

Please note the edits by 46.40.236.39 from today, some of which were appropriately reversed by Saida110. To those who are vandalizing the page, please remember that this is an encyclopedia and not supposed to be an emotionally driven religion blog. Please use your polemic anti-Shia enthusiasm to help us create a balanced article, rather than biasing it in the opposite direction by posting sourceless nonsense and reminding everyone that beliefs that aren't exactly like yours are "fictional." Keep it professional, please.--Sawyer207 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

sourceless and biased

I am very passionate about the wikipedia project. It has been conceived to be free and unbiased. Let's all work together to do so. There is bias in the article. It needs to be objective and analytical and needs more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.12.253 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

viewpoint of Sunni ideology is not correctly portrayed

"Sunni Muslims do not celebrate Eid al-Ghadeer because they do not believe that it is an established celebratory day. The Sunni believe that when Allah stated in Quran 5:3, this day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion. The religion was perfected. Since this eid was not practised then adding to something that is perfected does not make it more perfect but imperfect."

This is absolutely not correct. the actual reason for the same is that the Rashidun Khalifah Uthman ibn Affan died on 17 June 656 CE which happpens to be 18th Zulhijjah 35 AH. [[1]]. Now, the reason why sunnis dont celebrate this day is in mourning for his death, not because it isnt an established celebratory day. Shia's celebrate this day because they do not accept the khilafah rule of uthman and hence they do not mourn his death like sunnis.

technically speaking this is also a day on the level of the bakr eid and eid ul adha because the death of uthman did NOT happen in the time of the prophet when he made those two days as the official days for muslims to celebrate and there was no way know about it beforehand.

So please edit this page by incorporating the information into the full page. I did not do it myself because i dont want to appear vandalizing the text. let someone else who understands my argument do it. Otherwise i will do it myself. Mhveinvp (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

4 years have passed and no one has even bothered to discuss the issue i laid down here. i will try to get invite attention towards this and hopefully we can come to a consensusMhveinvp (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

4 years have passed and no one has even bothered to discuss the issue i laid down here. i will try to get invite attention towards this and hopefully we can come to a consensusMhveinvp (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I think you are not correct. Sunnis don't mourn death of Uthman. This is non-issue to them. So is the Ghadir-e-Khum to them: a non-issue. You argument suggests as if Ghadeer is a celebration for them, but they don't celebrate b/c of Uthman death. It is not like that. They don't care for either. AhmadLX (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As a practicing Muslim, sunni, living in Kashmir, i beg to differ. Here, the Shia folks "celebrate" the event of ghadir as "eid e Ghadir". When asked about it, this is the very answer i have received over the years. Now i dont understand why you would say "Sunnis don't mourn death of Uthman." after all he was one of the rashidun khalifah.

"You argument suggests as if Ghadeer is a celebration for them, but they don't celebrate b/c of Uthman death. It is not like that. They don't care for either."

Yes. this is what i am suggesting. this is a question i have posed to many "elders" and clergy and they have given this viewpoint. It could be because of sufism, that is being practiced in this part of the world.Mhveinvp (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can bring credible sources that say that it is so, it can be added. Otherwise not. AhmadLX (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hadith of the pond of Khumm versus The event of Ghadir Khumm

These two articles may have some differences, but they are virtually about the same thing, that Muhammad proclaimed Ali as a Mawlâ (Arabic: مَـوْلَى, can mean 'Master' or 'Friend', same root as Waliyy (Arabic: وَلِيّ)) for people, at least those who were present with them somewhere near what is now Rabigh in the Hejaz. The event of Ghadîr Khumm (Arabic: غَـدِيْـر خُـمّ, Pond of Khumm) definitely has a ḥadîth (Arabic: حَـدِيْـث, can mean 'narration' or 'story'), otherwise the modern body of literature on the event of Ghadîr Khumm, especially this article, would not exist, would it? What I am saying is, why not merge Hadith of the pond of Khumm into The event of Ghadir Khumm? Leo1pard (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Article re-write

Due to it having a pervasive narrative bias, I felt it was necessary to do a considerable re-write of the article. I don't know if anyone will view my work as controversial, so just in case, I wanted to give an extended explanation of the reasonings for my edits.

The article had previously been written in a way which heavily favoured the Shia viewpoint. This was evident by the fact that it discussed disputed events as absolute facts, most prominently in the "Sermon" and "Oath of allegiance" subsections. The content of these gave the overwhelming impression that Ali had undoubtedly been nominated and accepted as successor to Muhammad during Ghadir Khumm, a narrative which is in fact heavily contested by Sunnis. However, the article gave very little weight or mention of this disagreement. On the contrary, it gave the impression that Sunnis agree with this account. This was done by stating several times that "both Shia and Sunni sources" (or some variation thereof) report on Ghadir Khumm, referencing the fact that Sunnis agree that some form of the event had occurred. However, without any mention of the dispute, it resulted in a misleading impression that Sunnis adhere with the stated biased narrative.

The "both Shia and Sunni" line had also been used in relation to content such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman being among those who pledged allegiance to Ali. Information like this are pretty questionable since they were almost entirely sourced by poorly-referenced ancient texts and Shia websites (something which was an overarching issue with this article). Since they are contradicted by the information provided by reliable secondary/tertiary sources (e.g. Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam) that Sunnis reject the idea of a nomination and allegiance to Ali, I believe that such content were, at best, unrepresentative generalisations favouring minority views. With WP:UNDUE in mind, in lieu of such misleading implications of support from Sunnis, I believed it was best to instead include what appears to be the vast majority opinion among them.

My final concern was regarding the sheer number of citations in the section titled "Narrators and citations" which made up an entire third of the article (18000+ bytes!) The section served no purpose other than to attempt to prove that Ghadir Khumm had happened. This was pretty pointless since whether the event had occurred is not disputed, but rather its interpretation (as I had stated earlier). It is basically like trying to list all the sources which attest to the Gettysburg Address. This is not standard practice on Wikipedia and serves no purpose. I have instead provided a short overview of the sources of our knowledge for Ghadir Khumm. Anything beyond this is not necessary.
Alivardi (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

This is regarding the dispute between myself and Tubi719

@Tubi719: You've previously reverted this article because you disagreed with my edits,[2][3] but you have yet to provide the clarification I requested in regards to these concerns.[4] Instead, you have continued your reversions while demanding that I answer questions in regards to my conduct on a separate article, Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr.[5][6] Let me make it clear that I believe this last action is completely inappropriate. Yet because you have continued insisting, I shall answer your questions.

I have not added any content to Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, unsourced or otherwise. The only edit which I made to this article was reverting the unexplained removal of content by another user.[7] I did not have any opinion regarding the content, I only disagreed with how that user went about disputing it. And for what its worth, the content in question was sourced, with AhmadLX having now provided further references, so my actions there are upheld. I would now like to drop the matter of this unrelated article and focus on this one. If you want to continue discussing it, I urge you to do so on that article's Talk page.

I will now repeat my request for clarification regarding your concerns for my edits to this article. What "non authentic content" have I added? How do you dispute my reasonings for the content I had removed? What are your explanations for the five intermediate edits you have also reverted on this article?
Alivardi (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reasons

@Alivardi: Following are some of the reasons for my reverts:

1. First of all you deleted the whole paragraph Ummayad Caliphate without giving a sensible explanation. That paragraph is properly sourced with authentic references. If you think that the paragraph shouldn't be there, you should have format it or changed its heading to some other appropriate title.
2. Who said that Shias of Iraq and Iran stab the honey-filled pastry effigies representing the names of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. I have lived in Iran and Iraq for a long time, non of the above is performed or celebrated there. According to Shia Maraji it is forbidden to say bad about first three Caliphs. So it was wrong and unathentic info therefore I had to remove it.
3. Why did you reverted the article Mus'ab ibn al Zubayr when you knew it contains a wrong info. Sakinah bint Hussain was never married to Mus'ab, as she died at the age of 5 soon after Battle of Karbala. You shouldn't have reverted that page with wrong info.

That's it these were the reasons why I was reverting the page otherwiese I dont have any problem. Thanks
Tubi719 (talk)

@Tubi719: Allow me to respond to your first point with the question I posed in the summary for that edit: why do you think that out of the dozens of accounts regarding Ghadir Khumm, this particular narration deserves special mention? In regards to your second question, as shown in the citation for that content, Professor Laura Veccia Vaglieri states that this custom occurs among Iranian Shi'ites in Brills Encyclopaedia of Islam. This encyclopaedia is one of the most prominent reference works in regards to Islam. It is not invalidated by your personal experiences, something which should not be a factor anyway when editting Wikipedia.
Alivardi (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article lead

JorgeLaArdilla, it is clear you disagree with the wording in the first sentence of the lead. Could you please clarify the issue that you have spotted there?
Alivardi (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hate to break it to you mate - but this event is folklore not fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for dawah. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

​Really appreciate your concern mate, but quoting the late Professor Laura Vaglieri from Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam:

It is, however, certain that Muḥammad did speak in this place and utter the famous sentence, for the account of this event has been preserved, either in a concise form or in detail, not only by al-Yaʿḳūbī, whose sympathy for the ʿAlid cause is well known, but also in the collections of traditions which are considered as canonical, especially in the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal; and the ḥadīt̲h̲s are so numerous and so well attested by the different isnād s that it does not seem possible to reject them.[8]

Note that this has been cited in the article. Also might be useful for you to check out WP:BRD about restoring reverted edits before discussing.
Alivardi (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)