Talk:Samiri (Islamic figure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Likeness to Abu Bakr Section[edit]

This section is not relevant to the figure of Samiri, nothing in it relates to him or who he is. The views in it are political opinions of the historical figure Abu Bakr by shia muslims. Aby Bakr was the first Khalifah in islam after the prophet (saws) and he was a Khalif before the shia sect came into existence, there opinions on him are their interpretation of history and events. The Shia sect is roughly 5-12% of the world Muslim population, so sectarian minority opinions of who Abu Bakr was are being represented as mainstream Islam. The Majority of Muslims ~90% accept Abu Bakr as the legitimate first Khalif and this is reflected academically. So this entire section should be deleted due to its irrelevance to who samiri was and for it's sectarian bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.100.151 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Connection with Zimri/Lack of Scholarly Opinions regarding Samiri's Identity[edit]

This article, in my opinion, needs more scholarly commentary regarding the identity of Samiri. True, some have identified him with Zimri, but other scholars and classical Qur'anic commentators remain in disagreement as to who he is supposed to represent and what exactly the meaning of the designation Samiri is (e.g. is it a proper name, title, ethnic designation, etc.).

This article needs to present and discuss these differing views. To simply equate Samiri with Zimri based solely on some similarities in their characters without addressing the diversity of opinion among the commentators does readers a great disservice.