Talk:Abu Hurairah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

sources for shia POV[edit]

--Striver 28 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Obvious Sunni Bias[edit]

This article became obvious sunni bias as the shia section was removed totally and there is no mentions of any critical documents against him. I readded the Shia section and the old more historically accurate Sunni section instead of the bias nonsense posted before. This article should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Quite obviously a bashing.

You might feel that it is a bashing, but it is the official Shia view, and it is represented accuratly. If you want to confirm that, start by reading the peswar nights link. --Striver 20:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


-- 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lets rename it.--Striver 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur ... that is the name most people will search for. (See my profile :-) --Dennette 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) --Striver 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Please stop adding the {{Sahaba}} template. It's ugly and misplaced, and it's already mentioned in the introduction, as well as the category. If you want a template on all the Sahaba, then make a nice template. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Abu Hurairah#References[edit]

I have added {{cite web}} templates to replace the external link references ... during the process, I discovered that several were duplicated, so now they use common <ref name=XYZ /> tags ... I also added website names that were missing in the External Links section.

Having said and done all that, I am dubious about some of them failing WP:External links normally to be avoided, like the GeoCities link (not a WP:RS) and others lacking references or sources, and that appear to be "intended to promote a website" ... but do not feel strongly enough to delete any of them at this time.

Besides, it looks like this is one of those Shi'a vs Sunni battlegrounds, and I'd rather just not get involved. -- 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Peace be upon Him) and the Manual of Style[edit]

The Manual of Style (WP:MOSISLAM) indicates that:

  • the first reference to Muhammad should be as Islamic prophet Muhammad;
  • subsequent references should simply be Muhammad; and
  • other honorifics such as PBUH or (Peace be Upon Him) should generally not be added in the body of the text.

I have therefore gone through and removed a few of these honorifics in this article. I have left them where they appear in quotes as they may reflect the actual translation.

No offense is intended in these removals, which are simply to improve the flow of the article and adhere to similar articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Euryalus 04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Peshawar Nights[edit]

A note for those who believe that Peshawar Nights is a solid Shi'a source and therefore is bias/one-sided, I want to point out that the statements and arguments used in Peshawar nights are from Sunni sources. This article can not bash on Abu Hurairah because these incidences are fact. That would be like if someone deleted the holocaust artocities in the Hitler article because "it is bashing on Hitler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandros (talkcontribs) 20:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Abu Hurairah[edit]

Abu Hurairah from zahran tribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Umar's court[edit]

I think the part about Umar's court should be moved into the shia view section, it being placed in its own section make it seem like both sunni's and shia's believe that happened -- (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag[edit]

I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. Whenever an NPOV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.Jjdon (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The information under the Shiah view is unnecessarily strident; also, some less polemical citations on it would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolcarder (talkcontribs) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shia do NOT believe that Muawiya killed the 4th Caliph. They don't even use that word. Can I fix this?--Shabaniyya (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Problems[edit]

There are two different POV problems here (1) The pious Muslim (in this case almost certainly a sunni) who accepts uncritically all the old stories about Abu Hurayra and (2) the Shi'ite who accepts uncritically all the old polemics against Abu Huraira and his legacy. However it should be possible to indicate something about him in a non-sectarian way. The fact is that we know next to nothing trustworthy about Abu Huraira's biography and he is mostly a name via which to convey hadiths. My personal opinion, not usable in the article, is that his is the most reliable thread of tradition. If more information about his life is needed it would be best to avoid pious tales like those about his mother and concentrate on his legacy. For instance there is a hadith in which he recounts his poverty and his devotion to Muhammad's sayings. I think the fact that he is called the father-in-law of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib is very important - among other things it indicates a family. I don't know what the Shi'ites, who reject his doctrinal hadiths, think about his autobiographical ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKleinecke (talkcontribs) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also a third POV problem here: (3) The non-Muslim who is interested in the subject and has no reason to accept, critically or not, any claims that don't reference reliable third-party sources. Particularly problematic are verses from the Qur'an that are quoted without explanation or context. I have removed an entire section of such quotations that was recently added without explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References seem not to qualify as Reliable Sources[edit]

The current references seem self-published; therefore, it is doubtful they meet reliable source standards.ANE.Scholar (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them, see my edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)