Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People reported to be born in the Kaaba

Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I'm the person who started the competing article. I don't think we need two articles, and I don't like the name of this one. However, I'm willing to give up the name I chose for my version if other editors can think of a better name. Zora 08:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep as a parent article of the fenomena, since the fenomena of reports of people being born there is unusual. Complement with more about the actual event of people being reported to be born there.

Name is NPOV in my opinion, but Zora does not like "reports" since it implies eyewitnesses. I do not agree with her, "reports" is NPOV. A "report" can be false, as Shi'a belive the Hakim "reports" are fabricated. Zora wants to remove the possibility of the "reports" even having the possibility of being true, and that is the POV of Zora and those believing all event related to it to be a fabrication. "Claim" is POV, implying "they claim it, but there is no evidence", "Belived" is even worse. There are documented reports of the claim, some people beliveing the reports to be false does not make the word POV, only needs to be represented in the actual article, as it already does.

If the material of the individuals is moved to other articles, this articles still needs to stand and link to all those other articles, exept for elaborating on the actual scenario of people being born there. --Striver 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The point of the article is very muddled, it would seem that certain sects of Islam believe different things. I don't think that it really needs its own article since this could easily be covered by the bios of either Ali or Hakim, or in the article about the Kabaa. Perhaps there could be an article about how various Islamic Sects percieve the Kabaa. DeathThoreau 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment for the first, the topic is to broad to be included in a biographical article, it would get unproportionaly much space, and distract from the main topic. For the second, why split the information all over the place, when it is closly related? --Striver 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kaaba. I'm not at all convinced that either this or the birthplace of Ali article really needs to be an article on its own. I am also dismayed but not surprised to find that we have an article entitled Reports of unusual religious childbirths. Palmiro | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--Khalid! 12:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Stiver --Ya Ali 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Chelman 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments

I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [1], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.--Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not too averse to that... although it throws off the relative importance of births in the Kaaba as compared to other things if the section is too long. gren グレン 08:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Moojan Momen's history of Shi'a Islam right now (thanks to dgl) and it expands a fair bit on the various Shi'a sects and their conceptions of Ali -- some of them turned him into a semi-divinity. I don't think the discussion of this tradition belongs under Kaaba, it belongs under Ali and Shi'a Islam. It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism. Zora 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The way Sunnism and Shi'ism played off of each other in history is very interesting and something we fail to discuss well at all. The Safavid / Ottoman split where they formed their identities contra the other to an extent. In all honesty with the breadth of information we could cover I'm not sure how we can have it all in an orderly, readable, and well weighted fashion. Having millions of articles and not relating them is not the key. There needs to be some incentive for expertise around here. gren グレン 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get this? Why does nobody tells Zora to stop lying when she says stuff like "It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism"? Look at this SUNNI site: [2].

Im used to her bigotry and her incapability of accepting evidence that falsifie her view, but get very provocated when people start buying her nonsens. Again:

Sunni site:

Ali was born under unusual circumstances. On the thirteenth of the holy month of "Rajab", Fatima, the mother of Ali, visited the Kaaba for performing the pilgrimage. During the course of the pilgrimage while circumambulating the Kaaba, Fatima felt the pangs of childbirth. She retired to a secluded place in the precincts of the Holy Kaaba, and there Ali was born. Ali had thus the unique honor of being born in the House of God. This unparalleled honor has endowed Ali with a halo of sanctity, which has become the subject of many legends. A hundred years later, Zain-ul-Abidin a grandson of Ali (son of Husain) met as Arab woman at Najaf who told him that her grandmother had helped on the occasion of the birth of Ali. She narrated that according to the account of her grandmother, the child was beautiful, a smile played on his lips, it did not cry like other children, and its birth did not cause any pain to his mother. [3]

Zora bull****:

"It's a distinctive feature of Shi'ism".

Zora, Don't be a dense dick --Striver 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks such as calling someone a liar and a bigot on the AFD forum. --Gurubrahma 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack, it is fact. Zora is a bigot. Loot at the article: Bigot:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of narrow-minded.

Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, nationalism, and homophobia. Bigotry is not just intolerance, but rather extreme and unreasonable intolerance.

That describes Zora perfectly. She IS a bigot.

I redid Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib to include that site, Witness-Pioneer. It doesn't right out say that it's Sunni -- in fact, it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both. I can't find any information on who owns and edits the site. I'm not sure it represents a trend. Have you found any more Sunni websites (outright Sunni sites) that accept the born-in-the-Kaaba tradition? Zora 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:

Naration is for sure only Shi'a (Because i say so)
Anyone accepting it is Shi'a
hence, that site is Shi'a

Try this:

From the source books that have come down to us, we do not have a proper account of the activities of Ali during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Unfortunately most of the accounts that are available are colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations. It appears that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr for some time and he remained aloof from the state politics. It appears that after the death of Fatima, Abu Bakr tried to console Ali in his grief, and win over his goodwill. It appears that Ali took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr some time after the death of Fatima and got reconciled to him. When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr.

would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!

Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?

The married life of Ali and Fatima did not extend beyond nine years. It was a happy union. Nevertheless there were differences between the pair occasionally. Once, after having quarreled with Fatima, Ali went to the mosque, and lay on bare earth. That made the Holy Prophet call Ali by the appellation of Abu Turab, Father of the earth. At one time, Ali entertained the idea of marrying a daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima complained to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet felt annoyed, and while addressing the people in the mosque he said that verily Fatima was part and parcel of him. [4]