Jump to content

Talk:Shia Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.111.129.157 (talk) at 19:34, 17 May 2015 (→‎Massive work needed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

basic disagreement Shia / Sunni

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 156.77.111.18 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. 77.11.41.93 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian and others: Why does this sentence exist in the article: "Muhammad, before his death, designated Ali as his successor." Do you agree it should be removed or rephrased?--Anders Feder (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This particular POV seems to have been first introduced by an anonymous editor[1] and then, on a second occasion (in good faith), by Faizhaider[2]. If that continues, the involved editors should be blocked.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no topical expert, but it seems to me that the question about why this sentence is in the article touches on two separate areas of concern.
  • First, the topic of the article is Shia Islam. Discussion about how other branches of Islam differ, if mentioned at all, probably ought to be confined to an article section on that subtopic.
  • Second, that sentence cites page 15 of this book as a supporting source. I don't have access to a hardcopy, and the book is not previewable via Google books, so I don't know how strongly the book supports the assertion as it is expressed in the article. However, I see that
  • Hazleton, Lesley (2009). After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-385-53209-9. seems to suggest that whether such a designation was made, and how that fact came to be known beyond the circle of persons present at Mohammed's death.
  • Brown, Daniel W. (2011). "The Caliphate". A New Introduction to Islam. John Wiley & Sons. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-4443-5772-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) asserts that Mohammed said something like "he of whom I am the patron ... Ali is also the patron", and that was interpreted as designation of Ali as his successor.
Re the second point, I'm pretty sure that other sources touching on this exist, and that the sources are not in unanimous agreement that Mohammed unambiguously designated Ali his successor. Given that this is the case, it seems to me that WP:DUE comes into play, and that the article should not assert that there was a clear and unambiguous designation but rather that Shia Muslims believe that there was such a declaration and that other branches of Islam disagree on that point - with sources supporting both views being cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be modified "The Shiʿites maintain that the Prophet designated ʿAlī as his successor by God’s command.[3]" For more explanation there is another article: Succession to Muhammad.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejectionists"

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

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

New Structure

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein:The structure of the article needs to be changed.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the belief section, just these should come, The Oneness of God (Taw˙íd), Divine Justice (Adl), Prophecy (Nubuwwa), Imamate (Imåma), The Hereafter (Maåd).--Salman mahdi (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this structure:

Shia Islam

  1. Twelvers
    1. Usul al-Din
      1. Tawhid
      2. Adl
      3. Nubuwah
      4. Imamah
      5. Ma'ad
    2. Theology
    3. Philosophy
    4. Jurisprudence
      1. The Roots of Jurisprudence

No. Your structure is more suitable for Twelvers article. So this is my suggestion:

  1. Etymology
  2. Origin (relates to Succession to Muhammad)
    1. Theological theory
    2. Political theory
  3. Beliefs
    1. Tawhid including Adl
    2. Nubuwah including Quran
    3. Imamat and Wilayat
      1. Imami Shias (Twelvers, Ismailis and the other post Imam Al-Sadiq branches)
      2. non Imamis (Zaydis, Kisanis, Murjae and the other pre Imam Al-Sadiq branches)
  4. Shia and Sunni; Similarities and differences
    1. Quran and Sunnah
    2. Theology
    3. Fiqh
  5. Branches
    1. Imamis
      1. Twelvers
      2. Ismailis
      3. The others
    2. non Imamis
      1. Zaidis
      2. the others
  6. History
    1. First century (1-81): Emergence: from Imam Ali to Imam Sadjad
    2. Second and third Century (81-148): Formulation: from Imam Al-Baqir to Imam Al-Sadiq
    3. Fragmentation, consolidation and organizing (148-300): from Imam Al-Kazim to Imam al-askari
    4. (300-450):Rising to power: Zaidi, Esmaili, etc dynasties
    5. 450-650:Decline and fall of Shia states: Shia under Sunni dynasties
    6. 650-900: From Mongol invasion to Safavid dynasty
    7. 900-1800: From Safavid dynasty to modern era
    8. 1800-1979: Shia in colonial era
    9. 1979-onward: From Islamic revolution: rise of Political shia
  7. Controversial issues
    1. Tawassul
    2. Dissimulation (Taqiyya)
    3. Change of Destiny (Bada')
    4. The Return (Raj'a)
    5. Mut'ah

--Seyyed(t-c) 15:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Imams

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein: I think the table of the list of Imams is related to its own article and just its link is enough for this article.Salman mahdi (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Mhhossein (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated Material

There are too much unrelated material in this article, please help to delete it.5.116.141.161 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salman mahdi: Sorry, but this is an important article on Wikipedia and your edits are of very limited quality. Please read the WP:MOS and don't dump incoherent stuff in the middle of the prose the article contained before. I took the liberty of reverting yours edits, but you can obviously still find them here. Please don't make major changes to the structure of a high profile article without establishing some minimum of consensus beforehand. You can add reliably sourced parts back in a little more carefully, or we can discuss them if you wish. But keep in mind, the point is not to present Shia Muslims' beliefs, but to explain in ordinary English what reliable sources write about Shia Islam.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders Feder: I agree that any change regarding the structure should be postponed until we reach consensus. However, if you think the source is not reliable or should be changed, you can add one of the suitable tags instead of removing the text. Your manner is not constructive. Reza Shah-Kazemi and Ja'far Sobhani's work is published by I.B. Tauris in London. He is a notable scholar and his view about the meaning of Shia is not sectarian.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian: You wouldn't know what being constructive is. I haven't commented on the reliability of the two sources you mention anywhere. I reverted Salman mahdi's changes because they degraded the structure and layout of the article. As I specifically wrote above, I wouldn't have anything against any reliably sourced portions being added back into the existing structure.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive work needed

Massive amount of work is needed.--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shia_Islam&oldid=662811528"