Talk:Shia view of the Sahabah

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No Consensus, 20 May 2006, see discussion.
Keep, 22 March 2006, see discussion.
Rename, 27 August 2005, see discussion.

proposed

It has been proposed below that Shia ranking of the Sahaba be renamed and moved to Shia view of the Sahaba.

I oppose the proposal, the list is what its titled, a ranking of the sahaba. --Striver 13:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, this is completely your POV and horrible. "Shia view of the Sahaba" is useful because it can discuss the shia view of various sahaba -- we do not rank like this... that is completely unencyclopedic. I have recommended its move because I believe it can be cleaned up it if it moved. If it is not moved I am going to put it up for deletion and then we'll see what happens. gren グレン 13:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my pov. Its the pov of all shia. Find me a single shia that contests it. Try with user:Khalid!, user:Zereshk, user:Ya Ali or any other shia you might find on WP, none of theme will have any objections. Further, i have received praise outside WP for this article. So before claiming its Striver pov, bring me a single shia that contests the article. Try any shia chat comunity and see if they object to anyting in the article. Man, this is typical, for every single shia pov article, we need a VFD for it --Striver 13:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't because it's Shia. I am going to do the same for Sunni ranking of the Sahaba. My problem isn't that it discusses each sect's POV, it's that you believe there can be a ranking. They have different views but an unsourced litany or ranking them is preposterous and unencyclopedic. The thing about encyclopedia is that sourcing is important, it is not about contradictory sources. I believe that you have a vague representation of what Shias think about Muhammad's companions. However, the laundry list style with rate your Sahaba is what I object to, that is where the original reserach comes in. My official vote on VfD is going to be Move to Shia views of the Sahaba -- but it is flexible and I would like to know what others think. gren グレン 19:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver (others too)

The VfD has gone through as you can see by the title. This means that this article can no longer employ the ranking system but must instead go to a descriptive system citing notable Shia sources. Here is your version of the page before any changes. I have removed the listing and am going to do more cleaning up. Now, we have to base this article on a well sourced non-ranking system of description and your help is wanted. gren グレン 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been going through the article and one thing strikes me more than anything else. "Do not generalize about Sunni Islam"... and that should be read as big and bold. To say things like "the Sunni rate the Sahaba on who joined first while the Shia do so on what they did during their lives" is wrong... Sunni might like that Abu Bakr converted very early but they wouldn't say he was bad, "he was bad but he converted early so he was really okay". No, do not do that... it is wrong, biased and just plain horrible. gren グレン 02:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not generalizing, i quote what they say themself:

The Companions were divided into twelve ranks by the scholars. This division was made according to the chronological order and some groups are also included in others. It was accepted by the majority of scholars

I do not aprove of your edits, but dont have time to addres them now. --Striver 09:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole premise of this VfD is that there was no notable source accepted by all Shia that places the the Sahaba in ranks. Showing a source that ranks as you do would be a good first move, however, to really call the article ranking you most prove that ranking is representative. It cannot be your system pulled together from texts. As you said in the earlier version, it was a loose ranking system of your synthesis of sources. That is original research Striver. Before you can add anything resembling a systematic ranking you must source it, sourced from a scholarly ranking. To portray the ranking as accepted by Shia (the ranking's acceptance, not just its sentiments) you must do a lot more and something which I don't think exists. gren グレン 15:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You where correct, i see it now. This is a much more appropriate title. However, i do not suport you deleting the whole list, so im going to revert to my version. Please do repeat any justification you had for deleting the list. --Striver 03:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gren

Gren reverted. Gren, you wanted no ranking, and you where right. There is no ranking anymore, only general views. Or is that a problem? --Striver 04:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem is making it discrete sections. Source it. It's not sourced and it's your arbitrary ranking system. I have removed the section headings. A well done description is not problematic but view which happen to be the same as the rankings are. gren グレン ^? 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gren, i finaly found a source for what i always knew from everyday experience:

The Shia divide the companions into three factions: First, are those who believed in Allah (SWT), believed in the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and gave all they could for the sake of Islam. These are the highest in rank. These companions ALWAYS supported the Prophet and were WITH him. They never disobeyed him in every other issue, nor did they ever accused him of talking non-sense! (may Allah protect us). Examples include, but are not limited to, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS), Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farsi, Miqdad, Amar Ibn Yasir, Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari, ... may Allah (SWT) be pleased with them.

The second group, are those who were Muslims, but were not sincere in their acts.

The third group, are those who became apostate after the death of Prophet as al-Bukhari recorded (see below), or those who neither believed in Allah (SWT), nor the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the first place, but managed to infiltrate the Islamic isles to be included among the Muslims. These are the hypocrites, like Abu Sufyan, his son Muawiyah, and his grandson Yazid. Yazid, when he became...

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/shia4.txt

--Striver 01:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list

I found a list of sahaba, Talk:Shi'a view of the Sahaba/list here is a copy.--Striver 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a page to factualise accusations

i have added a NPOV tag here because there are serious flaws in the tone of the article and when personalities are described, which is at times presented as outright villification and pushed forward as fact. other phrases need to be implemented which keep the villification to the realms of accusations by the shi'ah or whoever. this may be a page for the shi'ite view of the sahaabah, but it is not a page for POV-pushing, propaganda, condemnation or indictment, so much of the article needs to be rephrased accordingly from "he did -accusation1- and did -accusation2-, and went here to do -accusation3-" to "shi'a are thought to accuse him of doing such and such" or something similar. thanks ITAQALLAH 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the page needs some NPOV. --Striver 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

Someone added "Shia view of the Sunni view" to the sunni view of sahaba page, but did not add "Sunni view of shia view". Balance? Unflavoured 09:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand intro?

Can we expand the intro section (the paragraph(s) before the first heading), please? RJFJR (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderful article as it correctly details the Shia opinion about people who were present at the time of Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.42.151 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

Due to the continuous stream of totally uncited additions and deletions by anonymous users to this contentious page, I have indefinitely restricted edits to registered users only. Once the numerous issues with this page have been resolved, it should be safe to reopen to all editing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge section from Abu Hurairah#Shi'a view to this article

I noticed that the section Abu Hurairah#Shi'a view is rather lengthy for a section that supposedly summarizes this article as the main article. Also, some material there doesn't seem to exist here. Would somebody knowledgeable about both topics perform an appropriate merging of that section to this article, so that section can serve as a reasonable summary of this article? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Abu Huraira was source of many Islamic reports, which are basis of many controversial Islam topics. So how Shia or Sunni view him should be present in the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

There is only a single source in this article and I haven't even checked if it's reliable. The previous AfDs ended with an inconclusive result, and the second vote (which was keep), to be frank, was almost ten years ago and contains extremely weak arguments.
This list is pointless, as was Sunni view of the Sahaba. If there are indeed reliable sources on this topic, they can be added to the page on Sahabah and we can build from there. As of now, this article is pointless fluff. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]