Talk:Shia Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam / Shi'a Islam (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Iraq (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Iran (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Azerbaijan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bahrain (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.


basic disagreement Shia / Sunni[edit]

This article states that Mohammed quite explicitly designed Ali as his successor. Someone should update this article to explain why 75% - 90% of Muslims, the Sunni, do not believe that Ali was the rightful heir to Mohammed as leader of Islam. This article just silently states as fact this successor designation, and does not say why the overwhelming majority of Islamic people do not believe that Ali was the rightful heir despite (??) this statement from Mohammed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Basic disagreement is that, for example girl wants to go to beach, and most of other girls are partially naked, and this is not stated in Quaran; then Shia is adaptive, and hence girl can do what others do, where Sunni is traditionalist - as this is not stated in Quaran, girl must dress herself like terrorist ninja. (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Shia Population Worldwide[edit]


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)

According to the text following this map, as many as 40 % of the Muslims in the world might be shia. --Vitzque (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of Shi'a in Turkey[edit]

Shiites do not constitute the 10-15% of total population in Turkey. They are very rare, maybe only Azeris exist as example of Shiites living in Turkey. This information must be false. According to USA religious report, 500.000 Shiites live in Turkey. To take into consideration that Turkey's population is approximately 75.000.000, Shiite population corresponds to 0.7% of the total population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Shi'a in Iraq[edit]

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)

Map and Yemen[edit]

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)


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)


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)

Shia Muslims in East Asia?[edit]

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 ( 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.


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 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 (talkcontribs) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Map and table issues[edit]

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.[1] 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)

Number of Shi'a Muslims[edit]

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.[2]--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)


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)

Yemen - Majority?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Shia Muslims in the world[edit]

'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)

Lebanon Shia[edit]

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)

According to the demographics section of the Lebanon page, There are 27 % shia and 27 % sunnis in Lebanon. Jleknes (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shi'a Population[edit]

The intro states that there are 130-190 million Shiites worldwide, which constitute 10-15% of the Muslim world. In the demographics section it states that there are actually 190-250, making up 15-25% of the Muslim population. Both of these statements cite the same source and the source only says the first set of numbers with no mention of some estimates giving as high as the latter number. I'm changing it back to the 1st set of numbers until someone can cite another credible source supporting higher numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. --Enzuru 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Shia population in Turkey is now way near 25%. There is Alevis, if thats the case. And they are only about 10% of the population. So the claim, '25% in Turkey' is false. Im a Turk, and been to Turkey many times, and researched it dozens of times. I have not yet come across a claim of '25% shia' in Turkey, not even Shia being in Turkey. There is only Alevis, and thats a different case, because Alevi's arent mentioned in this page. I claim this as an insult, to my nation and religion. Please give factual information next time, not falsifying crap to benefit yourselves...Ahmed Kayihan (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
First off, stop being rude, we aren't trying to purposely bump up the numbers, assume good faith. Having Shi'a in your nation is a blessing, not a curse. Second, we also have sources, and yes, Alevi are considered within the scope of Shi'a Islam, however not in the scope of the Twelver branch necessarily. Anyway, I suggest you do more research if you have never seen this mention anywhere:
--Enzuru 03:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The current first pararaph reads,

It seems like way too much detail in the intro paragraph. I'd like to change to this,

Thus deleting the extended etymology and extended demographics. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Enzuru 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason to remove the extended etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it down to the etymology section. It really clutters up the first sentence and doesn't provide any useful information to 99% of people reading. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
People should immediately understand that one follower should be called a Shi'i not a Shi'a. Maybe it would change the disturbing established norm of calling a Shi'i, Shi'a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That is definitely a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Trying to be sarcastic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually no that was supposed to be serious. I have studied Arabic and have fought my own battles on wikipedia trying to standardize Arabic transliteration. Most people just don't care about nuances of Arabic or the difference between hamza and `ayin. The information is in the article for those people looking for it, but the real issue is that 99%, if not more, of the people reading the page will just see a mess of etymology and not even know what the S with a swirly thing over it means. It is a problem that people use the term wrong, but it cannot be resolved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shia population in Pakistan[edit]

Provided reference (i.e. State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia By Ishtiaq Ahmed) says,

Taking all percentages w.r.t. 2008 estimate of Pakistan's total population of 172,800,000; we have:

  • 06% of 172,800,000 = 10,368,000
  • 12% of 172,800,000 = 20,736,000
  • 15% of 172,800,000 = 25,920,000
  • 30% of 172,800,000 = 51,840,000

While different estimates for Shia population in Iran varies from 70%(Sunni Sources), 75-85%(Western Sources), 90%(Official Sources of Govt. of Iran).

Taking all percentages w.r.t. 2007 census data of Iran's total population of 70,472,846; we have:

  • 70% of 70,472,846 = 49,330,992
  • 75% of 70,472,846 = 52,854,635
  • 85% of 70,472,846 = 59,901,919
  • 90% of 70,472,846 = 63,425,561

It is clearly evident that even lower percentage(i.e. 70%) of Iran's Shia population will exceed (Iran's data is of 2007 census while Pakistan's data is of 2008 estimate) higher percentage(i.e. 30%) of Pakistan's Shia population.

So until anyone has claim of more than 30% for Pakistan's Shia popultion with verifiable references, please allow demographic data of this article to rest in peace. ;)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Shi'a of Yemen[edit]

Why is Yemen not listed in the demographic table? Best estimates say that 40-45% of Yemen is Zaidi Shi'a. Given that the population of Yemen is around 25 million, that means there are at least 10 million Shi'a in Yemen. Please add them to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

provide a reliable source and it'll get included as the case with Turkey stats. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Experience is NOT a reliable source[edit]

It appears that that web site uses Wikipedia as its primary source (look at the note at the bottom of the page). We need to remove the information sourced to this web site and find reliable sources for Shia population statistics. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for pointing out this source, an unreliable source tag has been placed against this source(you can help by putting at other occurrences, I found only 3). Meanwhile alternative sources are being searched to support or correct this info otherwise it'll be removed. Thanx again. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the appropriate steps, it didn't cross my mind to use the tag. Yes, it appears to be only three instances.
I am currently updating Demographics of Islam article and I am having difficultly locating reliable sources for Sunni/Shia population numbers. Here are some of the decent sources I found [3] [4][5]. If you know of any other reliable sources, please send them my way. Thanks and assalamu alaikum. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Yemen's large Shia population (ca. 10,000,000) is missing in the list. Tajik (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Plz provide reference(authentic & reliable) to add the data. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvitalk! 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of Shi'a in Yemen[edit]

Here are sources stating the number of Shi'a in Yemen. Please include these statistics in the article.,45a5199f2,45a5f8b22,488f180d1e,0.html

Shia Population in Pakistan[edit]

I have repeatedly try to highlight the fact that the actual estimated Shia Muslim Population of Pakistan is far more then the given lame facts by UNCHR or CIA FACTBOOK. I am a have now finally provided references supporting my claim of the fact that Shia's in Pakistan make up about 25% or above, out of the total Muslim Population of Pakistan. Let me be clear about this that though Muslim are about 97% of Pakistan in this regard we are only estimating the Muslim population and the sect's in Pakistan. Hence the Shia are estimated to be more then 30 million out of 160 million. In future i would provide further references supporting my claim. I would likely mention two links supporting this. 1) and 2)> the last paragraph.

According to the 2007 Pakistan Inter-Faith Society Dialogue in Karachi out of the total 100% of Muslims in Pakistan Shia Muslims are around 25-30%. Pakistan Bar-Council meeting with the Census Commission of Pakistan under the Interior Ministry repeated the fact that Shia Muslims were One-Third of Pakistan's population. And so it is acknowledged by many and also accepted by the Shia community of Pakistan. I came to know this through the Newspapers. <ref name="DAWN NEWS">

I would kindly request you all to stop changing the facts by relying on decades old facts from the CIA factbook and UNCHR. Kindly look for further independent references in this regard free from any political or religious pressures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paki90 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 11 October 2009

The statistics in question are neither "decades old" nor "lame facts" by either UNCHR or the CIA; they were published in October 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a strictly non-advocacy organization. Since the Pew report, 'Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population', would appear to be the epitome of a reliable, third-party, published source, I have reverted the article back. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems we need a thorough revision in our policy of accepting single source for demographics (I myself have following this practice since the day I created democraphics sub-section on this articele and have been thorouhly defending the stance). We can have look on different sources and have average/mean/etc so that it can incorporate various estimates. We'll need statistical knowledge for this but I think this approach will result in more balanced and suufficing estimate of the Shia population. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvitalk! 07:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are correct though yet old, although rough independent estimates suggest they account for one quarter (15-20%) of the population. However, Shia Muslims claim to make up one-third of Pakistan’s population of 180 million, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, here and here, [1] since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations[2][3], many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[6] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 39%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 612-614.
  2. ^
  3. ^
Reference is not clear and gives data of 1980s (atleast I understood that). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, i understand that you are an admin and you primarily focus on demographic and Shia related article and stubs and only accept sources meeting WP:verifiability, but brother the source over here and this link says its 30%, and fulfills both the WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:verifiability requirement you need to understand my claim. According to "Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 612-614", Pakistan's Shia Muslim population was more then 37 million which is actually a statistical figure of the past two decades. And according to the CIA factbook Pakistani Shia Muslims are more then 20% hence PewForum 10% -15% stats are no where near to the respective 20% and 30% figures. And Pewforum states "Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate estimate", and since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division Pewforum's report is not a Legitimate truth, rather a rough estimate. While Shia Muslims of Pakistan claim to be one third of Pakistan's Muslim Population. You should understand my claim. Would please take my reasoning in consideration and kindly mention both facts, all have sources claiming it. While that claim of Shia in Pakistan to be one third of Pakistan, you still think thats a made up number? Please realize this, i am not lying or making stories. Regards! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division so any and all claim are just estimates. Pewforum is an average of all the dependable estimates it is them most recent statistics and has the widest cover of all the estimates; that is the reason it was taken as primary source for demographic data on this article. Although it is not the final record but it holds high-ground. There are various grounds which should be cosidered before taking a source as reference. As this is the case of demographics (which is not static) we need most recent verifiable source. Now that does not mean that recent source taken from some website can discard comparatively older source which is more reilable (e.g. Govt, UN, International organizations, etc.). The reference provided above was not that good for demographics (as per my view) but I did not wanted to waste the reference so I placed it in Persecution section. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i accept your view, but what is wrong in mentioning both figures? We can mention it to be between 15% to 30%, hence satisfying both point of views. Would you please re-consider this? SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to the inclusion of a second set of statistics as long as they are from a reliable, third-party, published source, the numbers from the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life can hardly be considered current, especially since they are now twelves year old. Do you have any other reliable sources from within the past four or five years? — Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well i am glad that you are willing to accept this, here are two sources full filling the reliable, third-party, published source criteria, this link and this one. You may also consider this link. Though I'll soon update you with few more recent sources. Till then you can use these. Thank you! SyedMANaqvi 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The article states, "Shias say they make up one-third of Pakistan's 160 million-strong population" which is not exactly a credible source for population statistics and demographic information (otherwise a pro-Sunni source could just as easily be quoted as saying that Shias make up 1% of the population). The article looks like a good source for the 30% statistic, but it should not carry any more or less weight than other reliable, third-party, published sources that indicate other numbers (like the BBC News which states 20%). — Kralizec! (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can enter two more columns to demographics data table i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim. To start with we can have blank values. Will be shortly expanding the idea/proposal. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you are right about the third party claim, and i too regard that to be the case. But we can also see it from a different angle, that is, if somebody without knowing ones family members goes on giving random estimates about their actual size. Hence we should respect both point of views, and like Faizhaider said, we should further expand it by mentioning the demographic data in the table, i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim. And we should start working over expanding it, need suggestions.SyedMANaqvi (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Faizhaider guess we should now finally edit the demographic data in the table, i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim, awaiting for you reply. I hope you will soon start working over it, and I'll be there to help you out. Guess you'll certainly take a prompt action. SyedMANaqvi (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have added two columns to the table and provided Max data for India with reference. Sorry for the delay was bit occupied with other things. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks alot brother. I have also added the Pakistan's maximum claim, by mathematically finding the figure out of the total Muslim population in Pakistan/percentage of Shias in Pakistan. Hence out of 173,000,000 the total Muslim Population of Pakistan, mathematically the 30% of the figure, which is actually 57,666,666. Even the 20% makes the total Shia population in Pakistan mathematically to be round about 43,250,000. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, i have just changed the Shia variation in Pakistan from 10% - 15% to 10% - 30%, since the percentage variation should mention the minimum & maximum estimate, hence i edit this claim. I rather accept and respect the Pew Forum Research, but i have also mentioned the Shia communities claim regarding their actual size in Pakistan, with a reference. I hope you all would regard this justified. Though i haven't edited the the Shia population table since, it already has a maximum estimate claim. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its enough to metion claims data in columns of demographics table under Max/Min claim. Text should abide to more NPOV data. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Majority in Iraq?[edit]

The demographics of Iraq page, following Encyclopedia Britannica and the CIA World Fact Book, contradicts this assertion. How can we square this? (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The statistics in question are by either UNCHR or the CIA; they were published in October 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a strictly non-advocacy organization. Since the Pew report, 'Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population', would appear to be the epitome of a reliable, third-party, published source, I have reverted the article back. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Population of Shias in US & number of Iranian-Americans[edit]

Iranian-Americans are far more numerous in the United States than census data indicate, according to research by the Iranian Studies Group, an independent academic organization, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The group estimates that the number of Iranian-Americans may haved topped 691,000 in 2004—more than twice the figure of 338,000 cited in the 2000 U.S. census.[5]

According to extrapolated 2000 U.S. Census data and other independent surveys done by Iranian-Americans themselves, there are an estimated 1-1.5 million Iranian-Americans living in the U.S. in 2009, with the largest concentration -- about 72,000 people -- being in Los Angeles.[13][14] For this reason, the L.A area with its Iranian American residents is sometimes referred to as "Tehrangeles" or "Irangeles" among Iranian-Americans.[15] An NPR report recently put the Iranian population of Beverly Hills as high as 20% of the total population. Iranian communities in the U.S. also have varying religious populations among each city. Other large communities include New York; New Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Seattle, Washington; and Houston, Texas.[16] Iranian-American organizations, including the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and Iranian alliances across borders have banded together to form the 2010 Census Coalition, focusing on educating the Iranian-American diaspora about the 2010 Census.

How is it that, in the Shia demographics section, there are only 200-400 000 Shias living in USA. When there are clearly over million Iranian Shias living in the US. There are Jewish Iranians, Christians, Catholics, and Zoroastrians, but all of these pale in comparison to the overwhelmingly Shia majority of Iranians. In short the stats should reflect the number of Iranians living in the US and on the fact that most of them are Shiites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Population in India, Kuwait, etc[edit]

Please before editing or inserting any figure, kindly check whether it corresponds with the official and local view of the said country or not? For an Instance from Arab sources and Kuwaiti Media Shia population is between 35 - 40 percent of Kuwaiti Population. From renowned and neutral Non-Shia and Non-Muslim Indian sources India's Shia population is between 40-50 million as per 2005-2006 report, similar is case with Pakistan where Shias are between 25 to 33 percent[43-55 million]. CIA Factbook, PEW Research Centre are not authenticated by the officials of these country to be considered there findings of the local communities in the said country. In order to maintain the neutrality all sources should be taken into consideration. For more please refer articles Shia Islam in India and Shia Islam in Pakistan where you will get multiple sources both national and international to refute the 17-26 million figure from other sources.

Last but not the least Britannica Book of the year 1997 mentioned Indian Shia population over 26 million, that's 13 years ago and the source is third party similarly Pakistani Shias at that time where no less than 25 million so how come they are below that figure after 13 years there is no finding which says that birth rate of any community in these countries declined in past decade or moreHumaliwalay (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Plz refer to above discussion Shia Population in Pakistan. Till there is any consensus third-party claims can be included in max/min claims of the column and most of the higher claims are there already. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs edit[edit]

The respect that Sunni Muslims show to ‘Ali and his descendants ("sayyids" in the East or "sharifs" in North Africa) is just one of several ways in which Shia Islam has influenced Sunni Islam.[1]

I removed this edit as it is inherently incorrect. The Fatimids were known as Syed through witnessed accounts (and later collated as Hadiths) which confirmed the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) referred to Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain (as) as Syeds. This respected title did not originate from Shia Islam, but from their ancestor Prophet Muhammad (saaw) corroborated by the Sahabis who witnessed this statement. These Hadiths stating this case are accepted by Sunnis, especially Sufis, therefore this is not exclusive to or originating from Shia'ism.

Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain (as)are two childs of Ali (as). syed means children of Hashim. the sentence you removed is correct. because prophet had no son and only one daughter and Ali (sa) married to the only daughter of prophet so all descendants of prophet are also descendants of Ali (as. you are right. this title (syed) is originated by prophet. and the removed sentence does not claim it is originated by shia'ism. the descendants of prophet all are through Ali (sa) Srahmadi (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

```` according to the shia fiqh seyed is one who is descended from Hashem, grandfather of holy prophet Muhammad, and this title, seyed, has specific ahkam in shia fiqh. of course now time they are known as the children of holy prophet. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shakeri.1987 (talkcontribs) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph[edit]

They are considered Kufr by some Sunni Muslims who reject Shia Islam as a form of innovation (bidah) who claim taking the graves of famous Imam's as a place of worship is an act of Kufr. Throughout history many of the followers and Imam's have been persucted and sometimes killed.

I have several objections:

  1. No citation given.
  2. Bidah doesn't necessary equals kufr.
  3. Shia are several factions (like Sunnis), the above statement doesn't apply to all Shia. In addition, some Shia consider other Shia from other factons as bidah and/or kufr.
  4. The reason given is not unique to Shia. Some Sunnis also take graves as a place of worship. Sole Soul (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well it's been several weeks, so I'm just deleting it. It's unsourced and riddled with weasel words. Ka-pow! Peter Deer (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done! Whoops, looks like someone beat me to it. How about that...Peter Deer (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Sabotage: Somebody has inserted the word "anus" in the very first line on the Shi´a page. Probably this is meant as a form of sabotage or insult. This should be removed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "anus" there, but I do see "WeROCK!" at the beginning of the second graf. It doesn't appear in the editing format so I can't remove it. Just more sabotage.Wlegro (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone reword the following statement in the introduction, it misleads the reader into thinking that different branches of Islam existed prior to the rule of the following 4 caliphs.

"The Shi'a identity emerged during the lifetime of Muhammad"

There was no Shia Sunni sect during the life time of the Prophet, and this was something that came about later on. In fact Iranians were first Sunni's before converting to Shia's, especially during Safavid era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very twisted logic. There were no Sunnis either..there was one Islam and it was led by a variety of good/bad caliphs. Actual Islam and the notion of two sects stems from the notion that a person is not of either sect when describing them and in essence modern muslims have founded another sect which is the 'non sect sectarians'. That too is illogical as it would seem that modernity cannot comment on the past better than the actual participants did in history and those people identified Rafidis (Ahl Bayt followers) as early as the 2nd century post Hijra. Lilac 3/14/10```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talkcontribs) 17:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense[edit]

"One of the most powerful and influential Shi'i ulama of all time" also preached during this era. Working during the Safavid era, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, worked diligently to rid Twelver Shi'ism of the influence of Sufiism (which had been closely linked to Shi'ism) and philosophy, to suppress Sunnis and other religious groups in Iran, and propagate strict adherence to obedience of Islamic law (sharia).

There is a correlation between Shiism and Sufism, however the writer states that Majlisi worked hard to rid Shiism of the influence of Sufiism which again is linked to does this make sense in that he suppressed sunni's and other religious groups?

suppressing a Shia philosophy embedded in Shiism, and somehow persecuting Sunnis doesn't make sense. Sorry if I interpreted this incorrectly but it definitely needs revising —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

sufism is not recognised all true by shia. sufism has some deviations in shia. for example sufism believes that if you can become a friend of God and become near to God then you can do any thing. even not doing prayer because you have reached to a level that no need to do laws of religion. or some other deviated beliefs. so shia leaders do not validate sufism. sufism has some common beliefs by shia and also some contradictions. Srahmadi (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shiism criticisms[edit]

The following are criticism of Shia practices, rituals, and rites that find their origin during the age of the Safavid empire. And many scholars have said that the English are responsible for creating these when they had close relations with the Safavids and learned about the religion, thus fabricating rituals and practices that cannot be found in the Qur'an or during the life of the Imams. They also instigated the growing tension between Shia's and Sunni's by spreading lies about the oppressive first Caliphs who invaded Iran, namely Abu Bakr, Osman, etc. Although the following does not include any information on the role that the British played in creating these 'differences' between Shiism and Sunnism, I will try to find some sources in English.

Following is taken from the Ahmad Kasravi page:

He distinguished two different types of Islam: the Islam of the pious Prophet and the Islam of all the various sects that had emerged from the spread of the religion. According to Kasravi, the two were opposed to one another. Existing Islam was an institution run by the clerics, beneficial to no one and the source of great misfortune. The object of religion, he argued, was to secure the welfare of the people by finding solutions to their daily problems such as poverty, unemployment, and ill health. These he believed, were the acts which would please God.

According to Kasravi, the clergy did not perform their expected role. Instead of functioning as the enlightened shepherd who would lead his flock to spiritual and material felicity, they misled the people, perpetrated ignorance, deprivation and superstition. Kasravi reproached the clergy on several counts. He derided their role in deepening the animosity between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims. He attacked the custom of building shrines for the Imams and characterized their worship as idolatry. He accused the clergy of deceiving the people by encouraging them to go on pilgrimages as a means of attaining salvation or as a guarantee for the realization of a miracle. Kasravi argued that a reward could be expected only for a useful act. The lavish expenditure on pilgrimage, he maintained, was best spent on feeding and clothing the hungry and the poor. He mocked the concept of mediation (shafa'at), according to which on Judgment Day the Imams would request the salvation of a sinner from God and obtain it if only he were to mourn the Imams, visit their shrines and petition them with prayers (tavasol). Kasravi revolted against what he called the cult of personality of Shi'i Imams which had led to the Shi'i custom of 'people worshipping'. Thus Kasravi claimed that the faith had to be cleansed from all its impurities and called for a return to its original essence. Many of Kasravi's above mentioned criticisms of Shi'i rituals and practices as well as his view on the role of the traditional clergy, later found its echo in modernist Islamic circles and especially in the works of Ali Shariati.

Kasravi, who at first seemed to be a reformer of Shi'ism, later hardened his position and became anti-Shi'i. In his book Shi'igari, 'The practice of Shi'ism, he bases his refutations of Shi'i beliefs on the Qur'an, the practice of the Prophet and Imam Ali. Throughout the book he remains highly respectful and reverential towards Imam Ali, Imam Hossein and their original followers. According to Kasravi, two factors were instrumental in institutionalizing the deviations and aberrations of the Shi'i faith: Imam Ja'far Sadeq, the sixth Shi'i Imam and the founder of Shi'i feqh (jurisprudence) and the Safavid dynasty. Where as Imam Hossein revolted against Mo'awiya to regain his right to caliphate, Kasravi, argues that Imam Ja'far Sadeq claimed himself to be the rightful and God-ordained imam, yet instead of struggling for his right, he chose the safety of his home. Proclaiming power without wishing to challenge the existing political power necessarily bred certain problems. According to Kasravi, the Shi'i practice of dissimulation of one's real beliefs (taqiyeh) when survival is at stake, was in fact a means of deception which legitimized falsehood. The safavid rulers who wished to prove their Shi'i zeal went to extremes to uphold established Shi'i rituals and rites. With the active collaboration of the clergy, they accentuated those aspects which Kasravi believed to be impurities. They institutionalized the custom of insulting Abu Bakr, Omar, and Osman, thereby deepening the hatred between Shi'a and Sunnis. It was also during their time that Islam became synonymous with observing certain formal rituals such as attending and weeping at mourning sessions (rowzeh-khani), going on pilgrimages and petitioning the imams with prayers. Later, Shari'ati to, identified Safavid Shi'ism as a 'polytheistic' religion. Kasravi's attack on the practices of certain Islamic jurists (faqaha) and the Safavids, under whose rule Shi'ism became Iran's official religion and the Shi'i clergy obtained power and prestige, was a challenge to the dominant perception of Islamic practices. Kasravi, however, was very careful not to question or negate any of the three fundamental basis for Islam, namely monotheism, prophethood and resurrection.

From the Shi'i community's point of view, Kasravi crossed the Rubicon when he attacked the authenticity of certain essential pillars of Twelver Shi'i thought and insulted certain highly revered Shi'i infallibles. He rejected the commonly held belief that the first three caliphs had usurped the position of Imam Ali. He challenged the concept of imamate, or the right of Imam Ali and his male lineage to the religious and temporal leadership of the Islamic community. Kasravi rejected the infallibility of the Twelve Imams, ridiculed the existence of the Twelfth Imam and consequently the central Shi'i notion of his occultation and his promised return on earth. In his writings, Kasravi demeaned several of the imams and Fatemeh, the daughter of the Prophet and Ali's wife. Kasravi repudiated the axiomatic theoretical basis of Shi'ism. His criticism was no longer directed one or another member of the clergy, certain practices or rituals, but the content, object and raison d'etre of the Shi'i faith. His discourse had became anti'Shia. Having had a traditional clerical education, Kasravi must have anticipated the traditional response of the clerical community to his discourse.

Kasravi's criticism of the mechanical, superstitious, ahistorical and dogmatic nature of Shi'ism, as it was practised in his days, left an undeniable mark on the Muslims who sought to modernize their religion. Kasravi's tumultuous life and his fate also indicated the extent and limitations of an open attack on certain rituals and practices, the clergy and ultimately certain fundamentals of the faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 02:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and because Imam Ali, pbuh ordered Taqiyya (dissimulation), the criticism that Kasravi held is suspect and cannot be considered a legitimate criticism. In order for him to be at odds with the concept he would have to raise an argument about the legitimacy of taqiyya in terms of it perserving the knowledge and data of the twelve Imams. That he demeaned the prophet's daughter denotes that he is included as an enemy to Shia Islam and can never be included in a membership of those who sided with the Ahl Bayt. Lilac, 3/14/10```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talkcontribs) 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


'The Shi'a identity emerged during the lifetime of Muhammad,[13] and Shia theology was formulated in the second century.'

second century going by by which calendar?

Better to put specifically the (Islamic) year Shia theology was established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 09:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to suggest such a thing because in order to suggest it, one willingly acknowledges Sunni Islam as the "true Islam" which of course is antithetical to the notion of two specific groups identified in the Quran itself of having 'existence'. Lilac, 3/14/10```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talkcontribs) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

don't understand what do you mean by "two specific groups identified in the Quran itself of having 'existence'" do you want to say that Quran has recorded sunni's and Shia's? if this is what you meant, then i would have to differ, Quran has nothing like this.

in hadiths though we find a reference towards Shia's, and the word "sunni" does not exist in even hadiths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The shi'a religion was made up AFTER the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH). Furthermore, I would just like to say that there is too much emphasis on the Shi'a/Sunni divide. Why don't we compare similarities instead of differences on this talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph appears to be tampered with[edit]

The first sentence is convoluted and apears to have a biased insertion "Shia is true and thats all you need to know". Does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality. (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Garrett 4/23/10

Good catch! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect: Mahdi works with Mujtahids[edit]

"Shias believe the Mahdi was already on earth, is currently the "hidden imam" who works through mujtahids to intepret Qur'an; and will return at the end of time.[24]" this is incorrect, the source is wrong. The twelver belief is that there was a short period in Mahdi's life at the beginning where he worked with a few, but no longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadhumia flo (talkcontribs) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mahdi (sa) works with Mujtahids is correct. but not clear for people. hide means people can not see. hide is like sun behind cloud. sun behind cloud can not be seen but has benefit. yes the workings of mahdi (sa) by Mujtahids is recorded in history partially. but this not means that now there is no connection. also this is incorrect:"The twelver belief is that there was a short period in Mahdi's life at the beginning where he worked with a few, but no longer." evidence? Srahmadi (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shia vs. Shi'a[edit]

I note that this main article is spelled "Shia", but most other articles and categories are "Shi'a". This was more mixed-up about a year or two ago, with "Shia", "Shi'a" and "Shiite" being used with no standardisation. I talked to some folks then, got the green-light for "Shi'a", and changed some cats and pages to that spelling. However, whatever spelling we're going with, the main article for the whole cat should match up. So should we change this article's spelling, or are folks adamant enough about "Shi'a" as a spelling that we need to put in a mass WP:CFD to change several dozen categories to remove the apostrophe? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shia is used more often as it is simple without an apostrophe but Shi'a is better representation of original Arabic word. Whild Shia is more often used in South Asia (by all muslims, non-muslims, govt., academicians, etc.) and rest of the world were British Empire ruled at any point of time and exported English to that region (rememeber it was Indian-subcontinent where English first came in close interaction with Shia muslims). Rest of the world (esspecially Arab & Persian speaking) uses Shi'a but remember English was not a common language in any of this countries till recent (& not even now) so they tend to have different standards of transliteration. Until last century in English Orietal transliteration were being replaced by South Asian transliterations but recently (in last decade or so with spread of internet) now it is more globaly accepted phenomenin to transliterate words as per orignal language pronounciation (i.e. how Oriental Osman became South-Asian Usman & then Arab Uthman or KoranQuranQur'an, etc.). Wikipedia also favours local language transliteration but is there any clear guideline for it? and do we have transliteration guidelines for Arabic words?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started a section discussing the Etymology of the words/term, Please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.Xareen (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Various articles and categories did have Shi'a rather than Shia in the name. These were all changed to Shia, matching this main article, following this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Shias section[edit]

the section Origin of Shias is totally stupid it is fully written by anti shia'a where is the shia view about how shia was there from the day one of islam ??? -- (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This section is factually incorrect. Shia Islam is not a political movement! Here, I am quoting from the book The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam by Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri, 978-0195793871 Chapter 1 page 6

Those who thus emphasize the political nature of Shi'ism are perhaps too eager to project the modern Western notion of the separation of church and state back into seventh century Arabian society, where such a notion would be not only foreign, but completely unintelligible. Such an approach also implies the spontaneous appearance of Shi'ism rather than its gradual emergence and development within Islamic society.

Can we please fix this? Xareen (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcomed to help to improve the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added the following text and the citation.

The western scholarship that only view Shi'ism as a political movement is factually incorrect. The concept of separation of church and state did not yet exist in the Muslim community, in the 6th century AD. S.H.M Jafri, the author of The Origin and Early Development of Shi'a Islam writes Those who thus emphasize the political nature of Shi'ism are perhaps too eager to project the modern Western notion of the separation of church and state back into seventh century Arabian society, where such a notion would be not only foreign, but completely unintelligible. Such an approach also implies the spontaneous appearance of Shi'ism rather than its gradual emergence and development within Islamic society.[66]

Xareen (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Related" section[edit]

This is written from a fundamentalist fringe viewpoint and does not belong here, especially since it is completely unsourced. See my edit summary: Removed unsourced, libellous POV section. Druze are Ismailis, Alawis are Twelwers, they should not have a separate section which basically is about "infidels". FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Summarized list of branches?[edit]

Hi, and a very good day, kindly reload the sub section, the purpose of keeping the list is to provide the over view for the viewers who dont know much detail about the shia, by referring the list of branches they may reach to the particular branch directly and read it, rather then searching the entire article/section. the list is provided concerning the time consumption and removing the confusion.this will build the relation of the viewers with wiki.if any correction is required they may do it, but removing the entire list is not justifiable. Plz advice and reply.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle; I agree with Omer that the current "Branches" section is too long to easily follow the divisions of Shiism. However, I disagree with the formatting of his list as being too brief, and not properly footnoted. I suggest instead that we all find a happy medium between Omer's suggestion and the current: perhaps we should trim the Branches section of material that's just too in-depth for such a general article, and devote perhaps a paragraph or two to the bare fundamentals of what distinguishes each Shia sect. That way instead of a confusing array of sections and sub-sections, we can have a series of neatly stacked brief paragraphs on the branchings, and for all further details folks can just follow the linked names of the sects. Thoughts? BTW, kudos to Omer for pointing out a genuine problem with the crowdedness of "Branches", though I disagree with his intial approach to solve it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The existing format is rather confusing. I would go further: I think that Omer's list is quite useful. Use that as a basis for the branches section with just two or three sentences on each sect. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My main issue with Omer's list was that it didn't have any context, so a bit too far in the opposite directio. That and the footnotes were to sectarian sites (unnecessary, there are tons of neutral academic books on Google), or to other WP articles (you can't cite WP on WP). The idea is most valid, execution just could be smoother. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I respect both of your advice Matthew and DeCausa, you had given an advice which i could not speak/work out, as i am born in this month for WP and not much expert like you. We or any individual can organize the section, if the list exist in the article, so kindly bless and upload the list, as when we get the appropriate info we can update accordingly in the article.please do the needful.--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point to be noted that the list being introduced specifically deals with South Asia & refers to stand alone websites and superficial new reports. Should we not refer to academic references for such cases? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Should i assume the conclusion of this discussion, that we can proceed to edit the Section witht the description of 2-3 sentances.Omer123hussain (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It will be better if change is posted here at talk page first and then given some time for response and when it is agreed the consensused material should be updated on Article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs
Faiz what you mean by It will be better??? and is it the policy of WP or your individual advice to post it on talk page, if WP policy please give the reference.thanks for the response --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It is well accepted practice to avoid edit wars. And Burden of inclusion lies on you i.e. you are ading some info then you should proove that it is worth inclusion and try to get consensus over it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Haider; if you, as before, post a "good idea" that is not yet polished, someone will object and revert it again. Whereas, if you present a draft here and we collaborate together to make it unassailably good quality, then there can be no objections when it posts. Your idea is very sound, but we should organise it to be easy to read, all high-quality footnotes, and insure that it properly covers the full span of Shia brances before we add it to the article. The is no "deadline" on Wikipedia, so the article will survive just fine over however many days it takes us to reach consensus.MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[signed on behalf of Matthew by Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)]

Section:Family Tree of 6 Islamic Nabi and Shia Islam[edit]

The table "Family Tree of 6 Islamic Nabi and Shia Islam" gives impression that all Shias are descendants of Imam Hussain & vice versa which is not true. Also, "Family Tree of 6 Islamic Nabi" is not a particular belief to Shia Islam albeit it is common accepted fact across all denominations of Islam. IMO we need to deal with this issue. Any feedbacks? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this is kind-of old, but the section got my attention last night. First, editors should try to keep a focus that Shia is not a new religion, but just a sect of Islam. So please don't make it look-like something else. Shias don't have to be descendants from a certain family, right? This section should only mention it's historical descendants, IMO.
Btw, is Hassan alive and Hussein dead :p ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It's never old on WP ;). The table "Family Tree of 6 Islamic Nabi and Shia Islam" gives incorrect impression that all Shia re descendant of Imam Hussain. BTW I worked on following tree:

'Abd Manaf
'Abd Shams
Abu Talib
Abu sufyan
'Abbasid Caiphs
ibn Hanafiyya
Ummayad Caliphs
Ummayad Caliphs
Idrisids in N. Africa,
some Zaydi Imams
Kaysaniyya Sect
Zaydi Shi'ism
Isma'ili Fatimid
Caliphate in Egypt
Isma'ili Shi'ism
Imam Mahdi
Ithnā‘ashari Shi'ism
May be we can add the " 6 Islamic Nabi" on top and it'll be good replacement for two tables/pics/trees on the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a tricky one. I know the current version is incorrectly lined. I honestly don't feel that both together may look any better. If you consider picking one-of-them, the current (with Shias being a wider box with no descendent line), or your version (but I'm afraid it will be too big).
The main issue with either two is its fine-line with WP:OR. It would be ok if the article's quality stays in "class B". I just can't straight-forward support or oppose. Just some thoughts :) ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the chart is relevant to the article of Sayyed, not here. It's not part of history, and currently in the branch section, the Shia Imams of different branches is depicted. In addition, the term 6 Nabi doesn't exist in any Islamic sect as far as I know. We have just the term Ulul-adhm prophets who are five, and again relevant to Sayyed not here.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam & Ali, thanks for your comments, here is a revised and extended version of the above tree it includes, Adam (the first man & prophet) and the five Ulul-adhm prophets, early Quraysh structure , and key to differences between various major Shia denominations based on personalities. I know it is bit heavy. I strated making this tree for self satisfaction and will not bother if it is not used. If we decide to use it then I'll create a template page for it.

Adam - 1
Nuh (Noah) - 2
Ibrahim (Abraham) - 3
Ismail (Ishmael)
Ishaq (Isaac)
Yaqub (Jacob)
Banu Quraysh
Bani Isra'il
'Abd Manaf
Musa (Moses) - 4
Isa (Jesus) - 5
'Abd Shams
Abu Talib
Muhammad - 6
Abu Sufyan
'Abbasid Caliphs
ibn Hanafiyya
Ummayad Caliphs
Ummayad Caliphs
Kaysaniyya Sect
Idrisids in N. Africa,
some Zaydi Imams
Zaydi Shi'ism
Isma'ili Fatimid
Caliphate in Egypt
Isma'ili Shi'ism
Ithnā‘ashari Shi'ism

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, you should of linked "Adam-1" to my userpage :p, I came here first!
Actually, I don't have any experience about the topic, so I can't give any content opinion (answering Sayed and Ali). I'm just watching policies and general views. If the content is relevant here, I'd suggest putting the tree in an image on the side (but it's way too large to put it in an image or article, IMO). ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of the article[edit]

I have started revising this article. Those who are interested to contribute are welcomed.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are quite extensive articles about the various sects (Twelvers, Zaydi), I think the current content on them on this page is too long. These sects (and others) should be briefly summarised in a paragraph or less, and the reader directed to their specific articles by a {{main}} tag. I'll try to work on that later if nobody beats me to it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Metthew. I'll consider it. The current article is not well written. Hopefully in the incoming days, I'll try my best to clean it.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The point to be noted while revision is that this article seems to be moving to represent Twelver branch then Shia in general. e.g. Usul-al-deen has been moved out of twelver sub-section to main section of Doctrine which now gives impression that it is accepted as such by all denominations of Shi'ism, which may not be fully correct. Also, intro has been revamped and it gives impression that Imam Hasan a.s. is accepted by all denominations as Imam but Mutazalis don't include Imam Hasan a.s. in the list of Imams. I think these anomalies should be fixed in future revisions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the details, but in principle I strongly support Faiz's point that the article must not drift into being about the Twelvers. Material which applies to, and only to, the Twelvers should appear in their own article, and only mentioned here to provide context or to note the spectrum of different Shia beliefs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you here. Being the majority doesn't mean they get such a large Weight. ~ AdvertAdam talk 21:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments made me happy as I don't like to be the only contributor here. Regarding the doctrine section; As far as I know and what Iranica says in its Shia doctrine articles (first article here), the three priniciples of Monotheism, Prophethood, and Last judgement is same for all Muslims including Shia, no disagreement on Justice in any Islamic sec, and Imamate (Leadership) is the main principle of all Shia schools. Interestingly Iranica reports a different description of principles from the 8th Imam who only belongs to Twlvers. Of course the interpretation of Shia schools are different from each other, for example Ismailis believe in spiritual Judgement while others do not, so I gave a general explanation which agrees with all schools. Any way, if you still see it inappropriate, replace it with any description you may know. I haven't yet finished the whole article, and till now I've revised Etymology, Doctrine, Holidays and holy sites, and branches.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't changed anything apart from adding some details because I didn't wanted to undo somebody's work without second thaught. I stated what I think was appropriate by my experience on this article, actually we came up with the present format after quite a bit of brain storming/discussion/edit-wars. I know it's not even near to good and far from perfect. IMO, we should not make genralization or eat up part of story to make it to look smooth. BTW, I myself am twelver.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
You're a valuable well-known user. I restored the previous doctrine section now. I will continue more edits, so don' hesitate to click on undo if you don't find something good.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Shia islam slideshow with audio.theora.ogv Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Shia islam slideshow with audio.theora.ogv, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This images definitely wont be kept, so it will be deleted from here soon. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ali callig.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Ali callig.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence Fragments[edit]

I found the following fragments under section Prosecution "Militarily established and holding control over the Umayyad government". Xareen (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No pictures[edit]

Why is there no pictures of Imam Ali or Imam Hussein or Imam Reza shrines? You put picture of mecca, and bahrain shias but not Iraqi/Iranian Shia pictures?

Please fix this immediately,and put a Imam Reza picture up.

Iranians are credited very much for keeping the faith alive, as well as building these mosques, it is upmost importance and of respect to give credit where it is due.

Put the pictures up please.

Do you know of any pictures available in the wikimedia? Xareen (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

no valid pic of them is available. Srahmadi (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi (talkcontribs) 07:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


I removed repetitive superfluous content. Pass a Method talk 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Something that may seems superfluous to one person may not be for others. Hence a need for discussion. We need to be careful not to overtly remove the citation. When a part of the article is already cited and being referenced correctly, then there need to be some reasoning given to why the citations/references are being removed. Thanks! Xareen (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource, book review[edit]

The Revolutionary Shias] DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books by Malise Ruthven regarding Shi’ism: A Religion of Protest by Hamid Dabashi (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press) (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource, book review[edit]

The Revolutionary Shias DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books by Malise Ruthven regarding Shi’ism: A Religion of Protest by Hamid Dabashi (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press) (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology section[edit]

Is there a reason why this section should be removed? It contains a reference to the meaning of the word Shia and an alternate spellings to the sect like Shiite. This section should be kept.

Shia in Arabic The word Shia (Classical Arabic: شيعة shīʻah /ˈʃiːʕa/) means follower[19] and is the short form of the historic phrase shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي /ˈʃiːʕatu ˈʕaliː/), meaning "followers of Ali", "faction of Ali", or "party of Ali".[1][3][4][5] The term has widely appeared in hadith and is repeated four times in the Quran;[2] for example verse 37:83[20] mentions Abraham as a Shia (follower) of Noah.[21] Shi'ite, Shiite, Shia, and Shiism are alternative terms.

I just found another article on how the Etymology section can be used. Please see this article Sadducees. They try to trace the history of the term/word or when it was used. The word is spelt in hebrew and a few meanings are proposed. This is very helpful for English speaking crowd. Xareen (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over "oldest denomination" claim, etc.[edit]

The dialogue which has been entered into regarding User:MatthewVanitas' mass-reversion of my edits has taken place on his talk page. Irānshahr (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Irānshahr recently made a series of changes to the article, with very little edit summary explanation and no attempt to discuss the issue on Talk. I take issue with his inserting the claim that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination of Islam", a claim which I believe is way too controversial to be just tossed into the lede. Similarly he's inexplicably added a phonetic description for a (relatively uncommon) spelling Shiis. Yes, it is a spelling, but the lede is already getting heavy with orthography and the like.
He's also made substantial changes to the statistic for Shia populations given. I have not dug into all of them yet, but given the past tendency for folks to "re-interpret", "fix" or just plain tamper with these numbers, I submit a clearer explanation of why numbers are changing should be given.
I reverted him twice, so can't do so further. Here are the diffs between edits before and after his recent push. I request others following the page take a look and let me know if they share these concerns, as he has not taken the trouble to gain any consensus before making these edits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have voluntarily removed the edit which states that Shia Islam is the "second largest and the oldest denomination". Not because this is not fact, but until I have a reference to hand to accompany it. It has already been explained to Matthew that my adjustment of the figures in the table was nothing more than restoring the referenced figures which had been wrongly altered. His reaction here seems to have been nothing more than a kneejerk dislike at the idea that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination" of Islam. If and when I have a reliable reference of this fact then I will re-insert it. Until then I've removed it to accomodate this user's fears. Irānshahr (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming in to get consensus on the issue of the lede claims. I emphasise that I don't have a dog in the Sunni-Shia argument, but my concern is because I greatly doubt that "oldest denomination of Islam" is a cut-and-dry, NPOV claim for any branch. So far as the statistics, if that is the case and you're simply correcting earlier tampering, that's appreciated. It just wasn't clear from your edit summaries, and since it was immediately unaccompanied by contentious (and, I submit, possible POV) statements, some scrutiny and questioning seems a fair reaction.
I look forward to hearing from the body of editors on this page as to whether the claims to be the "oldest denomination" and "started during Ali's lifetime" are NPOV factual statements. Regarding the statistics, have we considered placing such tamperable things like population numbers from specific sources into a sub-template so that they can be locked in at a higher editing level than the article overall? This has been used to good effect on some other articles where mischievous IPs like to go in and shift numbers, and would help protect this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I will not re-insert a claim of being "the oldest denomination" unless it is accompanied by a reliable reference.

I wouldn't get your hopes up about there being a "body of editors" on this page, otherwise things like earlier tampering of figures wouldn't have gone unnoticed. In general this is a neglected article. As I earlier explained to you, the fact that Shia Islam began in Ali's lifetime is axiomatic and there is nothing whatsoever controversial about stating it. Shia means "faction [of Ali]". To quote the second line of this article:

"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي), meaning "followers of Ali", "faction of Ali", or "party of Ali"

Stating that "Shia Islam began in Ali's lifetime" is no different to stating that "Christianity began in Jesus' lifetime". There is nothing at all controversial about the statement. If you know anything about Islamic history you'll know that there were "followers of Ali" (Shi'ah) during the reign of Abu Bakr (632-634). The suggestion of locking in figures within a template is a good one, I may do that later. Irānshahr (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

is no different to stating that "Christianity began in Jesus' lifetime". There is nothing at all controversial about the statement
I completely disagree; I submit that the Jesus statement is contentious, as scholars have certainly argued that during Jesus' immediate lifetime he was perceived as a reformer of Judaism, vice founder of a religion. And the Jesus issue is less contentious than the Ali issue because Christianity doesn't have a pro-Jesus vs. anti-Jesus faction, as seen with Ali. Perhaps an even closer example would be the contentiousness of the Catholic claim that "the Catholic church began with St. Peter's investiture by Jesus." Catholics certainly believe that, but many other denominations would say that's ridiculous anachronism.
Yes, I agree this article is under-supervised for how crucial it is, and that's lamentable. Yes, some way to prevent statistic tampering would be great, agreed. I continue to take issue with (as does at least one other editor today) statements, particularly uncited, tracing a particular Shia Islam to Ali's own lifetime. Nobody is denying that Ali had a "faction of Ali"-supporters, but whether one can properly say that Shia Islam, as an institution, existed in Ali's lifetime is touchy. And it is far, far, far touchier to argue that Shia Islam is "older" than Sunni Islam. Do you not think that many Sunnis would argue that Shiism is a later development, a derivation of Sunnism? I'm just genuinely confused how you don't think that anyone could object to Shiism being assigned seniority within Islam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of templates in the margins?[edit]

I submit that the article layout has become massively cluttered with all the templates jammed into the margins for each section. At this point, we have templates for "Shia Islam", "Islam", "Muhammad", "Twelvers", and "Ismailis" all lined up in a row down the right margin. Is there not some policy on WP saying that you should pick one primary template that applies to the whole article? I suggest that the "Shia Islam" template be used and the others removed to cut down on the clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. More generally this article is a horrible mess. I've just started looking at it to see what diagram/charts etc can be taken out & other layout changes but tbh it's such a mess I don' even know where to begin. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is truly grievous that what should be one of the top Religion articles on the entire WP is a) poorly written and b) poorly supervised. I'll leave the template issue for a day or two to see if anyone objects to removal, the proceed. If you similarly want to start a new section here and mention a few ways to start chopping, I'm game. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving this article, currently a horrible mess[edit]

It's written in poor English, badly laid out, repetitive, over-long and meandering & ignores WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It's notable (in a bad way) that what should be 2 major subsidiary articles,Shi'a Islamic beliefs and practices & History of Shi'a Islam, are just stubs.

As a starting point I propose a revise simplified structure

1 Etymology & Origins
2 Beliefs (to incl. differences between Branches)
3 History (to incl. the Branches)
4 Modern Communities
4.1 Demographics
4.2 Persecution

Unless anyone objects I'm going to start applying WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to History. It's focus needs to change from "Shia empires" (although still to be referenced) to the history of its development as a religious movement (esp. the Branches). DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; I particularly submit we need to trim down the different branches into manageable sub-sections that give the reader just enough info to understand their distinguishing characteristics, and allow the magic of the WP:blue link to permit them more info as needed. I also support sliding more of the main-page content to the subsidiary pages and working in cogent summaries. Lacking any outcry over the last day or so, I'm going now to remove the redundant templates. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the excess templates, so the layout is cleaner now. Also taking out a few suspicious phrases (see History and I'll leave clear Edit Summaries, a feature sadly lacking on this article). If at all possible, it'd be nice to replace some of the Britannica quotes with secondary vice tertiary content, but that's a lower priority compared to just cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Made some decent amount of changes: agreeing so far? Though the lede should be left for last, I do submit we need a much shorter and clearer lede. The current one spends too much time on etymology and hammering home points about Ali rather than holistically covering the broad topic.
No major qualms with your outline above, though not sure if we need to separate out "Practises" from beliefs in order to cover holidays, worship styles, lifestyle customs, etc. It does really make it tricky that 12ers/7ers/5ers are rather different from one another, so we do need to stay pretty on-focus trying to cover Shiism overall, and not make the article "all about Twelvers and oh-by-the-way here's a mention of the 5/7 guys."
I'm still mixed on how best to address "History" - the article History of Shia Islam is pretty terrible and mostly just links; I almost want to just merge that article into here, but we'll see how best to go. Looking forward to seeing any edits/thoughts from you and others on this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I wrote most of the lede. Should i condense it? Pass a Method talk 19:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC);
I don't think the lead is the problem - although it is mainly about beliefs whereas the article covers other topics as well. I suggest revisiting the lead once the rest of the article is sorted out.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've done a condense of the lede, trying to make it somewhat mirror in structure/length that of Sunni Islam. It just felt too much like it was trying to argue a case for the validity of Ali's successorship, rather than simply describe it. What we call the WP:Beware of tigers issue.

I condensed it, and so as not to lose cites moved the secondary-source material down to "Beliefs" below for now. I feel better about the current lede, though I do think it should have some extremely brief mention of history/demographics. Someone reading just the lede should come away with a general idea that Shia differ from Sunni, the key issue is Ali/imamate, and within Shia there are three main branches.

I welcome any comments on my changes as I go through them. I am following WP:BEBOLD so I will not at all resent it if someone raises an objection or wants to go back a few drafts and bring something back. I just ask that anyone reverting or copy-pasting old text up to the new version provide a clear edit summary and ideally post about it here, so that we can all understand why things should/not be changed. Glad to be talking this out! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest To-Do list[edit]

A few brainstorms:

  • We have some redundancy between "Beliefs" regarding Ali's succession, and the "History" section where they discuss the debate over succession. This is a bit extreme, but maybe we could put everything up until Hussein's martyrdom under "Beliefs", since although history it's history that informs the whole Shia belief system. Then the actual "History" section could be post-Hussein, explaining how the Shia reorganized themselves, founded dynasties and countries, etc., leading up the Safavids who established a long-lasting Shia nation.
  • I have some concerns about the Safavid section, since a lot of it seems to be purely Twelver history, and could probably be briefly summarised and folks could go to Twelver for the nitty-gritty details of Usulis vs. Akhbaris.
  • The "Branches" sections are way too long. They need to be a brief description of why/when each branch split off, what makes them distinct, and a quick paragraph about their arch of history to the present day. EDIT: Currently "Branches" takes up about 1/3 of the main text of the article. I'd argue that's a bit undue, and we can probably trim the branches down a bit, to give the reader just enough info to decide if they want to go read the main articles for each branch (easily done with the pretty blue link...)
  • We have several items in "Beliefs" that only pertain to some branhces, like ismah and Occultation. Maybe we need a section at the end of "Beliefs" to detail the doctrines not shared between all groups, leaving the first part of "Beliefs" for those ideas that are common to all three? That'll help keep the topic unified until we absolutely have to get into the complicated "X says this, but Y and Z say that" distinctions.
  • In "Beliefs": "Infallibility" is too cluttered, "Theology" is too aimless, and "Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt" is too long and discursive.
  • There's no description of any distinct customs of the Shia. Are there any generalisations that can be made about distinctions between their worship practices from those of the Sunni, or is it just too dependent whether they're 12/7/5?
  • I'm a bit concerned about how easy it is to muck with the numbers on the table of populations by country, which has in the past been a popular target for IP tampering. One possibility that's worked well on some India pages: we could move the whole table to a separate template, so it would display just fine on the article, but wouldn't show up for editing unless you specifically hit the "E" on the template itself. Plus we could put the "Pew Research Shia Population" template at a higher protection level than the main article, arguing that as a specific cite from a ref it shouldn't be as easily editable.

I think this is going pretty well, though I'm standing by for some hostility when someone comes by and finds they don't like this version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a basic stab at cleaning up the basic outline of the paper, and done some simple trimming/condensing of content. What do folks think so far? What are the most important steps next? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

shia - Muslim?[edit]

Is there any strong fatwa sent by Muslim scholars to recognize shia as Muslims? Are they considered Muslim by Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking whether the article can be rewritten to define Shia as not being a branch of Islam? The existing sources all seem to agree that Shia is a branch of Islam. If you are asking for the article to be rewritten to support one particular side in a religious disagreement, the neutral point of view policy would prohibit doing that at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like POV trolling more like DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does any branch not recognise Zayn al-Abidin?[edit]

The article currently states:

Hussein is the last imam following Ali whom all Shia sub-branches mutually recognise.<ref>Discovering Islam: making sense of Muslim history and society (2002) Akbar S. Ahmed</ref>

However, to my understanding the Twelvers, Zaydi, and Ismailis (both Nizari and Mustali) recognise Zayn al-Abidin as an imam. Is this quote referring some other extinct Shia sects, or small current sub-sects, which I'm overlooking? Or is it incorrect, and all Shia sects recognise Zayn al-Abidin as successor to Hussein? I know that the Zaydi split off after Zayn al-Abidin's death, following Zayd ibn Ali vice Muhammad al-Baqir of the Twelvers and Ismailis, but is there any group that split off even earlier than that, yet is still considered Shia? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gnostic Extremism[edit]

I've been reading several scholarly articles on Abatur and other Gnostic deities and frequently learn of a connection between them and Shiite extremists. Has anyone else located the same or similar information? Secondly, where should it be written? The portal is located here (for those unfamiliar):

Twillisjr (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Early Islam[edit]

I have done a lot of research in this area and currently work in the University of London and have been through hundreds of books in the school of oriental and african studies SOAS library too. The SOAS library contains more books on this topic than almost any other library. Some of the books are also very old. When you go through the oldest books like Al-Muwatta you realise that there was no such thing as Sunnis and Shias at that time. There were highly educated people like Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and Imam Malik. But there were no theological differences. Then when students of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq when to far away places they still all agreed on what was contained in the Quran but allowed the people in those areas to continue with some of their pre-islamic laws and traditions if they did not contractic with the Quran. Due to there not being good communications, their implementation of islamic laws was also not as standardised.

A good book to read is

N.J. Coulson - History of Islamic Law

The concept of Sunni and Shia developed much later. These terms were developed to divide people so that the rulers could get people to fight their opponents. The Safavid dynasty did a lot in this regards. Safavid ruled Persia and the Persians were sufi as were the Ottomans and the two groups would not fight each other. So the Safavid implemented a policy of divide and rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

1328101993 Rename.png Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on AbrahamIbrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Shīʻatul ʻAlī (شيعة العلي)[edit]

Shīʻatul ʻAlī (شيعة العلي) is not correct -- neither in the transliteration nor in the Arabic. The name "ʻAlī" is already determined. So it is not correct to supply it with an article (the "l" after Shīʻatu).

It should be read: Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي) -- (DMG would be šīʿatu ʿAlī) -- (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The English transliteration Shi’i redirects to this page. The English transliteration Shi’a does not. Is this an oversight? Do the two spellings represent the same Arabic word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


The table includes Bulgaria with the way too unprecise indication "~100 000" Shia muslims, whereas the correct number given in the article Islam in Bulgaria is only 21 610, which is also the number of Shia population in the official census of 2011: Since this is a very small percentage of the total muslim population of the world, as well of the particular country, I will remove it from the article. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested subsection shift[edit]

Upon reading the "Imamate" subsection of the "Beliefs" section, I found the majority of the content to revolve around the early history of Shi'ite Islam, not necessarily Shi'ite beliefs regarding the Imamate; that was only in the opening sentences of that subsection. The smaller sub-subsections of "Succession of Ali," "Ali's caliphate," "Hasan" and "Husayn" all seem to consists of history, with actual beliefs regarding them and the rest of the Prophet's family being contained in the "Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt" subsection. Furthermore, the "History" section of this article is rather small and jumps from Origin of Shia Islam to the Fatimid dynasty. Why not move the sub-subsections on Ali, Hasan and Husayn down into the history section? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. What's up with the slow archiving here? This talk page is huge and bloated and only two pages are archived. Maybe we can do something about that, too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Shi'ite shahada[edit]

For the purpose of disambiguation, if the mithrab inscription at the Abbasid Ibn Tulun mosque is to be used as a reference, the shahada ought to read, 'Ali is the wali (intimate or friend or associate) of God'. There the Arabic text is quite clear 'علي ولي الله'. Other variants might be referenced. Comments please? Cpsoper (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Shah Ismail I[edit]

Note: Shah Ismail I was the architect of the clash between Sunni and Shia entities in the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction with inaccurate statistics[edit]

I am just giving a heads up to concerned editors about changes that I will be making later today regarding the statistics in the introduction about overall demographics of shia in relation to total Muslim population. I will be referencing the 2009 pew research that has been done. This study has been cited extensively by all major media outlets and is regarded as the latest most accurate estimate. I cannot post the link at the moment because my work place has blocked the pew site. However here is an article that references the study:

I will post a link sometime later today for the pew study. The paragraph in the wiki says that Shia make up 20-30% of Muslim population where in fact it is 10% or 13% at most. Mbcap (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference for Saddam Hussein's persecution of Shia[edit]

There is a bit in the persecution section about Saddam Hussein's treatment of Shia Muslims. I have found this document that we could use to reference the statement as it lacks one at the moment. I do not know how to cite a pdf so was hoping someone would do it. The document is called 'SADDAM HUSSEIN:crimes and human rights abuses'. It was published by the Foreign and commonwealth office in 2002. The link is

It is a questionable document in regards to its link with propagating the need for the war that subsequently followed so I am not sure if it would be appropriate to use it. If possible, maybe someone knows of a better source to use as reference. Mbcap (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed?[edit]

I have added the citation needed tag to the following statement in the article:

According to Shia Muslims, one of the lingering problems in estimating Shia population is that unless Shia form a significant minority in a Muslim country, the entire population is often listed as Sunni.

Please could someone find a suitable source for this. I shall wait 48 hours before deletion. That is an arbitrary waiting period as I do not know what would be appropriate. If someone objects, could you tell me how it works normally. Mbcap (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ali's caliphate[edit]

'as a last source ' - should this be 'as a last resort'? Unclear to me, as a non-muslim. Regards to all.

Notreallydavid (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


I read in a book that Shia's are often called "Rejectionists". The book is "Fundamental Shi'te Beliefs" (downloaded from Is it a reliable source? A.A.Wasif | Talk 11:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There is already a seperate article, linked at the bottom of this article, on rafidah which is the arabic for rejectionists and an insult used to refer to shia by Sunnis

so it's already covered

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference The_New_Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_1998.2C_p._17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).