Talk:Shia Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 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)

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)

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[1]--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: [2]

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:

• al-Hafidh Jamaluddin al-Dharandi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 246-247

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" [3] 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 [[4]] (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)

Picture

Please remove the picture from this page. It is highly offensive and has nothing to do with the article. Just because somebody calls this a picture of Imam Ali doesn't mean that it really is a picture of him.

Wikipedia does not abide by particular theological or religious concerns. Wikipedia is aware of Islamic doctrine regarding images. However, as Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic thinking, it chooses not to follow it. em zilch (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Percentage

This article mentions Shia Islam as being 15% and 85% of all of islam. Only one number can be correct. The first number is mentioned in the first paragraph. The second number is mentioned in the "Demographics" paragraph. This appears to have been corrected 216.119.176.54 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Anders

This article mentions an incorrect percentage of 15-25% of all muslims which does not coincide with the facts stated on the sources provided. The initial source is cited from a page that says only 15% and also the cited reference for the sentence is not from a legititmate source but from a "forum" site. Also in the same page above it states 10-15% which are the factual numbers. Please correct this immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper112 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

something is off with the second map. it doesnt have the borders of Yemen (which would have been South yemen at the time.) It makes it seem as though that area is part of Saudi Arabia. Also isnt ther a significant Shia population in Yemen. It isnt shown on the map. Xerex 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are all simple: (1) Yemeni borders: with regard to those, the map is very old, this is very obvious!! There has been a very long border dispute between the Yemenis and the Saudis which wasn't resolved until less than 5 years ago, I believe, which explains what you see. The borders are now demarcated and 'all is good'. (2) Yemeni Shia areas: the dark green doesn't mean that all the Yemeni ZAIDI Shia live there only, but it means that these are their areas of heavy concentration. It is, however, true and is well known to those specialized in the region that the former 'Northern Yemen' republic was of majority Zaidi Shia population, which explains what you see on the map. The "significant Shia population" you are talking about is above 40% and being so doesn't mean you have to see 40% of the Yemeni soil painted in dark green!!! Certain areas would have more people per squre kilometer than many vast lands!! There is no such rule, when it comes to drawing maps, to reflect the percentage a group of people comprise in the total population by means of colors on the country's map!!! I thought this was commonsense!!! SilkySword 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Flaggelation

flaggelation is self harm- self harm is strictly forbidden in islam.

also bombing markets and taking women as hostage before killing them is strictly forbidden in islam--82.194.62.23 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that those acts you want to say fundamentalist Sunni groups are accused of? Let me tell you that there is no real proof on that, as the rulers who want to hold on to their thrones while defaming those challenging their authority and control (like fundamentalist Sunni groups) would resort to all means necessary (including killing innocents) to discredit and bring shame on their rivals! Meanwhile, I think the entire world today is sure what the Shia death squads are doing in Iraq!!! SilkySword 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

reply to u: flaggelation for no use is forbiddin, but for Ahlulbait it is.

Oh yeah??? And what do the deceased members of Ahlulbayt (ra.) benefit from your flaggelation exactly??? Share with us, please!!! SilkySword 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Deceased"? The quran has some words to say on this to people like you..."And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: 'They are dead.' Nay they are living though ye perceive (it) not." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.215.187 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

It is importnat to note that this is a form of keeping the tradition of ahsura alive... plus it is noteworthy to read ahadees that indicate that the prophet pbuh did "Matam" on his uncle hamza's pbuh funeral when he died.

Multiple POV

Because for this article there's actually many POV, why don't we have multiple pages, one for sunnis' POV, one for shi'i, and one for general information about shi'i.--Ali Akbar 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's called a POV fork and WP doesn't like them. Unfortunately, one Shi'a editor was extremely fond of making them, and it's taking time to work them out of the system. Zora 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Shia and sunni traditions

I can't believe some illiterate individual actually believes shia muslims perfrom anal sex. And I cant believe nobody had half a brain to edit it. -Kiran

Oh come on, deleting my posts is just censoring free thought. Shame on you Wiki. Put it back.

you may notice that wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of un-sourced and un-verified opinions, musings or invective. perhaps if you wish to air unfounded beliefs on the sexual habits of certain religions you should get a blog instead? -- frymaster 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is such a well-documented fact about the Shia religion (allowing anal sex). There was even a quick reference to that in an American show by that 'Maher' guy, he said he found the 'fatwa' allowing that right on Sistani's website!!! The problem with the Shia commones is that they don't READ, YET they like to assume stuff and believe they do or don't exist (example is this Kiran here). I can show scanned pages in Arabic from the major Shia books of 'narrations' and I can cite specific sources too, but do you have those books to verify what I say? Most of the Shia don't even have their major books at home, yet they claim not only to know their religion very well, but that of ours too (Islam -yes, and I like to refer to Sunni Islam as just 'Islam', since we are the Orthodoxy and others are the 'heresy', whether you like that or not). SilkySword 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to stay it is very discouraged however a married couple may do nearly anything together. However it would not seem appropriate to add everything on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.54.232 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Emulation

I didn't know what emulation meant near the top of the article, so I clicked it for clarification. However it went to an article about software emulators, which I doubt the 12 Imams were concerned with.

I believe you mean to ask about Taqlid. It means to emulate or imitate (that is to follow) the religous verdicts of a major Muslim scholar. It is because you as a layperson don't have the knowledge to make up your own opinion on it, so you trust a certain scholar and you choose to follow what he follows of opinions (which are believed that he reached through careful research and reasoning, and when there is not textual evidence from the Quran or Sunnah on the matter in question; that's when he resorts to those other methods to reach an opinion on the matter). SilkySword 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

                      Shiabelievers.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.141.249 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 

Intro Picture Move

I moved the intro picture because for me and probably for many other users (esp. those with hi-res screens), the image appears to the left of the table of contents. The picture is not especially important in the intro, so it doesn't really matter where it is. Moving the picture to the Etymology section eliminates the issue but keeps the picture in a prominent location. joturner 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and cleanup

I had edited the article and made changes to it, in order to keep it more neutral while still trying to preserve the facts. I feared that a NPOV disputed notice might be put up if those changes were not made. I had also done some cleanup of the article to make it conform to Wikipedia's standards, and had put a note on every change that I had made.
Someone has removed all the changes I have made, from an unknown IP Address, by reverting to an older version of the page, without any note. Everyone is welcome to improve the article by making any kind of further changes to the ones that I had made, but I would request that you would please explain any major changes by putting up an edit summary, or talking about it in the discussion page. By reverting back to an older version of the page, I see a very obvious slant in the article now and it might not be long before someone notices it and puts up a NPOV disputed notice.
Thank you everyone for all the contributions you have made to this page --Jibran1 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, my request is to please not add too many links in the 'External links' section.
Please refer to this page Wikipedia:Five pillars, and I quote:
Wikipedia is not... a grouping of links (whether internal or external).
Thank you.--Jibran1 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the article appears to suffer from absence of NPOV and absence of discussion relative to relation to terrorism Cdcdoc 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a-Sunni

Do we need Common arguements in Shi'a Sunni dialogs to cover stuff like this in?--Striver 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG that was ugly! --Striver 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

how can you say that sheyas are good beliver. give me one answer who was Hazrat Muhammad Peace be upen him. was he shiya or sunni and one thing more shiyas are nonmuslims because they can not belive Hazrat omer,do u know who is he .he was a mightest massenger.shiyas always abouses him. Ceo_hammad@yahoo.com

it is interesting to note that all sects of islam agree that the prophet said do not follow in anyway the traditions of any other religion esp. the people of the book, or rather "books" since they have quite a few versions of them now. commenting on the idea that some sects of muslims namely wahabis consider it ok to call shias kafir, we are no different to another religion which need not be metnioned which has its orthodox and messiac sects, and hillariously enough, the orthodox sect does not consider the messiac sect as part of their religion all together... so much so they burn their religious books...

History

When did shiism actually start as a movement? there is nothing about that n the article.

I have added another Sunni-Shia demographic statistics that was featured by Al-Jazeerah. --Islami 06:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The muslims were all one group until the prophet Muhammad(PBUH) had died. He told them to have Ali `ibn Abu talib(PBUH) to lead the muslims. Most of them(80%) said he was too young and said Abu Bakir should be the next leader since he was older and wiser. A few of them(20%) said Ali(PBUH) should be the leader since he was chosen by the prophet. This took place around 650 A.D. I hope that answers your question.--LF2 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

that's what shias believe and most of the muslems dont think your idea is correct. most of the muslems (about 90 percent) believe that the great prophet let muslems free to choose a khalifa after his death. so you are talking about your idea not all muslem's beliefs.--Awyer 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Kurdistan

Just like we didnt have a say in who is our god or who is our prophet, i doubt there was any democracy in choosing our leaders after the prophet (PBUH). If you want to know more about the well documented (and accepted by shia and sunni) events that happened in Ghadeer Khum, just research. 87.194.54.232 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there Three Sheeyahs?

Sheeaat-e-Ali, Sheeaat-e-Osman & Sheeaat Ahl AlBayat! This is as per AlAnwar tv. The first were the supporters of Ali to Islamic leadership. The second were who were asking for the atonement of the assassination of the third Caliph. While the last appeared with a new dogma of 'Imamate' after 81H when Zaynab returning to Madina from Egypt condoled at Karbala for 3days for her martyred brother Husayn.ILAKNA (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic). The proper way to write it is Shi`a with a grave accent [`] and not an apostrophe [']. It's easy to confuse the two, but Shi`ah uses an ayin character in Arabic, not a hamza, and the correct way to transliterate is to distinguish between the two. The grave accent is also found on the keyboard, to the left of the "1" key.

Does anyone object if I change the page title and fix the redirects which it will cause? Cuñado - Talk 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, we could add the "H" on the end to represent the tāʼ marbūṭa (ة), but it's inclusion is sometimes omitted, so it's up to preference. Cuñado - Talk 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm about to change the title. I got no responses. Cuñado - Talk 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this notice. The Shi'a article is the scene of so much skirmishing that I usually ignore it. MOVE IT BACK, dang it. Hundreds of articles are linked to Shi'a. Zora 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You can move it back right now if you want. I was about to start going through and fixing redirects and other "Shi'a" titled articles. I think the reasoning is clear, are you protesting the usage of "Shi`ah" or the redirects? Cuñado - Talk 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No primary transliteration

Ok Zora, first see the proposed policy for Arabic naming (I assume you already know it). This falls into the category of Muhammad and the Qur'an which have no primary transliteration, so the default is not the highest google search, but the standard transliteration should be used. In the case of the ta' marbuta there is not a very standard way of dealing with it, so you could argue to use "Shi`a" over "Shi`ah" ("Shi`at" in more classical), but regardless, using the apostrophe is wrong, it should be a grave accent, like this: `.

A quick search can prove that there is no primary transliteration:

• Shia - 12,000,000
• Shi'a - 1,700,000
• Shi`a - 31,200,000
• Shiah - 157,000
• Shi'ah - 83,300
• Shi`ah - 4,080,000
• Shiite - 13,600,000
• Shi'ite - 3,110,000
• Shi`ite - 18,200,000
• Shi'ih - 583
• Shi`ih - 625,000

I'm not sure how google searches with apostrophes* Note that our own version of Shi'a only gets 1.7M, and that can be high due to Wiki mirrors. The highest is Shi`a with 31.2M, but even that doesn't take the cake.

I would argue that the title (and usage on all the wikipedia pages) should be Shi`a or Shi`ah, and I would prefer the latter. Cuñado - Talk 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that the "h" at the end is the "standard transliteration"? john k 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot two more:

• Shi'i - 299,000
• Shi`i - 52,600,000

The word has a Ta' Marbuta at the end in Arabic. This is either pronounced as an "H" or a "T", depending on usage in standard Arabic. It is often omitted when transliterated because it's not totally necessary, and lightly pronounced. The main issue is using the different accent. Cuñado - Talk 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the accent grave. Readers don't use it. Shi'a gets 1,700,000 google hits. Shi'ah gets 83,000. Shi'a gets 95% of the hits, Shi'ah gets 5%. Zora 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning of "readers don't use it" is not true. That's why in all cases it gets more hits by orders of magnitude more. It's really necessary to distinguish between the ayin and the hamza, and if you want to use the apostrophe for both then it's not correct. It's either ayin=‘ hamza=’ or ayin=` hamza=', anything else is sloppy.

Without the "H" the ta' marbuta is ignored, and it's another example of sloppy writing. We already had this argument on Fatima Zahra and you won based on google hits. I'm really not sure why you oppose using the "H". Should we RFC this? Cuñado - Talk 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunardo, Google doesn't distinguish between hamza and ayn, nor do 99% of the people who use the English Google. This would be relevant for an Arabic Google, if there is one. English-speakers use apostrophes. It's not accurate, but it's convenient. Please stop trying to impose your version of "correctness" on dozens of other Wikipedia editors.

Sure, we should have the word in Arabic, in Unicode, and in a proper transliteration, at least once in the article. But otherwise we can use the common English form of the word, which is not the same thing as the proper transliteration. Zora 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't think I'm imposing any of my personal ideas of "correctness". There have been international standards set: Library of Congress, United Nations, several international conventions of orientalists.

I'm not sure how google deals with the apostrophes vs grave accents, and I don't think you do either. But the search results are different. In printed text there is always a distinction between the two characters. The proposed guidelines say that if no primary exists then use the standard. There are several common ways to spell it (Shia, Shiah, Shi'ah, Shi'i, Shi'ih, Shiite, Shi'ite), so there is no 'English' version of it.

Here's one more example to look at: dictionary.com gives Shi`ah as one of four, none of them with an apostrophe. Compare it to Qur'an, which has a hamza. They use different characters to represent the ayin and the hamza. Look at any transliteration table, there are several here. They all differentiate between the two. Using the wrong symbol just makes it look bad to anyone who knows what they're doing. If there are references that use an apostrophe, or omit the ayin altogether, it's out of ignorance and not convenience. [allaahuakbar.net/shiites/index.htm This] page says "Shia" but then puts the ayin there for "`Ali" and the hamza for "Qur'an". Cuñado - Talk 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, first off Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) is still just proposed. It is in no way offical, so please refrain from implementing it right now. Secondly, moves like this one are extremely controversial - this is too well-known of a topic to be making unilateral page moves like that. In the future you should go to requested moves so the community can vote on it. --Khoikhoi 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, if we're going to have an official transliteration policy, I'd request that instead of making a distinction between the apostrophe and the back-tick, which are nearly indistinguishable, we do what I see many academic presses do, which is use forward and backward facing semicircle superscripts for the hamza and the ayn (or whichever way it goes). I spent quite a bit of time looking for them in the Unicode documents, and couldn't find the numbers, but I'm sure that they exist, I see them frequently, and they make the diff between hamza and ayn very clear and readable.

Here they are:

ʾ	U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING
	* transliteration of Arabic hamza (glottal stop)
	x (armenian apostrophe - 055A)
	x (arabic letter hamza - 0621)
ʿ	U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING
	* transliteration of Arabic ain (voiced pharyngeal fricative)
	x (armenian modifier letter left half ring - 0559)
	x (arabic letter ain - 0639)
ˀ	U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP
	* ejective or glottalized
	* typographical alternate for 02BC or 02BE
	x (latin letter glottal stop - 0294)
	x (combining hook above - 0309)
ˁ	U+02C1 MODIFIER LETTER REVERSED GLOTTAL STOP
	* typographical alternate for 02BF
	x (latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative - 0295)

This would give: Shiʿa Shiʿa Shiʿa --JWB 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, for the regular English usage of Shi'a -- as opposed to an exact transliteration -- I'd ask that Cunardo respect decisions made in the past that may not be ideal, but are now used in hundreds of articles and just cannot be easily reversed. I'm going to move this article BACK. If Cunard wants to change things, he's going to have to make sure that all editors who work in Islam/Arabic/Middle East-related articles are notified, and that there's a plan in place (a bot?) for changing hundreds of references if all the editors decide to make a change.

Third, I'm asking Cunardo to stop making decisions about Arabic names without consulting anyone. There are names that have English forms that have been used for a long time. Those forms may not match the Arabic, but they are known, and familiar, and ENGLISH. This is the English wikipedia, we use English. We say and write Ali, we don't use `Ali. Please, Cunardo, limit yourself to making sure that every name has both an Arabic form and a proper transliteration, given once at the start of the article. Don't insist that the "proper" transliteration be used everywhere. Zora 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, don't try to represent dozens of editors. So far you're the only one in open opposition to my efforts to clean up articles, and nobody else has really shown any interest in the entire subject. I've been the one making the proposed standard, and I would like all these dozens of supposed editors to help make and implement the policy, but nobody seems to care. Khoikhoi is right, if it's only a proposed standard then it doesn't matter. As to the English argument, I already went over this. There are a dozen way of writing it, so we could sit here all day and argue what the best form is. That's why there's a standard form to use. As to what character to use, there are two characters on the keyboard [` '] and two in the WK edit window [‘ ’], outside of those it would not be practical to use an inaccessible unicode character. I would prefer the edit window characters, but they're less accessible. Cuñado - Talk 00:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunardo, if we're only going to use the hamza and ayn characters once, in the proper transliteration, then it is not that much extra trouble to use non-keyboard characters. We do not need to include them in every single use of every single Arabic word. We pick an English form that's close enough and use it. We use the commonest and easiest forms. Some of the academic books I read make a point of using the "correct" transliteration, with all the diacritics and special symbols, every single time, and some just say, "We're going to use Muhammad, Ali, Umar, etc." and get on with it. Given that most of the editors working on Islam-related articles do NOT know Arabic, and that 99% of the readers and users of the encyclopedia wouldn't know what to make of the differences between Ali, 'Ali, and `Ali, it is good enough to provide a good transliteration just ONCE, for people who really do want to pronounce it according to the dialect of Arabic that they know. The rest of us will make do with a version that is easily readable. The rest of us are just going to say Ali.

Also, try to understand that past choices can make doing the perfectly right thing impossible. I don't even remember where we discussed it, or who was there, but two years or so ago a bunch of editors (Muslim and non-Muslim, Sunni and Shi'a) agreed that Shi'a was OK, and that form is now used all over WP. That initial decision may not have been the best one, but we've got enough of an "installed base" that changing would be a nightmare. Respect practicality! Zora 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If this was the arabic version of Wikipedia I'd see where you're going with this since it is important to write it the right way. However, because this is the english version of wikipedia it is ok to make changes in the roman transliteration of arabic words.--LF2 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Walmens?

I tried to figure out what this word meant, but Google only came up with a musical band or some Dutch meaning. What is Walmens in the section on Demographics ? On 3 April 2006 User:72.192.10.253 replaced 'Saudi' with 'Walmens'. Is this maybe a phonetic transliteration of some Arabic word? Shenme 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Change it back to Saudi, maybe it was vandilism.--LF2 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is sickening.[5]. --Zereshk 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But hey, now they are free at least, thanks to "enduring freedom"... lol... or sort of... --Striver 07:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual/NPOV and the succession

This page is about Shi'a, which obviously takes one stance on the succession, but that doesn't warrant stating their beliefs as fact. From the Overview section:

"Shi'as do not accept the rule of the initial three Sunni caliphs who proclaimed leadership after Muhammad's passing, believing them illegitimate and inferior to Muhammad's family in all respects."

(This seems fine, but then...)

"The caliphs are followed by Sunni Muslims, who ignored Muhammad's chosen successor. The first caliph, Abu Bakr erroneously took over power at a meeting he had at the saqifah with Umar."

In the next few days, barring any posts here expressing grounded objections, i will re-write the passage, including any facts present now.

--KEM 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should look at the history of the article - I would suspect that this version was added in fairly recently by a POV pusher. john k 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-objective writing?

In the History section, there are statements that "However, many Sunni scholars of recent history have become more open towards Shi'a Muslims and some have promoted unity, while others have not. Shi'as has always stressed to seek unity among the Muslims."

This seems a biased point of view i.e. that Shias have always sought unity whereas Sunnis have not. Can someone modify this to be more objective?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokhalevai (talk • contribs)

Actualy, that is the case, Sunni cant stand that we hate Umar. --Striver 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself! I don't think that any muslim should hate Umar. The Prophet Muhammed (SAW) doesn't hate Umar. He just refuses to talk to /associate with him, as described in Bokhari and Muslim. Ali gave Abu Baker allegiance twice, once under compulsion, and six months later freely. Ali could have chosen to fight Abu Baker and Umar, but he chose not to. He said that he was happy to give allegiance to any muslim ruler, and did so. He asked for the Shi'a support and didn't get it! The rest is all rhetoric.

There is no basis for Shi'a and Sunni discord. The differences in Shi'asm and Sunnism are chiefly differences in ignorance. IHusain 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a wikipedia discussion is going to solve the differences between Sunni and Shia muslims. People have been trying to solve it for quite a while now. The best we can do is to just "get along". Peace. --Nkv 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Shi'a clergy

I am actually interested in the differences in the clerical structure and ranking between Shia and Sunni, any idea? Do sunis have Ayatolahs? Do individuals follow a Mojtahed? In Shia the Marjaeh-Taghlid (Mojtahed) can only issue fatwa, who can do that in Sunnat? Kiumars

Actually, there is an article in wiki on The Shi'a clergy, but it is terribly lacking in content. About 1/3 of the very small article presents the Sunni view, and the dynamics of Shi'a clerical authority, who can ijtihad and under what circumstances and by what qualifications are not mentioned. Also the various theological schools of thought in Shi'a islam are entirely unrepresented. It would be great if someone would flesh out that article, and then a proper comparison could be made between shi'a and sunni clergy. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

?The correct pronunciation is "Shi'a," (SHE-ah); and some take offense when they are referred to as "Shiites". Shias believe that this is common sense that has been warped for ridicule sake.

- FrancisTyers · 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need to be bolded. Pronunciation is not any more important than any other piece of information on the page. What we really need is an IPA pronunciation guide in the intro, and perhaps a plural as well. I doubt all Shi'as believe that people who mipronounce the name are doing so against them. I do agree that, if a popular pronunciation is indeed incorrect, we need to provide a clear guide to correct pronunciation on the page. This page should provide that information, but not a lecture on using it correctly.

- KEM 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody understands that IPA pronunciation. Putting it in is a waste of space. Put in a pronunciation that people can actually understand. Armyrifle 19:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the demographic statistics used as a reference come from a non neutral source, The web site refers to Shi'a as a cult, This is hardly neutral, couldn't there be a more neutral source cited as demographic information? Can we for get about pronunciation and look at the references? No agenda here, just wanting good information. --Adjectivity (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)adjectivity

Shia Muslims in East Asia?

Is there any Shia Muslims in the far east? From what I know, East Asian Muslims are all either Shafi (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, southern Philippines, southern China) or Hanafi (northern China) Sunnis. Le Anh-Huy 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, if I remember correct, Indonesia and Malaysia are 99% Ahlus Sunnah and China is like 95%. There is some Shi'a in the area, but a (Malay I think) brother on Myspace informed me that there was no Shi'a there. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll be surprised that there are 2.5 millions Shias in Indonesia (http://www.jalal-center.com/muktamar/2.html) Oleleho (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Really 95% of China is sunni? A "brother" on myspace is being used as a source?! What a joke! Can we please keep the gullible jokers out of Wikipedia? How do you know he's a "brother" it could be anybody pretending to be a "brother" on the internet! Use some common sense "brother"! Wikipedia has an incredibly foolish amount of falsehoods about shias. Especially any page with demographics of any place in Pakistan. People who create those articles usually write about Pakistani shias as if they are from a different planet. Where in reality the term Pakistani Shias should tell you that they are from the same country as Pakistani Sunnis but just belong to a different sect of a religion.

Reference to Ahmadis

I'm new to this and so maybe I didn't look properly in the discussion archives, but I don't see any justification for adding Ahmadi in parentheses after India in the Demographics section. The Shi'a and the Ahmadiyya are two completely different groups and should not be confused with one another --Chef 17 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a and Sunni traditions

I find this statement related to Shi'a having a different Quran, incredibly offensive. Perhaps there should be a special page devoted to offensive and ignorant belief about Shi'a and Sunni Traditions. This type of information has no place in a page devoted to Shi'asm. If there are no objection, I will delete it. -- IHusain 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this piece into the Misconceptions section where is sounds much less offensive. -- IHusain 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Shi'a / Sunni differences seems incomplete. There must be more substantive differences between these two traditions -- otherwise why are they killing each other?PedEye1 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency between English and Chinese version of the document

In the English version, it said that about 85-90% of the Muslims are Sunni's, while 10-15% are Shiite's. In the Chinese version, the split is 65-70% Sunni's, and 30-35% are Shiite's.

Which version is correct?

Shi'a compromise 10-15%, not 30-35% as per Blanchard xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographic map

There should be a demographic map in this article. I find some maps . Please choose 1 or 2 of them to put it in the article. [6] and [7]. I propose to use both of them as fair use.--Sa.vakilian 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current map should be removed. There should be a demographic map of Shias all over the world. Not a demographic map of Iran. Shias are majorities in many other states such as Bahrain, Azerbaijan, and Iraq, with significant populations elsewhere.

The current map is completely irrelevant to the article, unless similar maps of all other Shia countries are added as well.--Zereshk 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I add to demoghraohic map. One of them is released under Public Domain and I put the other one as fair use.--Sa.vakilian 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are very good maps. dastet dard nakoneh.--Zereshk 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The second map shows uzbeckistand going containing Krygistan and tajikistan and shows it's own capital outside it's borders. total map malifuction. Zazaban 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's Family Seed: Truth or Untruth?

I have read somewhere that most of the contemporary descendents of Muhammad's family lineage in the middle east are Shi'as. I know that some might think that it is very convenient for them (only the Prophet's line as rightful leaders, in a way), but what significance does it have after all? Are Muhammad's kin worthy of being relied upon for guidance or it doesn't matter anymore?

Well, it depends on who founded your madhhab. --Striver 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No it does not depend on who founded you madhab. Prophet Muhammaed had no male descendants. ~~Unflavoured November 14, 2006

Muhammad had no male children.Isaac Crumm 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but relatives close to him DID have male children, particularly Ali. If I understood the question well, it refers to Muhammad's family as a whole, not his children.

The daughter of the prophet is married to Ali ibn Abu Talib... and there children are descendants, this is like our Prophet Jesus who there is hadiths saying he is a decendent of Prophet Ismael. He however didn't have a biological father therefore the "decendancy" passed from his mother 87.194.54.232 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true that almost all descendants of Muhammad from his grandson Husayn ibn Ali (son of Muhammad's daughter Fatima and Muhammad's cousin Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib) are Shi'a. I just want to add a point here. Just as prophethood is not about privilege of governance but of divine duty towards the mankind, being the spiritual guide of faithful Muslims is not the same as being a leader of a geographical state. While people have the right to elect their governor, it is God alone who has the right to appoint His representative. This is what the Shi'a believe that God has promised continuous guidance through the line of Muhammad, which was continued through his only child Fatima. --MisbahHusein (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Map and table issues

The table shows Oman being 75% Shia but the map doesn't show anything! Zazaban 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The table is wrong in some cases. For example according to official statistics only 89% of Iranians are Shiite.[8] There is another problem about the table. It is sorted on the basis of Shi'a population percent. It means this table doesn't include India with 10 million Shi'a. Also the map may be wrong in some case like Yemen.--Sa.vakilian 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two seprate aticles about the demography of Shi'a Shi'a population and Demographics of Islam. So I propose to remove the table from this article.--Sa.vakilian 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Image:Shiite-1.jpg map but it's a pity as i see that it was removed by a bot because of its disputed status of fair use images. I believe it is more accurate than Image:Muslim distribution.jpg. I don't have Photoshop or an image software but if you have you can recreate it yourself. -- Szvest 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

There should be done some corrections about Yemen and uzbeckistan.--Sa.vakilian 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically incomprehensible

As a native English speaker, I find this line in the into paragraph of the article to be nigh incomprehensible:

Although Alawites known as Shi'a but because of their idea about Ali this claim is disputed, though mainstream shias denounce for taking an extreme view of Ali, and not actually following the pillars of islam.

Unfortunately I do not know enough about the topic to give the line a good copy edit. Can someone knowledgeable on Islam fix the sentence's grammatical issues and make it understandable? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph with proper grammar, though I did not research the claim: "Alawites are also Shi'a, due to their beliefs regarding Ali. However, mainstream Shi'as denounce them for taking an extreme view of Ali, and for not actually following the pillars of Islam." If no one objects, and the paragraph is comprehensible, replace it. ~~User:Unflavoured, 11:05, 14 November 2006

See also "Talj, I mean Talk" below.
Why do not would-be editors of middle-east articles first acquire a fair command of English?--SilasW (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of Shi'a Muslims

The article states that 15% of Muslims are Shi'a and then goes on to say that there are 400 million Shi'a Muslims. This would imply over 2 billion Muslim people in the world, which is not correct. I am suggest dropping the 400 million, as almost all sources agree with the 15% claim. Elijahmeeks 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiites are 130 million to 190 million people.[9]--Sa.vakilian 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the change based on your source Vakilian. OLD: Today there are roughly 400 million Shi'a (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) all over the world, and around three quarters of those reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3] NEW:Today there estimated to be between 130 and 190 million Shi'a Muslims[1] (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) throughout the world, about three quarters of whom reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3]--Chobbs138 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Theology

Being a twelver, it is not easy to come to this conclusion, but the principles and and practices of religion does not belong her, since they are twelver doctrines. Hence, i am moving them to the proper article. --Striver 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Shia Islam. It's the most supported option in the straw poll below, and seems to be the consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Shi'a Shi'a Islam → Shi‘a Islam — Can we please agree to change the title from Shi'a to Shi‘a. It is terribly technically inaccurate to spell it with an apostrophe. Most people won't notice the difference anyway, and I will fix all the redirects to point to the new title, so it won't affect any other pages. Cuñado - Talk 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey – Support votes

• support move to Shi`a Islam, not Shi‘a Islam (see comment below). dab (𒁳) 13:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• support move (preferably to Shi`a Islam, being easier to type; or, in case that fails, to Shi‘a Islam) --tyomitch 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• oppose move as per User:Evv and User:WilliamThweatt in Discussion below. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either use a correct transliteration (e.g., Shīʿah) or the English form but not a hybrid. —  AjaxSmack  06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Personally, I believe that Shia Islam makes more sense as it is commonplace in English language. I am perfectly aware that it is not a correct transliteration. Regards, Asterion^talk 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I also thought (with a certain amount of prejudice) that "Shia" would be more common, but then I checked it:

• Google Print search for "Shi'a Islam": 397 books.
• Google Print search for "Shia Islam": 275 books.
• Google Scholar search for "Shi'a Islam": 395 results.
• Google Scholar search for "Shia Islam": 253 results.
• Amazon.com search for "Shi'a Islam": 324 books.
• Amazon.com search for "Shia Islam": 369 books.
• Britannica's article uses Shi'ah.
• Wiktionary uses Shi'a.

Best regads, Evv 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is the English Wikipedia. "Shia" is the English word. We should use the English word for the title, not a transliteration. Where else do we use a transliteration instead of the English word? That having been said, however, for the sake of convenience I am not opposed to keeping the current version.--WilliamThweatt 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't now how we can transliterate "شيعَه" in English. There are many other words which have ع like Ash'ari, Murji'ah and Mu'tazili. We can look haw they have been transliterated.--Sa.vakilian 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should have already mentioned this. There are very organized standards for Arabic transliteration. See here, here, and here for more information. There is no question by any standard that the current version (with apostrophe) is wrong. Cuñado - Talk 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the word "Murji'ah" has a hamza, not an `ayin. Cuñado - Talk 10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, no disrespect intended at all, but I think you are missing the point of all the arguments here. I am familiar with the Arabic language and it's script. I totally agree with you that there are established standards for transliterating letters such as ayin. However, the arguments are that this is the English Wikipedia. In naming articles, we use English words that conform to English standards of orthography, not transliterations. English has a word, namely, "Shia" for this topic, hence the English word should be used instead of a transliteration. For example, the article on the Italian City of Rome is entitled "Rome" not "Roma". The article for the Southeast Asian language of the Khmu people is called "Khmu" not "Khmu'", as it would be in a proper transliteration. The point is we are not trying to get the transliteration correct in the title because the title is not a transliteration, it's an English word based on or adapted from the Arabic. I hope this makes a little more sense now.--WilliamThweatt 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The preferred spelling of the English word Shia seems to be the version without an apostroph/quotation mark. —Ruud 12:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary	Spelling
MW	Shia
AHD	Shi·ah or Shi·a also Shi·‘ah or Shi·‘a
OALD	Shia (also Shi’a)
CALD	Shia

I'd support a move to Shi`a Islam, seeing that we have Qur'an (viz., apostrophe for hamza, 'reverse single quote' for `ayin). A move to Shiʿa Islam or Shi‘a Islam would be over the top (also inconsistent, if anything, it would have to be Šīʿah Islām), seeing we have Qur'an, not Qurʾan or Qurʾān. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that to standardize we should use the 'grave accent' (`), but when used in the middle of a word it becomes ugly. The MOS was created with a standard transliteration that is easy to use and type, hence the grave accent (on the keyboard), but when I tried to move it to Shi`a (grave accent), I received a lot of opposition (see discussions above). The 'turned comma' (‘) looks much better, and is actually the preferred way to transliterate, just not as convenient to type. I suggest either using Shia (English, per discussion above) or Shi‘a (turned comma). I think the important part is that we don't use the apostrophe, which is just wrong. Cuñado - Talk 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to use the apostrophe because it's not a huge stretch for my little finger, and it's a lot easier to type. I want to keep Shi'a because there are thousands of articles with Shi'a. Yes, I know it's not a proper transliteration. Yes, a different character might be better. If I were publishing a book, I'd probably use the upside down raised comma, or left quote mark. BTW, a lot of readers know that the ' is a glottal stop as well as a contraction. When science fiction writers invent alien names, they often throw in apostrophes for glottal stops. See the WP Apostrophe article. Zora 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll for clarification

The discussion above has gotten rather complicated. I'm going to try and sum up opinions. Please feel free to add yourself to multiple lists. ~Cuñado

Shia

Pros: Can avoid all this discussion by using no marking for the `ayin, the English way of spelling.

• weak support Cuñado
• support Asterion
• support WilliamThweatt
• support Ruud
• Weak support Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Weak support ← ANAS ^Talk?
• weak support Evv
• support Kralizec! (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support (it's much more common in english books) Ammar 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support —  AjaxSmack  06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Armyrifle (talk)

Shi`a

Pros: Following the MOS, this would be the easiest to type, but looks a bit funny.

• support Cuñado
• support dab (𒁳)
• support tyomitch
• Support ← ANAS ^Talk?
• Weak Support It looks weird, but it does take into consideration the `ayin. Armyrifle 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shi‘a

Pros: Follows the majority of Arabic standards, and would be an accurate representation of the `ayin. Most people will not even notice the difference.

• strong support Cuñado
• weak support tyomitch
• weak support Asterion^talk
• Support ← ANAS ^Talk?
• weak support Evv

Shi'a

Pros: Zora likes this better because her pinky doesn't have to move as far when typing it. If I was a dictator I would have Zora jailed for this suggestion.

• support Zora
• strong oppose Cuñado
• weak support WilliamThweatt
• Strong support Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Oppose ← ANAS ^Talk?
• Strong support ( in case the spell is like "She Ah" )Ammar 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose For those who know Arabic transliteration, this makes the word look like "She" [gluttoral stop] "Ah" when it is really "Sh" [`ayin] "a". Armyrifle 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments

• I would definitely question the assumption that <Shia> is an English word. The dictionary.com entry gives a variety of spellings, including: Shiʿah, Shiʿa, Shiʿite, Shiite, Shiʿa, Shiʿah, Shiʿi, Shiah, Shia, Shi'ah or Shi'a. Almost all of them use the half circle representing the `ayin. The sheer variety of possible spellings in English means that a standard transliteration should be used, per the MOS for wikipedia. This fact sheet shows the transliterations of `ayin from the 6 most widely used standards. 4 of them use the half ring <ʿ>, and the UN and LC use the turned comma <‘>. The wikipedia MOS is based off of the UN and LC standards, but two other standards, Qalam and SATTS use the grave accent <`>, which is what wikipedia uses as the standard version to make it easier to type. So in other words, the grave accent is preferred, then after that the turned comma. The half ring is not used due to browser display issues. Other than these three, there is no other option unless we start making stuff up. The apostrophe is not used by people who know what they're doing. Cuñado - Talk 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then how come this bring up pages like al-islam.org and its Shi'a encyclopedia? Are they both ignorant? --Striver - talk 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've already shown that every standard for Arabic romanization differentiates between hamza and `ayin. Showing examples of Muslim sites that are ignorant of transliteration standards is not an argument for using the wrong version on wikipedia. Cuñado - Talk 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, you keep confusing transliteration with naturalizing a word in English. If it's naturalized -- stolen, per James Nicoll's famous quote --

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary.

-- then it's not going to have any letters or symbols that aren't on the standard qwerty keyboard. I agree that Shi'a or Shia hasn't been fully naturalized into English yet -- there's still a lot of variation. However, we're going to to have to move in the direction of naturalization, not transliteration. We can't expect a bunch of random editors, many of whom know no Arabic, to cope with Arabic transliteration. I agree that we should have a proper Arabic transliteration at least once in every article, so that people who do know Arabic know how to pronounce it. We very very much need editors like you who can do that.

I don't care as much about names. Minor Arab generals' names are never going to be naturalized into English. But a word like Shi'a/Shia is going to be naturalized. I'd plump for Shi'a just because we've standardized on that so far. If the non-WP world eventually standardizes on Shia, then we'll run a bot to do a search and replace. Zora 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the grave accent is on the keyboard (left of the 1). And I don't totally oppose using <Shia>, but I don't see any evidence that a majority of professional references use the same naturalized form. Besides the debate of how to represent the `ayin (or not represent it), there is another debate of how to represent the ta' marbuta (or not represent it). See above for possible spellings and google rankings. <Shia> doesn't even get the largest number of hits, let alone a majority.

Here's a few more examples from major news media. CNN uses: Shiite, Shia, Shia and Shi'a in the same paragraph, Shii, and Shi'ite. BBC uses: Shii and Shi'i in the same paragraph, Shia, Shi'a, Shia, Shiite, and Shi'ite. Al-Jazeera uses: Shia, Shi'a, Shiite, and Shi'ite. here is a page using Shi'a, Shia, Shi'ite, Shiaa, Shiite all at the same time. If you think that this is a word that has become standard English, then what word are you talking about? It's exactly for this reason that standards were created, so there is some kind of order. Cuñado - Talk 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. There is no standard or common word for transliterating شيعة. A CNN article that uses Shia and Shi'a in the same paragraph is solid proof. So let's just standardize it here. Forget about strict transliterations; we need to use a user-friendly word, which most editors, around the world, would find easier to use. So right now, I think it would be better to move to Shi`a. It is both easy to use and, most importantly, correct. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Either use a correct transliteration (e.g., Shīʿah) or the English form but not a hybrid. —  AjaxSmack  06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

muslim_distribution.jpg

The Map is not correct. The provinces Gilan and Mazandaran are shown as Sunni, while they are Shi'a. Please replace the map with another one. Sohanaki 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by 84.255.151.106

I've just reverted four edits by this user; I thought it worth commenting on my reasons here, since the first one looked helpful — it was a removal of a number of external links, which if you ask me this page needs! The second was changing "10% or more" to "15%" (and a change that I missed at first, from a Brittanica reference to a weasel-worded "some estimates" — it wasn't good grammar either); I say that the former phrasing better represents the conflicting nature of the statistics, but since I was the one who phrased it that way, all the more reason to defend my decision to revert, right? The third one removed the NPOVifying phrase "Shias believe that they adhere to..." and just made it "Shias adhere to..." (but again, the original was my phrasing). The fourth was blatant misinformation, cutting words to make the article say that 85% of Muslims are Shia. It was that one that sealed the decision for me to revert -- and I figured it was best to go right back and undo the link pruning, since my ability to assume good faith on the part of this editor was lost.

Incidentally, I still think the article needs its external links pruned. Anybody want to volunteer to examine them? -- Perey 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaand this would be the other reason for documenting my revert here: so I feel more justified in coming along and redoing it. 74.104.154.50 reverted my revert and then added some external links. 24.249.27.77 reverted way back even further, without an edit comment, reintroducing a lot of cruft to the introduction. 72.66.216.159 and Shadow gost then kindly undid some of the absurdity (the former fixed the 85%/15% problem, Shadow gost reverted the uncommented revert), but I think a wholesale revert to before 74.104.154.50's revert is justified. (I will preserve Shadow gost's last edit, removing Tijani from the list of Shia sects.) -- Perey 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've been reverted by Namez 2007 (a one-minute old account, incidentally). This will be the last revert I will perform, so as to not get into edit wars or run afoul of the three-revert rule. Could people please discuss here before reverting more? -- Perey 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to the Falsely Alleged Quranic Documentaion Created by Zereshk

Hello bro !

Quran 5:55 { Your friend is ALLAH and HIS Messenger and the believers who observe Prayer and pay the Zakaat and worship God alone.

The word Used is (waallatheena Plural from single arabic word Allazy, meaning those) whom all Belivers , whom do what?...yes..

yuqeemoona (plural from single arab root word Yqeem, meaning establish) Prayer,pay the Zakaat and worship God alone.

I dont know where you get the idead that verse 5:55 talk to one person, where as it is talking to groups in plural forms?.

Verse 5:3 word used AAalaykumu (means upon you) not Alikom ( means you Ali).

Verse [5:67] O Messenger ! convey to the people what has been revealed to thee from thy Lord; and if thou do it not, thou has not conveyed HIS Message. And ALLAH will protect thee from men. Surely ALLAH guides not the disbelieving people.

What revealed to the Prophet is Ali? If that is the case it will contradict the Quran itself which says

Quran {Alif, Lam, Mim, tsad. (It is) a Scripture that is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) - so let there be no heaviness in thy heart therefrom - that thou mayst warn thereby, and (it is) a Reminder unto believers, saying :Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow authority(a besides it , how little do you mind} (Quran 7:1-3.

[003:105] Do not be like those who splintered (into sects) and differed (among themselves), even though clear proofs had already come to them. It is they, for whom there exists the severest (most awful) punishment.

That is the Quran that crash all your Claims, anything else be it Hadith or scholars works , is just water under bridge if Contrast or oppose the Quran.81.156.147.250 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

انما ولیکم الله و رسوله و المؤمنون الذین یقیمون الصلوة و یؤتون الزکوة و هم راکعون

1-Wali doesn't mean friend. Because of "Ennama". All of believers are our friends but Ennama is used for restriction. It has restricted something or somebody among a group. Thus it doesn't mean friend.

2- Who are they? They're believers who pray and donate while they're genuflecting. The "Va hom rakeun" is Haal and means while they're genuflecting.

3- We should refer to Hadith to find who are them. Who are these guys which has restricted from the other believers and for what reason.--Sa.vakilian 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Before Going to Hadith...and verify it/ proof it ....[and because we don’t have Doctor who space and time travel Machines to verify the Hadith or proof it and to know what verse 5:55 talks about]..

Lets Look at Verse Quran 5:55..and lets subject your Hadith to Quranic X-RAY.

The verse says

انما ولیکم الله و رسوله و المؤمنون الذین یقیمون الصلوة و یؤتون الزکوة و هم راکعون

The verse does not say ... والذي أمن وأقام الصلاة ...meaning one person. BUT the scripture says....المؤمنون الذین یقیمون ....Meaning Many people Plural forms ..not one Individual person.

Therefore it is NOT one person....as shia keep saying, and by only ..pointing that to Immam Ali Radiya allah Ahnhu

Therefore any Hadith that Says ... 5:55 talk about one person and named Ali….sorry to say ..that Hadith is Buffoons, Because it Contradicts...The all verse 5:55 its words, the grammar and its context itself

Meaning The Verse Talk about Given allegiance to Allah , His Messenger and to the People of faith, whom establish Prayers, and Paying Zakat and doing that in submission to Allah.

Who are they? ......Answer..All Muslims and any Muslim being woman and man who Follow that Criteria..not just one person from a blood line family the Messenger PBUH..because Prayer is established for all of us, and Zakat is compulsary for all of us ..the verse talks about any Muslim being woman and man.

Quran is not only for specific people( bllod line ),and at specific time..It is for all Humanity ...This is supported by many verses in Quran see, and All Muslims should be Awliya= allegiance to Allah , his messenger and to each others(bening Male and Female).

‏9:71 والمؤمنون والمؤمنات بعضهم اولياء بعض يامرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ويقيمون الصلاة ويؤتون الزكاة ويطيعون الله ورسوله اولئك سيرحمهم الله ان الله عزيز حكيم

..see also.. ‏38:87 ان هو الا ذكر للعالمين

‏68:52 وماهو الا ذكر للعالمين

‏21:107 وماارسلناك الا رحمة للعالمين

‏81:27 ان هو الا ذكر للعالمين

I don’t Subject Quran to Hadith..but ..I subject any Hadith to Quranic x_ray.. because Allah say

And if the apostle (Muhammad) were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath). But verily this is a Message for the God-fearing. And We certainly know that there are amongst you those that reject (it), But truly (Revelation) is a cause of sorrow for the Unbelievers, And, surely, it is the absolute truth, So glorify the name of the Almighty, your Lord [69:044-52]

Therefore any Hadiths Should Be subjected to Quranic X-ray.

a) if it is Comply with the QURAN then NO Choice but to accept it coz Definitely it is from Muhammad PBUH

b) if it opposes the Quranic teachings and tenets ..then Drop it out, coz it is defiantly false

LET the Quran itself FUNCTION as the Furqan (CRITIRION ) , …that is WHY QURAN is Called the CRITIRION.

81.153.30.157 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer anybody who likes to follow this debate to especial sites which includes Sunni and Shi'a Tafsirs Tafsir comparison, [10] and [11] . Because there isn't appropriate place to discuss about tafsir.--Sa.vakilian 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem some one has to THINK for you..you can not Think for yourself..as if as you are brainless..come on The Quran text are clear.217.44.222.210 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shia Sahaba? /notable shia muslims

I'm recommending that this section be removed. Shias did not exist at the time of the Prophet or Sahaba.

that's absolutely right. i support your remark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.69.135.151 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Shia sahaba are the ones who supported Ali's right to the caliphate.

>>> No, that is incorrect. There's a difference in supporting Ali's right to caliphate and believing in the 12 Imams, and other things that today would fall under Shia doctrine. Shia Sahaba did not exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisceschica (talk • contribs)

i concur. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please read your own books? The Twelve Khilafat hadith and beliefs about Imam al-Mahdi (AS) coming from the house of the Prophet are in Bukhari, Muslim, throughout the Sitta. Undoubtedly Salman and others knew about these beliefs. --Enzuru 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a big mistake in that chapter. because salman farsi and bilal for example were NOT shia muslims. they were followers of the prophet, hence they were sunni. maybe they are considered notable by actual shia, but they are not part of the shia movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.69.135.151 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Although Shi'a doctrine as well as Sunni doctrine was formed 100 years later, we should mention that Shi'a was existed in the first century but in different context. In the first century non of the sect which we are familiar with were formed. But the term of Shi'a (Follower) was used for followers of Ali, Otman , Muawia, etc. Because of relationship between politic and Islam we can't say it was just a political term. Thus you can see some Sahabas and like Zushahadatayn and Ammar fought with Muawia beside Ali. Some of these Sahabas also refer to Ali as a teacher of Islam and ask their questions from him and believe that he knows the reality of Islam. Shi'a Sahaba means Sahabas who believe in Ali's right to succeed the Prophet(PBUH) and the rightful teacher of Islam after holy prophet. Their faith has confirmed by Ali and later Imams. The style of these Sahabas has remained as an example of loyalty and truthfulness for later Shi'as. Today Shi'a has recognized them as authentic sources for Sunnah of the Prophet. This doesn't mean that Shi'a are against other Sahaba but it means Shi'a hasn't recognized the others as authentic sources for Sunnah of the Prophet.--Sa.vakilian 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

describing individuals like Bilal and others as "notable Shi'a Muslims" is wrong (see: anachronism). as you said, the shi'i doctrine came into existence much later. i understand that the word is being used here with two meanings, one which you believe is accurate (i.e. the lexical), and one which makes itself apparent to the readers (i.e. they were "Shi'a Muslims"). if we use the lexical meaning, then a) it shouldn't be a subsection of "notable Shi'a Muslims", b) everyone was a "follower", but of different personalities c) they didn't have the same views as those later personalities also listed who are venerated by the Shi'a (you would disagree on this) d) referring to them as "Shi'a", when common encyclopedic usage (there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a lexicon) of the word implies "Shi'ism" or "Shi'a Islam", is misleading. i have not addressed the issue of how exactly listing such individuals would be verified (using academic works), because that requires the premise that it's actually correct to have a list like this in the first place. it becomes even more absurd if we consider doing the opposite in Sunni Islam, i.e. listing "Sunni sahaba", justifying it by saying "what we mean is sahaba who followed the Sunnah." i think it's best that we avoid this kind of classification altogether, as it's rather misleading. thanks. ITAQALLAH 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

However some of Sahaba are authentic for Shi'a and the others are not. We can use another title for it. --Sa.vakilian 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. To be honest, I'm offended that anyone would label any of the Sahabas as Shias. They did not believe in many things Shias today believe. Please do not keep putting that section back up.Pisceschica 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can leave the section there but rename it to something like "Sahaba venerated by the Shia" or something similar to indicate their liking for them. To call the Sahaba themselves Shia or Sunni is inaccurate (not to mention a hornets nest). --Nkv 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While you're removing that section, you might also want to remove the part in the Shi'a Islam box (on the side in the article) titled "the Four Companions", since that also suggests those four were Shi'ite. Paul Willocx (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree Pisceschica or any other of them, they were indead Shi'a, but writing that as a fact would violate NPOV, so we need to settle with "Shaba favored by Shi'a Muslims". --Striver - talk 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is EXTREMELY POV and will cause a LOT of controversy to say "Shia didn't exist during the time of the Prophet" (sawa). Ignoring the fact that that comment is 100% incorrect and sounds like it was made by an intolerant person who knows nothing about the Qur'an and Hadith (already you can see the controversy)... Armyrifle 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They were Shia and not Sunni. The term Sunni came in the 15/15th Century when the Safavids of Iran were in power. The concept of Sharia was first propagated by Hadhrath Nuh (as). The followers of Hadhrath Nuh (as) path were referred to as Shi’a. This is clear from the fact that we read when referring to Hadhrath Ibrahim (as) Allah (swt) says that he was following the religion of Hadhrath Nuh (as).

We read in Surah As-Saffat (Ch:37) Verse 83:

“Verily Ibrahim was a Shi’a of Nuh”.

The Prophet (s) was likewise from the people of Ibrahim that is because Allah (swt) says in Surah al Baqarah verse 134:

“They say: "Become Jews or Christians and you would be guided (To salvation)." Say No (I would rather) follow the Religion of Abraham”

Surah Al-Qasas - Verse 15 again uses the word Shia for Prophet Musa (AS) followers. This therefore means that Hadhrath Muhammad (s) was a Shi’a of Hadhrath Ibrahim (as) - who was a Shi’a of Hadhrath Nuh (as). The term Shi’a, should therefore not be viewed with hostility rather previous Prophets and their adherents were Shi’a.

“And he entered the City at a time when its people were not watching: and he found there two men fighting,- one of his Shi’a, and the other, of his enemies”. (Qur'an 28:15).

In this verse, Hadhrath Musa (as)’s party are referred to as Shi’a because Hadhrath Musa (as) was Shi’a. His followers were Shi’a as declared by the Holy Qur’an. This fact is acknowledged by the scholars of Ahl’ul Sunnah.

In Tafsir Bidhawi Volume 4 page 125 (Egypt edition) “One was his Shi’a in others one that followed his path”.

Allamah Farah Baghawi in his “Mu’allim ul Tanzil” Volume 3 page 175 (India, Bombay edition) writes:

“The fighter was a Shi’a - a momin, his enemy was a Kaffir”.

Shi’a in light of hadith of the Prophet(s) Hadhrath Ali (as) and his Shi’a are the best of creations

So please put this back up. As it being removed is wrong. Who are we to deny what our own books say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.30.36 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The logo of "Shia"

Qassoom 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the logo put there in green suitable for the representation of Shia. The logo is mainly used by the "Alaweya" group; which is a far cousin to Shia. Shia simply don't have a "symbol" or "logo" to them...

I agree. Maybe a caligraphi of the "14 ma'ssumin" would be better.

Please look at this debate:substitution of zulfiqar symbol by "Five persons" (PANJ TAN) symbol--Sa.vakilian 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a golden dome - which is an internationally recognized as a result of recent bombing. the green colour of the template might then become gold --Gerash77 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

POV intro sentence

I hate to seem too picky, but can we agree that this sentence, "Shias adhere to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and the religious guidance of his family..." is rather biased against Sunni Islam?Proabivouac 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "According to the Shia, the Shia adhere..." better? Armyrifle 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that Shi`a, and only Shi`a, adhere to the teachings of the Prophet. Not only is that very point-of-view, it is highly prejudicial against non Shi`ite Muslims. TechBear 02:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on page

under Overview, found this today (10.3.07) on the page: "Shia Muslims descendents from Prophet Muhamme propheouse") and the father of the Prophet Muhammad's only bloodline as opposed the caliphate recognized by believe that the Sunn the succession of believe that Ali was appointed successor by the prophet's direct order on many to that of e most worthy of emulation.ts's wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid — the malei Muslims. Shia MuslimsIslamrecognize head of the Ahl al-Bayt , the most trusted carriers and protectors of Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah (traditions), and thor "people of the [Prophet's] h TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE Moda fooka die!! In particular, Shia Muslims occasions, and that he is therefore the rightful leader of the Muslim faith." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.249.44 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Conformity

Should this article be formatted the same as the other branches of Islam? While they are two separate entities, it would help the public be able to compare and contrast the various sects. --D 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC) St. Ann School Of Naples Rules

Yemen - Majority?

This articles states that Shia Muslims constitutes the majority in Yemen. According to the Islam in Yemen article, this is not true. What is the correct, then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamid-Masri (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Lock this article

Please lock this article from editing from guests and just-signed-up users (ironically, im writing this comment as a guest) due to vandalism 87.194.54.232 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RFPP. --Chris (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

misconceptions

the referenced article is no longer known as "Misconceptions about the Shia". some of the material in this section takes sides, which is only natural given the title. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nahj.gif

Image:Nahj.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV statement in the first paragraph

Is this a NPOV statement? "Muhammad's bloodline continues only through his beloved daughter Fatima Zahra [...]" Would "beloved daughter" be used in an NPOV encyclopedia article? It's a red flag in my mind.

i think by beloved, it means beloved to Prophet Muhammed (saws) Yahussain 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

At first the section states that Shi'as form a majority of the population in Yemen; then later on it states the opposite - that they are a significant minority. So which is true? RCSB 08:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Long Quotation from Nasr:Please read this before remove it

I'm familiar with wikipedia and I know that it's not suitable to narrate such a long quotation and I know that I should rewrite it but I copied it deliberately. Why?

Because he has described an important point which I thought about for many years and I don't know how should I represent it. I couldn't explain it by myself. He has done it so carefully and briefly that I couldn't write it in a better way. So let it be remained there. Thanks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaida war on shia ?

Why al-qaida in iraq declared war on shia ? al-qaida said it will fight crossaders (christians) , Jaws , but why shia ?--Max Mayr 10:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

During the history some of the Muslims have believed that Shia is a heretical sect and killed Shia or fought with the Shia states.Al-Qaida in iraq affected by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who had harsh attitude toward Shia. You find some information in Shia Islam#History of Shia-Sunni relations and or refer to Sunni-Shia relations‎ for more information. Of course we can add some information in this article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

New addition of muslim scholars

Were Avicenna, al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Haytham and al-Farabi Shi'a Muslims? A repetitive, persistent edit insists that they are, but the editor refuses to add a citation to this article or the respective articles for each scholar. I don't know whether these men were Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to Wikipedia requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic please shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In most of the case we are not sure. Henry Corbin guessed Avicenna and al-Farabi were Shia. But I think this issue isn't relevant to the article and we can remove their name.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation should be removed from this paragraph.

I believe the text below should be edited and "citation needed" should be remove after Ghadir Khum as Shia Islam is unanimous about the events at Ghadir Khum. It is worth mentioning that other sects of Islam do not agree with this interpretation of the Ghadir Khum, however, this page is about Shia sect and should put forth the Shia interpretation of the events.

I believe the text should be changed from :

The Shia believe that the split between the Shia and Sunni began with Muhammad's death, when Abu Bakr was accepted as the successor to Muhammed by the majority of Muslims, then Umar and Uthman. "They believe that the successorship was given to Ali at Ghadir Khum (a hadith accepted by Shi’a scholars)[citation needed], and that the testimony that can be traced back to reliable sources is to be trusted, while traditions that cannot be fully verified are suspect.

to the following :

The Shia believe that the split between the Shia and Sunni began with Muhammad's death, when Abu Bakr was accepted as the successor to Muhammed by the majority of Muslims, then Umar and Uthman. "They believe that the successorship was given to Ali at Ghadir Khum (a hadith unanimously accepted by Shi’a scholars).

I have provided reference below, this book provides numerous references to Ghadir:

http://www.dartabligh.org/books/audio/Ghadir%20Sermon.pdf

(Faiz72 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)) Thanks Faiz

Misleading Statement in Intro

The Intro states that Shia Muslims are the second largest minority sect, however since Sunni Muslims represent a majority of all Muslims, it is actually the largest minority sect of Islam. I propose deleting the word "minority" in the first sentence and adding the word "second" before the word "largest". It would then read: "Shī‘a Islam, also Shi‘ite Islam, Shi'i Islam or Shi‘ism (Arabic: شيعة; šīʿa), is the second largest denomination (10-20%) based on the Islamic faith after Sunni Islam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.184.19 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Minority"

The lead now says Shiaism "is the second largest denomination (10-20%) of the Islamic Faith, after Sunni Islam," which suggests there may be a third and forth largest denomination, when there is not.

I purpose changing it to "is a minority denomination of Islam making up about 10-20% of the world's Muslims, almost all of the rest of Muslims being Sunni." which is clearer. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But there are other denominations, though less clearly defined. Sufism is an example of something that could or could not be described as such a denomination. I don't think that describing it as the second-largest is inaccurate, but I think that saying that those are the only two interpretations would be. Peter Deer (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter that there are other interpretations - Sufism is not really a separate denomination, as there are both Sunni Sufis and Shi'a Sufis, but the Ibadi's in Oman, for instance, are neither Sunni nor Shi'a. That said, I have no objections to BoogaLouie's suggestion, as those other denominations are really extremely small in numbers compared to the main two. Paul Willocx (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the original statement is slightly more accurate. Perhaps something like "of the two major denominations it represents only 10-20% of the Islamic Faith" would be better worded? Peter Deer (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DRUZE???

The begining of this artilce states Druze consider themselves Shi'ah but this is disputed by mainstream Shi'ah. In fact the reverse is true!! Druze DO NOT Consider themselves Shi'ah, or Ismaili, some do not even consider themselves Muslims according to the mainstream definition and schism of Islam (Shi'ah and Sunnah), only accepting the term Islam upon deep Suffi interpretation of what it truly mean to be Muslim, but otherwhise based on the mainstream Islam today, Druze DO NOt associate with it! If anything at all it is Shiah who like to consider Druze as Shi'ah, displayed by the Ismaili Agha Khan. But Druze time and time again disassociate themselved from the partisans of Ali, just because Druze have similar Batani principals, they differ to much from the practical everyday form of Shiism to be even considered under their branch, and most Druze would rejectthis title before a Shi'i would reject the title for him (they quit before they are fired!) So please correct this because it displays a personal opinion void of an true knowledge or fact! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsb3antisophist (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Verify and edit. Be bold. If it's false and you can provide reliable and neutral sources do so by all means. Peter Deer (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming to this party late, but I heartily oppose the removal of the Druze from this page. They identify themselves as a Shi'a madhhab, not a distinct diin, and I'll write up an equivalent version of the "sectarian" section (aqida, etc.). They are a reformist movement of the Ismaa3iliyya and most of the confusion about their status is due to political issues (many are Israeli citizens and fight in the military), secrecy and slander - many believe they deify Caliph al-Hakim, which is untrue. em zilch (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to Islam missing

The article should link to Islam in the main-intro paragraph, instead of only the Sunni Islam article.
~ender:40:AM MST

== Status of graven images in Shia? ==

Looking both in Shia, and in the main Islam article I wasn't able to find a reference to the prohibition of images made of people? I had read this somewhere in my readings of Islam, however I was checking out a photo of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meeting with an American diplomat with his picture on the wall, and wondering how that could be permissible.
~ender:40:AM MST

There is no express prohibition in Qoraan or Hadith. However there are three Ahadiths from which this prohibition is inferred indirectly from it's interpretation of the text. First is the Hadith of Ayesha in which when the Prophet returned home, Ayesha had hung in her chamber curtains which contained pictures & they distracted the Prophet from concentration in the Salat prayer, so he asked her to remove & she removed them & cut them up to make cushion covers which he allowed them as they did not create any more any distraction. Second is the painters will be asked on the Day of Judgment to blow soul into the pictures they painted of the living, unable to do so they will be subject to a grave punishment for making a likeness of a God's creation "Youdhahoun khalq Alllah"(يضاهون خلق الله) & being unable to make them to live. Third is that the angels do not enter a dwelling which contains pictures. The word 'picture' has been interpreted to be a drawing or an etching or a graven image of a living-being. Since photographic image is none of that but it is a reflection of light, the prohibition does not apply to it, but some Muslims extend the prohibition to the photographic images also, by misinterpretation of the word 'picture' in its meaning at the time of revelation, which is now even applied to the photographic image.The scholars have interpreted the words "God's creation" from the Hadith to mean "living-beings with soul". So the prohibition is not applicable to the inanimate objects & inanimate beings as vegetation, plants, trees, flowers or insects. Also the prohibition is not applicable if the picture of a 'living being' does not resemble the shape of the living-being but is transformed into the shape of an inanimate object be they birds, animals or human being. So a silhouette of a garment without showing face or hands & feet will be allowed of a person, similarly of birds & animals. Also under the inferred jurisprudence principle of "for compelled there is no prohibition"(المضطر لا محذور عليه) or "The compellings allow the prohibitions"(الضرورات تبيح المحذورات) under flexibility & relativity rules as per Q:2:173 so drawings of living-beings are allowed for medical reasons for the noble purpose of education. Also exceptions are the museums & art galleries, where no one lives there, & the purpose is noble to preserve the human history, art & culture referring to Qoraan "Travel in the Earth & look how God has created the creation"(سيروا في الأرض فأنظروا كيف خلق الله الخق).ILAKNA (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Weblink is wrong

Imamia Mission Bury web link is outdated and should be updated to www.imamiamission.com

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.30.36 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talj, I meant Talk,

The article clearly needs impartial cleanup by a writer of 100% English. For example this is meaningless
"Shia represents more than one of the merely school of Islamic thought."
Why do articles about religions (each of which claims to be the Great Truth) produce so much "'tis/'tain't" unreadable by length and poor English?--SilasW (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In one country which then had no real education those indigenous folk who had picked up some English used "speak" instead of "know" or "understand" (eg I speak drive) because a question often asked them by Europeans was "Do you speak English?" while in their language the question would have been the equivalent of "Do you know/understand English". It seems that somehow fanatical upholders of this or that aspect of mid-eastern interpretations have similarly picked up the word "ascribe" with a false meaning. Could someone please explain what word they should use and how the misuse arose? (I hope it was not through plain I-know-everything-ness.)

Shia Muslims in the world

'the shia muslims is betwean 15 - 25 % of muslims and in bahrain there is 70 % of population are shia muslims and in India there is betwean 43 to 83 millions are shia muslims , shia muslims in saudi arabia betwean 20 - 30 % of population , kuwait:at least 35% are shia muslims. also the shia muslims are 16 - 20 % in United Arab Emirates , 18% in Qatar , at least 1% in Egypt , 35 - 40% in Lebanon , 16 - 20 % in Syria , 40 % of muslims in Ethiopia , 15 - 20% in Afghanistan , 20 - 37 % in Pakistan , 20 - 37 % in Turkey and there is a lot of Shia Muslims in other countries .If you want near right information go to the web site of The Congress Library'Ahmad_islam88 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the supplication at the following link is the standard supplication & represent the dogma?

http://www.duas.org/ashura/z_ashura.htm ( This link is listed as item no.3 under sub-heading 'references' under the article 'Yazid I') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.112 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

There is some controversy about the lead. I reverted it to the former version[12]. Please discuss about your idea here.

• Shia population:
  • Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, countries considered to be the cradles of civilisation.

This edition doesn't have source and incomplete. I think this should be removed because it has been mentioned at the end of the lead.:Shia Islam is divided into theological branches. The largest and best known is the Twelvers (اثنا عشرية iṯnāʿašariyya) which forms a majority of the population in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. Other branches include the Ismaili and Zaidiyyah.

• • I prefer to put all of the facts in one paragraph with reliable sources at the end of the lead.

Shia Islam is divided into theological branches. The largest and best known is the Twelvers (اثنا عشرية iṯnāʿašariyya) which forms a majority of the population in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. Other branches include the Ismaili and Zaidiyyah. In addition, Alawites and Druzes have been known to consider themselves Shias, mainly due to the fact that these two sects emerged from Shia Islam. However, mainstream Shias deny this vehemently. The Alawi sect is known to deify Imam Ali, which is considered to be heresy among mainstream Shias.. Moreover, the Druze faith differs greatly from Islam in general. The Sufi orders among the Shias are the Alevi, Bektashi, Kubrawiya, Noorbakhshi, Oveyssi, Qizilbashi, Hamadani and Fatimid orders and denominations.

• Scholars:
  • Most scholars and polymaths of the Islamic Golden Age were Shi'a Muslims, including Avicenna, Geber, al-Farabi, Alhacen and Al Tusi.

It doesn't relate to lead of the article. It's good idea to add a section and explain the role of Shia in Muslim history including their scientific role with reliable source. But the lead should explain the major aspects of the issue. Finally this edition is against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Thus we should remove it. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good jobs guys, however, none of the versions have any real focus. We need to fix that. Tomorrow, if it's okay with everyone, I'll post a modified draft of a new opening, highlighting keypoints, and we'll can all branch off from there. --Enzuru 05:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that "most polymaths, etc." were Shi'ites is unsourced original research and should not be included. In any case, only two of the five names mentioned (Tusi and Geber) are certain to have been Shi'ites. -- Slacker (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dakake

I have been looking at the passages sourced to Dakake and I've noted some inaccuracies.

• The article says: "Shia can not be described as a sect or mere a school of Islamic thought" - Dakake says it can't adequately be described as simply a sect or a school of thought. He means to say it encompasses more, not that it isn't a sect in the conventional understanding.
• "There are various Shia theologies, systems of jurisprudence, philosophies and mysticisms." - Dakake has been misunderstood. He is not saying there are multiple Shia jurisprudences/creeds/philosophies at all. He is saying that you can think of Shias as having a distinct theology, law etc, but that it is likely better described as a sort of community within a community as it involves itself in a number of religious disciplines.
• "Shia identity emerged in the first Islamic century, Shia theology and Fiqh were formulated in the second century" - not what the source says. The book aims to "... analyze the ways in which the boundaries of the Shi'ite community were determined and the nature of Shi'ite identity was conceived through the late second and early third Islamic century." (p. 2) - It is that period in which the Shi'ite identity formed, not the first century. The source says nothing about theology or fiqh, so I'm not sure why that's there. The article also fails to mention the majority view: "Much of the scholarship on the earliest development of Shi'ism in the first and second Islamic centuries argues that Shi'ism began as a primarily political movement and only later emerged as a religious or sectarian group." (p. 3)

Please also remember that this article isn't about Dakake's own opinions or what his book attempts to prove. The article should center around the accepted (or majority, at least) positions of academic scholarship. ITAQALLAH 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We can replace Shia can not be described as a sect or mere a school of Islamic thought. There are various Shia theologies, systems of jurisprudence, philosophies and mysticisms. with Shia is one of the two main branches of Islam which has its own theology, system of jurisprudence, philosophy and mysticism. However there are more than one theology, system of jurisprudence, etc among Shias.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems prudent to me, with minor grammatical corrections (I'd say 'multiple' and use plural forms, such as 'theologies, systems of jurisprudence, etc.'. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Shiasm

I noticed that some articles use Shiasm instead of Shiism or Shi'ism (Look at Aql (Shiasm) and the lead of Twelve Imams. Is this style right? Eklipse (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually none of those are correct, and should be replaced with "Shia Islam." However, the manual of style does not specify in this regard. Peter Deer (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Shia scholars section

Is the section really necessary? I think an expanded explanation of Marja, Ayatollah, and the Shia clergy would be more helpful to this article than simply listing various important or notable contemporary scholars; a list of Popes, for example, wouldn't be very helpful to a general article on Roman Catholicism, but an explanation of the Papacy would be. I was thinking that I would remove it, but the article is protected from new users and I don't know if there was a consensus to keep it. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Perhaps a 'Shia Scholar' category with these persons' pages linked to it would be more productive, or something similar.

Shi'a/Shia

I think the page should be moved to Shi'a Islam. Any objections? Carticus (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

' is romanization of Arabic for hamza, not for ʿayn. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) and its talk page. --JWB (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shia and Shi'a are both phonetically incorrect but Shi'a is more commonely used in publications. Carticus (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct transliteration would be Shi`a or Shi`ah, but there was a consensus about a year ago to use Shia. I voted for using a symbol for the `ayin but there was not much support for it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. If there is reliable, academic, verifiable information that supports that there is a more appropriate transliteration then by all means present it and we can get to work changing this sucker. Peter Deer (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn between the ʿ in the title of the ʿayn article, in line with academic romanization, or something very visible to remind readers it's a real letter, like ʕ or left half ring or even a superscript letter c: shi^ca. --JWB (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion at #Requested move. All the main discussion points are there. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that most books and newspapers (per the above discussion) use Shi'a instead of Shia, I think it should be moved. Carticus (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As sa.vakilian pointed out in the discussion, the same was used for Ash'ari and Mu'tazili. The exact transliteration shouldn't necessarily be used for the name of the article. Carticus (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as you do not use an apostrophe, then I'd support moving (as I mentioned above). So Shi`a would be used, or Shi‘a (that's not an apostrophe). I would also support adding an /h/ on the end, but I think I'm alone on that one. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the print edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has long used a strict transliteration of Arabic in titles and articles, even for Arabic-alphabet non-Arabic languages.

I think there is some value to having an unambiguous main article title. Even if a less strict version is more used, it will still get you to the article via a redirect, where you can be exposed to alternatives. E.g. Mexican-American War even though Mexican War has been how it is most commonly referred to in the US. --JWB (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am quite satisfied with the current name which we selected just two years ago by a very large margin. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As User:Peter Deer said, consensus can change. I think the page should be moved soon and the spelling should be consistent with that used by scholars and major newspapers. Carticus (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The entire article is written under the assumption that existance of Shiia Islam is based upon the pure will of Mohammad as well as Allah. It is lacking a historical perspective in which the writter provides facts and figures about the specific years and places in which people used the Shiism to enfoce their political will in order to gain economical benefits.

I belive that Shiism is extremely connected to a Persian influence. I do not have enough evivance to proof my idea. But just look at the map of Shiia vs Sunni distribution. I belive that Shiism is the tool for fighting against a rulling power. For the muslim Persians it was a useful tool to faight against a non-Persian Chalip being an Arab Abbasi or a Turkish Ottoman. Expansion of Shiism in the middle east could be because of peoples ethnical connection to the Iranians. Or they had a need to fight back the rule of their Chalip who was by default a Sunni muslim.

Your belief is false. The Safavids from Persia adopted Shi'a Islam while they were in Lebanon. Up until then, the Twelver school of thought was not prominent in Persia. The Shi'a school of thought is one that has very deep roots - it is a very methodological school of thought that traces its ideas and beliefs from the prophet, his traditions and the Qur'an that he delivered. The Shi'a school has a strong connection with ahadith and the development of jurisprudence by the Ahlul Bayt. The descendants of the prophet, numbering twelve, solidified the religion and made their interpretations known throughout Arabia long before the Safavids and the spread of Shi'ism in Persia. I can even refer you to medieval debates between Sunnis and Shi'a. You should take a look at "The Right Path" (www.al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm). You will see that the development of Shi'a Islam had begun before the terms "Sunni, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki" came into existence. You should also note that debates between Shi'a and Sunni were very detailed long before the Safavids, which implies that the school of thought was well established and well known (as was the differing views the Shi'a hold with respect to willayah, which is the deciding difference between Shi'a and Sunni). The jurisprudence and interpretation of the religion was conducted by the descendants of the prophet, who protected, solidified and put to practice his religion. The role of mullahs is to interpret the religion and base their fiq on what they believe to be consistent with Islamic laws and the teaching of the prophet and the household (however, there are differences between Shi'a branches Usooli and Akbari). By the time Shi'a Islam came to Persia via the Safavids, the school was already established. Now, with respect to Persian influence, maybe you have a point with respect to a lot of the paintings of the Imams; many places in Pakistan and India also adopted a very aggressive ashoora ritual that was influenced by cultural norms and traditions, but the same holds true in Sunni Muslim countries as well.

This article does not provide any information about what Shiism is really about. It functions like a text book for the future Mullahs in any religious school in Qom or Najaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.111.252 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is an inherent neutrality issue with almost all articles related to Shi'ism - especially with regard to sectarian disputes. I am trying to ensure that pages reflect the academic reliable sources in a balanced manner, instead of reflecting the contents of polemical sectarian websites (and the latter is more prominent on these pages). ITAQALLAH 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon Shia

Since there has been no census in Lebanon since 1932, it is pure speculation that Shia are the plurality of Muslims there. If someone has a good source, please bring it forward, but until then, wording needs to be changed.Hoshidoshi (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Shia Muslim

Well i am a Shi'a Muslim i am really sad that some people have uploaded a self made picture of Hazrat Imam Ali (A.S.),this is not right it should be removed at once,i just dont understand what kind of Shiaz are there who make fun of Imam Ali (A.S.) by making his Picture.Its not right.No one knows how he looked like,so how come this could happen! Paki90 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are Shi'a, you should know that images of religious figures are not only permitted by the current scholars, they are extremely commonplace. em zilch (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have an objection from an encyclopedic standpoint to imaginary depictions of historical figures when there is no evidence of them being based on portraiture. But as far as religious standpoint goes, within modern day Shia Islam the portrayal of religious figures is not forbidden, although portrayals of Muhammad are not commonplace. Peter Deer (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but images of Ali? Legion. I agree that they are bizarre for an encyclopedia because they aren't historically-oriented portrayals. It'd be like sticking up a Catholic "white Jesus" in the article about Jesus. Awkward. em zilch (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues, in fact, is that several of the Imams are portrayed with idealized Persian features, almost exactly like the idealized 'White Jesus'. It's a complicated matter from an accuracy standpoint and from a neutrality standpoint. Peter Deer (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Template:Eastern Christianity & Jesus --Enzuru 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanna Request for remove Imam ali's face Picture.any picture of Imams are abusive for shia --Hassanmirabi (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Look someone changed Ali picture for another with a CIGARRETTE! Revert vandalism please. Greetz --Vitilsky (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Shi'a VS Historical Shi'a - Very Important Distinction

As someone has included in the introduction, the term Shi'a refers to Twelver/Ithna'Ashari followers - those who uphold the divine appointment of 12 imams and fall in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah (Shi'a Sunnah) transmitted by the imams and relatives of prophet Muhammed. To be considered Shi'a means you are a Twelver, which encompasses 95% of the historical Shi'a. The Ismaili section shouldn't be this big - there should be a re-direct of some sort. Ismailis, Zaiddiyas, and others are offshoot sects of Shi'a Islam; they are historically Shi'a in that they emerged from the camp of Imam Ali, but went their own separate ways. This needs to be emphasized with the Ismailis - their religion fuses elements that are contrary to Islam/Qur'an and are hence outside the realm of Shi'ism (for example, reincarnation and pantheism). This section should be smaller, with an excerpt explaining the Ismailis as an offshoot of Shi'a Islam.

Shi'a - Twelver - should not be fused with Ismailism because this is quite offensive. It's offensive to the Shi'a Muslim to be associated with a religion that believes in pantheism and other religious doctrine, for example. As far as I see it, this wikipedia page is perpetuating misconceptions that Shi'is are trying to explain away. Do you not see the difficulty in assimilating a group that believes in reincarnation and pantheism into Shi'ism (which is completely against such concepts)?

Reincarnation and pantheism are not Isma‘ili - only the Druze believe in reincarnation. They are still Shi‘ah, and Wikipedia doesn't believe in censorship. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am that someone, and I wrote most of the Ismaili article, created the Ismaili template, and created many new Ismaili articles, however I am personally a Twelver. I'd like to slightly correct Anāhita, panentheism (not pantheism) are Ismaili, as is reincarnation, however both of these are Nizari only, the Mustaali don't adhere to this. You can find both these teachings in the Ginans. Now, the issue is not whether an Ayatollah considers them to be Shi'a, but rather by secular scholarship they are, and for that matter they are Shi'a. Even I don't consider them or Zaidi Shi'a, and because of my own faults I don't believe I am worthy of the term Shi'a either, however, that is a purely religious definition. You can find Ismaili being called Shi'a in everything from contemporary literature to Henry Corbin. Also, statistics wise, it is a safe bet to say that at one point, the Ismaili were the larger branch over the Twelver because of the Fatimid Empire, and even today, Ismaili make up 10%, not 5%, of the world Shi'a population, with Zaidi making up around 5%. So that puts Twelvers at 85%, which includes both Jafari and Alevi, as well as smaller Twelver groups. If you take out Alevi and the other groups, Jafari Twelver make up only around 70-75% of the world Shi'a population. --Enzuru 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition and interpretation of "religious Shi'a" still presents a problem for me. The Ismailis are a group that deviate from central teachings of Islam and Shi'ism in general. I am aware that secular scholarship labels them as Shi'a, but in this we have another problem. Do you consider Ismailism to be a Shi'a madhab? When answering this question, please keep in mind the Sunni ideology and the four madhabs that emerge from it. No doubt, these four madhabs (schools of thought) differ in many important respects. Much of these differences are quite noticeable. However, these differences are nevertheless nominal when we look at the core beliefs, practices and texts of the four madhabs. They nevertheless underly common ground and present four ways of approaching the various beliefs, practices and texts that they hold. Can you, as an aspiring Shi'a Muslim, consider the Ismaili interpretation of deen to be a madhab of Shi'ism? Are the various beliefs, practices and texts of Ismailism concurrent with Shi'ism? Can we honestly say that, if a Twelver shifts over to the Ismaili ideology, that he is simply transferring or re-interpreting Shi'ism? I contend not. I contend that Ismailism cannot be considered a madhab of Shi'a Islam, and as such is an offshoot that should be noted as a historical Shi'ism, but one that did not develop into the Twelver lineage. Sheikh Shaltoot, who was the head of the School of the Theology at Al-Azar in Egypt, also recognized this. He identified two general branches of Islam - Shi'a and Sunni - and six corresponding schools of thought - four Sunni and two Shi'a. The two Shi'a schools of thought are Twelver and Zaidi. I feel that Ismailism takes Islam and becomes an "offshoot" of some sort because it does not hold some of the most important and fundamental principles regarding the religion's interpretation of God, the afterlife and the final revelation (the Qur'an). Being a Shi'a Muslim myself, I am tired and quite offended at the constant grouping of our Ithna'Ashari school with forms of offshoot religions that tend to deviate from the religion profoundly.

First, you ignored all of my previous refutations. Second, where in the world do we call Ismailism a madhab of Shi'a Islam? I don't, religious scholars don't, Wikipedia doesn't, and secular scholars don't. They are not a madhab. A madhab translates as "school", while in secular scholarship, Ismaili are "branch" or "sect". Please compare Template:Sunni Islam where we use "Schools" and Template:Shia Islam where we use "Branches". We call Ismailism a branch of Shi'a Islam. And to play devil's advocate, why are you saying Ismailism has to be like Twelverism to be Shi'a? I can turn it the opposite way, and say Twelverism has to be like Ismailism to be Shi'a. This isn't a very good argument. --Enzuru 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also: the very fact that you mentioned Alevism is another problem. Alevis are a Sufi order linked to the Bektashi order. As you know, most Sufi orders follow a Sunni madhab, but do you see Sunni Muslims refer to Sufi orders as Sunni? Sufis infuse an element into their interpretation that is independent of Shi'a and Sunni. I urge you to read about the Alevi religion right here on Wikipedia. After reading about the Alevis, can you sincerely say that they are a Shi'a madhab? Outside of the belief in twelve Imams, Alevism are not linked to Shi'ism in any way - not in prayer, outward religious expression or otherwise (they don't even refer to themselves as Shi'a). In addition, it is a common view among Alevis that Imam Ali and Muhammed are the opposite sides of the same coin, clearly giving our first Imam more right than we give him. Alevis should be classified as Sufi, or as their own religion, unless of course we are classing all Sufi orders as either Shi'a or Sunni.

I know about the Alevi religion, and I created some of their articles as well, as well as their template (which I admit is ugly). Once again, I don't use the phrase madhab, nor do religious scholars, nor does Wikipedia. Alevism is not a Sufi order, because one has to be born Alevi. The Bektashi however is a Sufi order, and anyone can join. Yes, both groups are related, but they are not the same, in fact only recently in Turkey have they started to call themselves Alevi-Bektashi. Now, Alevism is not considered Twelver on Wikipedia because we are using the secular scholarly definition that a Twelver is someone who follows Jafari fiqh, like the Usuli, Akhbari, or Shaykhi which are schools or madhabs. So, Alevism is still consider a related movement because they share some texts with Twelvers, as well as some core beliefs. This is Wikipedia, not Shiapedia (and actual old website btw), and I don't have anything against you, I am an Usuli Twelver myself. But our job is to report factual scholarship, not make up our own theories or use the theories of our marja. --Enzuru 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)