Talk:Shia Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This article should probably include a map

I think it would be a good idea to include a map in this article. Perhaps someone should upload this one http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/muslim_distribution.jpg, as far as i can tell the owners don't seem to mind [1], though IANAL.

Asharite beliefs mentioned here

"The Mu'tazilites have similar beliefs to that of the Shi'a, however, the Ash'arites believe that God has a body and therefore shape."

As far as I know, the Ash'arite school refuted many of the beliefs of the Mu'tazilies which they believed to be Anthropomorphic. I think the statement here which says that Ash'arites ascribe a shape and body to God is wrong. One of the 50 points of Ash'ari thought is that God is unlike all his creations so they disagree with ascribing concepts like shape and space to God (this was one their points of disagreement with Ibn Ta'miya).

Sources: The Asharite page on wikipedia has a mention of their ideas. Also [2] has some more information.

Namaaz

Bismilla

I replaced salaat with the Persian equivalent of Namaaz, which is more commonly used amongst Shia, including Arab Shia.-Reza Hussein(formerly Shia'aithna Islam member name)

Guidelines?

People need to write what they know about these topics. IF YOU DO KNOW ABOUT IT DO NOT WRITE IT! There are people like me who are looking for a general idea about topics like Shi'a versions of Islam. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE FORUM! GO TO A CHATROOM IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. -68.41.7.2

A bunch of little revisions

I did some reformatting and copyediting. The article is still severely deficient and too focused on differences between Sunni and Shi'a. I will work on it when I have time. Zora 6 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Zora, its not only al-qada and the taliban that hold deep contempt for shias, you can find that on almost all sunni sites, not all, but almost.

Yabbut, it's only the extremists who are KILLING Shi'a for the crime of being Shi'a. I agree that there's lots of prejudice displayed elsewhere. Perhaps that should be worked into the para. Zora 7 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

"Tabarra (To hate the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt)" - is it really the teachings of Shia Islam to 'hate' people. Might there be a better way to phrase it?

Aha, I think I've got it. There's a reference in Madelung's fascinating book, The Succession to Muhammad (p. 252), to a gathering of Muslims in Kufa, after the Kharijites had quarrelled with Ali and deserted. Those who were left reasserted their allegiance to Ali, swearing that his friends would be their friends and his enemies their enemies. I have a feeling that this pledge is the basis of the Tabarra article of faith. Tabarra (to consider the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt as one's own enemies) -- how's that? Zora 8 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Redirect

Someone vandalized this page with a redirect to the article on "Shit". How can that be reported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.176.54 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 January 2007

Ismailis

The second largest group of Shi'a Muslims are actually a subgroup of Ismailis called the Nizari Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan. They are NOT Seveners as briefly mentioned in the article... Ismailis have a diversity of sects including the Nizaris, the Druze, and the Bhoras.

A clarification is needed, as well as a differentiation - I have added it to the denominations section.

A possible reference

I found this article interesting and believe it can serve as a good reference to this article. [3]

Sunnis and Shias differ in doctrine, ritual, law, theology and religious organisation. It is the largest and oldest division in the history of Islam.

But the origins of the split lie in a dispute over who should have succeeded the Prophet Muhammad as leader of the Muslim community when he died in 632.

One group of Muslims elected Abu Bakr as the next caliph (leader) of the community, but another group believed the prophet's son-in-law, Ali, was the rightful successor.

Though Ali eventually became the fourth caliph, his legitimacy was disputed and he was murdered in 661.

The Shiat Ali ("Party of Ali") refused to recognise the legitimacy of his chief opponent and successor, Muawiya. Ali's sons Hassan and Hussein continued to oppose Muawiya's successor and fighting between the two sides resulted. Hassan was poisoned in 669 and Hussein was killed in battle near Karbala in 680.

Ali, Hassan and Hussein became the first of the 12 imams who Shia Muslims believe are the divinely-appointed leaders of the Muslim community.

The leadership by imams continued until 878, when the 12th Imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, is said to have disappeared from a cave below a mosque in Samarra.

Not accepting that he died, Shias still await his return more than 1,100 years later. The Hidden Imam's arrival will, they believe, reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.

Differences?

Could someone put up a table comparing the similarities and contrasting the differences between shia and sunni? "They believe this and the other guys believe that" -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.141.76 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 May 2007

Who says they are killing each other dumbass?

It's only in certain countries where the virus of Wahabism/Talabanism has spread that is leading FUNDAMENTALISTS extremists wahabis/pro-taliban elements/taliban (most sunnies are different from wahabis) to kill shias. There are no shia groups that are out to kills wahabis and certainly none to kill sunnis.

Criticism

Overall, I find this a very poor effort. There are huge gaps (history of the shi'a, the Ishraqi School, details of Shi'i Sufi orders, the Akhbari/Usuli division, Shaykhism, Babism, the structure of the clerical hierarchy, etc.). The transliteration is inconsistent and often plain incorrect. There is too much that reeks of the unscholarly, such as discussion of Salafi arguments against the Shi'a. It needs quite a different, better informed, and academically trained writer.

Reeking of Twelverism and apologism

This entire thing sounds more like a defensive article, or an article promoting Twelver Shi'asm than anything else. And note, I can't even say it's supporting any kind of Shiasm, because the entire article is geared towards Twelver doctrine alone! If some people can agree to help me, we can go through this entire thing and trim it of the propaganda and bias. Right now we have a decent Twelvers and Ismailis template going, so it's time we clean up the main article.

Shia Islam need some Changes

Hey i am a Shia i think our religious article is not clearly defined and there are No actual Images Related to our Islam,we have shown Imam Ali (A.S) shrine Picture but we havent shown our real Believes which actually Kabbah and Prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H) Shrine!! so kindly we needs Picture of these to places right on top and then Imam Ali (A.S) photo!! And some people have mentioned an article without giving respect to the Prophet Muhammed(P.B.U.H) and Hazrat Imam (A.S) and the Ahly-e-Bait (A.S) so kindly do addition by adding the respectful words like(P.B.U.H) AND (A.S)!!! thanks! -Paki90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paki90 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 December 2007

References to Sect

I noticed that in the Wikipedia article, a few different terms were used to refer to the fact that Shia Islam is distinguished from Sunni Islam. Among them were the word "denomination" and the word "faith" ("the Shi'a faith is vast..."). I would prefer to see one word used in order to maintain a continuity of reference; and I would prefer that the word "sect" be used when discussing Shia Islam as a subset of Islam or when it is referred to in contrast with Sunni Islam. The word "denomination" is semantically acceptable and a very close synonym of "sect," but it has been used in reference to Christianity to the extent that using it in reference to Islamic sects could prove confusing to the novice reader. The word "faith" leaves the reader with the sense that Shia Islam is its own religion. It also has the effect of discontinuity between its reference and the reference to denomination. I can understand that one would want to avoid redudancy. However, this might be one case in which using the same word to represent the same concept might be favourable.

Something that I do want to avoid when referring to Shia Islam is calling it a madhhab. This has been done in orther Wikipedia articles. Thankfully, though, I do not see it here at this point. The use of the word "madhhab" to describe Shia Islam is discussed; and that does open the door for an academic discussion of the treatment of Shia Islam by Sunni scholars (whether the sect is infidel or Islamic). This kind of treatment is preferable to me than the use of the word "madhhab" for Shia Islam as a statement of fact or reflection of status quo. From what I as a Shia Muslim have read of Shia Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the kind of mutual acknowledgement of legitimacy that exists between the four madhahib of Sunni Islam simply does not exist between Shia and Sunni Islam. I prefer the word "sect" when referring to Shia Islam as a subset of Islam or in contrast with Sunni Islam. 209.206.216.45 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)pink

I strongly prefer the term branch over sect because of the negative connotations with the latter phrase. --Enzuru 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shi'a Population

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 76.166.177.72 (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:

• It is estimated that up to third of Turkey’s population are followers of Alevi.
• 10-20 million, meaning 14-28%, almost a third
• The source the above link cites
• More statistics can be found here

--Enzuru 03:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The current first pararaph reads,

“ Shi'a Islam (Shī‘a Arabic: شيعة; šīʿa is collective; Shī‘i, šīʿi, is singular), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. They also constitute over 45% of the population in Yemen, over 35% of the population in Kuwait, 10-20% of the population (primarily Alevi) in Turkey, 20% of the population in Albania, 20% of the population in Pakistan and 15% of the Muslim population in India. There are an estimated 130 to 190 million Shi'a, 10-15% of the world's Muslim population. ”

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

“ Shi'a Islam (Shī‘a Arabic: شيعة), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. ”

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 77.42.187.53 (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 77.42.187.53 (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 77.42.187.53 (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)

Dating

Some of the dates in this article appear to be in the Islamic rather than the Gregorian calendar - is this standard procedure for articles on Islam, or should they be expressed in the same form as other dates on Wikipedia? Or both forms? Donald Ian Rankin (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic date can supplement the Gregorian or Julian date, but shouldn't be used by itself. See Wikipedia:Dates#Calendars. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image of Ali

Please remove the image of Imam Ali. Such paintings are more culturally inspired than they are religious. In fact, nowhere in a mosque do you see paintings or images of people. This picture, as with the rest of them, are imaginary and do not represent any credible descriptive accounts. In addition, the Shi'a school of thought is part of the iconoclastic tendency of Islam. Although in Shi'ism there isn't a strong voice against two-dimensional, imaginative drawings, such drawings are nevertheless cultural and not religious. That picture has no significance to Shi'a Islam, so please remove it. You are placing it on top of the Shi'a articles of faith, which misrepresents what Shi'ism is all about. The only thing encyclopedic about the painting is the fact that it could go into a category of its own under "imaginative drawings" portraying the Imams.

File:Arbaeen.JPG

I don't know why I even respond to these, but oh well. Sistani and Khamenei, the two most foremost marja of the Usuli Twelver world, both allow pictures religiously, not culturally, they are religious figures. Also, in Iranian and even Pakistani masjids you can find pictures of Karbala, especially during Muharram. Though I am Pashtun, I generally go to Iranian masjids. But, the point is, the two highest religious authorities in the Usuli Twelver world allow pictures, and you can even see pictures of Imam Husayn (AS) at Karbala. --Enzuru 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

it creates a negative impression on sunni muslims as well as others... please dont degrade the status of Imam Ali(as) by depicting him with pictures... please remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.207.20 (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mourning of Muharram creates a negative impression on many people too, should we stop that? We are not degrading Imam Ali (AS) through pictures, if we were degrading him the scholars would not allow it. --Enzuru 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a slight objection to using pictures of the A'imma to represent Shia Islam. However, my reasoning does not lie with the notion that the use of such imagery is somehow degrading to Islam, Shia or Sunni. Shia Islam acknowledges the permissibility of two-dimensional images, even if some Shia Muslims feel bound by cultural limitations of this permision. I simply feel that there are betters ways of representing Shia Islam using imagery. There is, for example, a slightly circular geometrical design on which the names of Allah, Prophet Muhammad, Lady Fatimah, and some/all of the A'immah are written. given the extent to which Shia Islam is typefied by the Tragedy of Karbala, generic depictions such as the ladies weeping over Zuljena the horse are aso effective ways of indicating that an article refers to Shia Islam. Yet another way of referring to Shia Islam in images would be to use pictures of one of the Shia Islamic shrines, such as those in Iran or Iraq. These have much more eye appeal to me than "pictures" of Prophet Muhammad and/or the A'immah. (A'immah - plural of Immam) 209.206.216.45 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)pink

As explained before, calligraphy does not work very well because for most non-Muslims and even Muslims, they cannot even distinguish between the different words. Second, we cannot emphasize the Mourning of Muharram because most Ismaili do not even mourn it. Also, shrines are mainly for Twelver I believe, I rarely hear or see of Nizari visiting these shrines. --Enzuru 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

to keep the unity on these articles wiki should remove the pictures of Imams(A.S.).as it is mentined sistani and khameneihave allowed the usage of pictures but some Marjas haven't.In addition using pictures is not Vajib.

Can you name off which major marja don't allow pictures? Driving a car or walking through the park isn't wajib either, it is just something one can do for the intention of pleasing God or not. --Enzuru 11:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of the pic. Cant we replace it with something acceptable to all? Al Muntazir (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confused who are exactly are appeasing to. Can anyone find a major mainstream Shi'a source supporting the position we shouldn't have this pic? The other day apparently the person arguing against the picture was Sunni, and the Shi'a editor who was against this had several sockpuppets. The issue is that this picture is integral to Shi'a culture, it shows how Shi'a culture differs and the place of Imam Ali (AS) within this culture. There is no picture we can have more representative than this, and we already discussed why we do not want calligraphy. --Enzuru 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No censorship on Wikipedia. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 03:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to say this, but I'll mention it here: is it possible for us to combine all the Shia templates into one? ..maybe having a 'shared beliefs' section that shows the main headings, which you can toggle show/hide (eg. Ahlul-kisa [show], The Four Companions [show], etc), and then having sections for all the branches with just the main heading showing (eg. Twelver [show], Ismaili [show], etc). I realise it might get a little long, but I think it would look alot cleaner and organised compared to the way things are now. I'm fairly new to wikipedia so I was hoping that someone more experienced could attempt in doing this (if its worth doing).

It would be really, really, difficult and oddly made because all three branches have huge differences. The entire thing would literally be split in three with very little in common. Even in the current Shi'a template, we have sections that don't apply for all three branches! For example, it'd be easier to combine the Sunni and Twelver template than the Twelver and Ismaili template. But, I can kinda see why you'd want to do that. But, in theory, the templates should be organized and helping organization, perhaps right now they're not being used in the correct places. I'd aim for fixing that before we go ahead and try to merge templates. What did you exactly have in mind? --Enzuru 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the picture, if it really puts people off, maybe we could have a quote of a hadith / Quranic verse instead? (..in english) Toushiro (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is putting people off, most of whom are Sunni and really shouldn't be telling us how we introduce our faith in the first place (unless it's contradicting NPOV, and showing pictures common in our faith simply isn't). It's like how the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, they're forcing their point of view violently, and it's simply not tolerable. And the Shi'a (some who may even be Sunni) who are against the pictures haven't brought forth any religious reason why so far, so honestly, there is no reason to even consider taking it out until we know why it misrepresents Shi'a Islam, and so far no one has proven that. --Enzuru 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Twelver sub groups

Would it not be pertinent to mention that the Twelver have three major sub-sects, Usuli, Akbari, and Shayki, and explain a little about each of them (Water Stirs (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Good idea, I put that underneath Jafari jurisprudence. --Enzuru 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I also mentioned the Ahl-e Haqq, Alawi, Alevi, and Bektashi. --Enzuru 02:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First, as I know (and I live in Iran and have direct connection with them) Usuli, Akbari, and Shayki are not sects. As I understand, the sect is a religious group which differ from others theologically and practically. I don't think it is a correct word here. In fact, They are different theological and jurisprudential schools. There were struggle among them and each one tried to dominate seminaries and people's support. However, no Usuli dismisses Fayz Kashani and Amin Estarabadi for their Akhbari views.

Second, the situation of Ahl-e Haqq, Alawi, Alevi, and Bektashi is controversial. Twelvers recognize some of them as exaggerators and heretical groups. Thus, I think we should add a section about exaggeration and controversial sects, then describe the issue there. Majority of Twelvers just accept 3 branches of Shia including Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaidis.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ismaili are accepting of the exaggerator groups, this is why though we should mention Usuli ulema do not like them, we can't state they are outside the pale of Twelver Shi'a Islam. Many writings in the West describe them as Twelver Shi'a as well, ableit different. And I don't agree with the term sects for Shaykhi-Akhbari-Usuli, they are more like schools of Jafari fiqh and theology. --Enzuru 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Usuli is a modern school while you can find the controversy even at the time of Imam Sadiq. You may be familiar with Abu al-Khattab who is a famous exaggerator in the that era. Exaggeration is not a modern phenomena and it exists at least from the second century of Islam. Some of these groups like Nusairis, I guess, exists from the fourth century while some others are not so old. Since Alamut era and Safavid era some of their beliefs have mixed with Ismaili an twelvers respectively. On the other hand some Sunnis blame Shia about the issues which doesn't relate to it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Template:Alevism and found it's written Part of a series on Twelver Shi'a Islam. As I know almost all Shia jurists throughout history recognize exaggerators as heretics. Then how can we relate them to Twelvers. You see, the Twelvers usually don't tolerate these group while they can tolerate other braches of Islam except Nasibis.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Alevi do not exaggerate the nature of Ali from my knowledge, it is the Alawi who do that, Alevi beliefs mirror Khutba al-Bayan. And it doesn't matter what the religious ruling of scholars is, it matters how secular scholars treat them. But even Usuli jurists like Musa al-Sadr considered them Muslim, the issues come with the Alawi-Nusayris who deify Ali, not the Alevi-Kizilbash-Bektashi. --Enzuru 06:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, their name confused me. Please check the article and correct that part. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That part has been corrected, though I dislike how the section is right now, we can fix it later. --Enzuru 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I split "it's" to "it is" in the section on Wilayat al Faqih ("Guardianship of the Jurisprudence"). I cannot really explain why, but it seems to flow better that was as an academic read. The word "Jurisprdence" does not seem to be correct in the title, but I do not have the courage to make any change myself. It sounds as if the intent is to refer to several jurisprudents as a group. I could be wrong, though, and it might refer to the system of the derivation of Islamic Law from the religious sources. In the case of the latter, I wonder if it would read better without the word "the." PinkWorld (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

Actually, you are correct. Faqiih "jurisprudent", as opposed to fiqh "jurisprudence". Wow, I can't believe I the word nerd missed that one... Ogress _smash! 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

untitled comments

Alevism has nothing to do with Shi'a. I have an alevi friend, and he himself disagrees with Alevism being a part of Shi'a Islam. Turkey being 20-25% being Shi'a does not even make sense, and i have therefore removed it. check up Alevism, and it says that Alevis themselves disagree being Shi'a.121.214.33.21 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In both secular scholarly sources and amongst orthodox Alevi, the Shi'a epithet is used. There has been more of a rejection of the term in recent times. --Enzuru 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the "family tree" of Islam, the `Alawi sect is a breakaway from Shia Islam. In general, we tend to anathemetise them because of their belief that Imam `Ali was God incarnate. However, the status of any sect as infidels according to the orthodox branch of the religion does not stop that sect form being a branch or break-off from the main tree. It makes sense to me, then to introduce the `Alawi sect when discussing sects that broke off from Shia Islam. PinkWorld (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

First off, Alawi and Alevi are completely different, primarily the former deifies Ali. According to secular sources (not Ayatollahs) Alawi are considered Shi'a. I didn't make this decision, orientalists and secular scholars did. In addition, they are considered Twelver, because of their adherence to the Twelve Imams. They originated during the Minor Occultation during which the group that would become the Akhbari (and later evolve into Usuli and Shaykhi) accepted the Four Deputies while the Alawi accepted Bab Nusayr. Alevi on the other hand, are considered Shi'a even by Ayatollahs. --Enzuru 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to explicitely say in the article beginning that a shiite is someone with the Shi'a faith. I see the word "shiite everywhere in the papers but I don't remember reading the wordf "Shi'a" until today which brought me to the current article. My first reflex was to search for shiite but I had to go to the notes to find the word. 82.67.232.89 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)"

Good idea, it has been changed. --Enzuru 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally cannot stand the word "Shiite." I feel objectified every time I hear it (and even worse when I see it written). These -ite and -id endings are vestigals of the days when Orientalists tried to aglicise Arabic word endings. As long as we refer to Sunni Muslims as "Sunni" and not "Sunnite," and `Alawi as "Alawi" and not "Alawid," I think that we should drop this outdated, anachronistic, and trite "-ite" ending for us Shia Muslims. It doesn't look nice on papaer, anyway. I do agree that it is very useful for search purposes to include both spellings in the article. PinkWorld (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

I hate the spelling too, but what can we do? I once knew a Lebanese girl who claimed that it was a conspiracy against us Shi'a Muslims. --Enzuru 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an active discussion on the Talk:‘Alawi, in which some are arguing that it should be moved back to Alawite, as it is the "common " usage.Jemiljan (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to disassociate Shi'ism from Allawism and Alevism.

This is not Shiapedia. Our job is to follow secular sources which consider both these faiths under Twelver Shi'a Islam. Also, Alawis deify Ali, but Alevis don't. Both were considered Twelver Shi'a by Musa al-Sadr. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

These groups are no more Shi'a than the Ahmaddiyahs are Sunni. UNLESS you are referring to these groups in light of an Islamic or Shi'a "family tree" where you show their branching off, then we need not include these groups as part of the Shi'a demographics.

According to who? It doesn't matter what an Usuli Ayatollah says about other Shi'a. It matters what secular scholarship says. Also, Ahmadi don't call themselves Sunni, but Alawi and Alevi call themselves Twelver Shi'a. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone made an excellent sub-heading about the ghulat, but some of the demographics are off. Yemenis are primarily Zaidis, and the "Shi'a" of Turkey are not Shi'a, but Alevi.

Yemenis are Zaidis, yes, and Zaidis are Shi'a. And Alevi are not ghulat, they do not deify Ali, Alawi do that. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alevism and Allawism are not the same, but both of these groups are not Shi'a. The Allawis are a weird case, because many of them do no hold the views of the ghulaat (perhaps they haven't been initiated?), but they nevertheless refer to themselves as such in Syria for political purposes. Here's the thing with Allawis: UNTIL they decide to make known they're beliefs, we cannot consider them Shi'a. What they do isn't doctrinal taqiyah - it is a form of closed-door gnosticism that has nothing to do with Islam. Shi'ism is not a gnostic religion, nor does it believe in "secret knowledge." For Shi'a Islam's sake, please disassociate my religion from those of the exaggerators. This includes demographics. Even though Allawis might differ on their views towards Imam Ali, we cannot include them as part of our demographics (i.e., in Syria).

Of course Shi'a Islam has hidden knowledge, especially in Ismailism. Since when is Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam the only correct form? You didn't explain why Alevis are not Shi'a, only Alawis. And both are Shi'a according to secular scholarship, but Alevis are not ghulat. If a Salafi says a group is not Muslim, does it matter? No, because secular scholarship and that group of Muslims believe they are Muslim. So why should what an Usuli Ayatollah say make someone Shi'a or not? And as I stated before, Musa al-Sadr considered both groups Twelver Shi'a, partially for political reasons. And even then, we follow secular sources, not fatwas. So, since these groups consider themselves Twelver Shi'a, since secular scholarship considers themselves Twelver Shi'a, and even since some groups consider them Muslim and Shi'a (especially Alevi) we keep them on here, you haven't proven anything yet. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzeru, I can't believe that I did not see your reference to Ayatullah Sadr earlier. I had gone off and asked about it and have got the same mention of Ayatullah Sadr. Would it enhance the article to mention the perception of certain groups as not being truly Muslim and the affrmation of them as Muslim by others in the article? Or would such mentions detract from the quality of the article? Also, I am not sure if I am alone in this, but I had not been aware that Alawi and Alevi were two different sects before I saw that mentioned here. PinkWorld (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

I believe more needs to be done to preserve the true beliefs of Shi'ism. Unless we are constructing a Shi'a family tree, we shouldn't associate Allawis, Alevis, Zaidis or Ismailis within our religion. Shi'a Islam, as a religion, refers to the Itha'ashari school of thought only.

According to who Shi'a Islam only refers to Twelvers? According to Usuli Twelvers? I guess Islam only refers to Salafis, because Salafis said so! --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about demographics: I have an e-book from al-islam.org that describes our Ja'fari school as the third largest madhab and puts us at 23% of the Islamic population. I always felt that Shi'ism was approx. 15-22% of Islam. It's in "Chapter 3:" http://www.al-islam.org/shiism/

These are not reliable demographics, they have not done actual scientific and reliable surveys. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be offended by my statements, but I want this page to be a true representation of our beliefs. I'm sick and tired of being grouped with the ghulaat. May Allah (swt) reward you for your good deeds in explaining our religion.

A true representation of Shi'a Islam uses secular sources, and is not what an Ayatollah says. Usuli Twelver Shi'a Islam is the youngest form of Shi'a Islam in the world, Ayatollahs did not even exist till 300 years ago. The oldest form of Twelver Shi'a Islam is in fact the Alawi, who were formed during the Minor Occultation by Ibn Nusayr, the second oldest form are the Akhbari, and the Usuli and Ayatollahs were not created till 700 years later. Zaidism and Ismailism both predate the Twelver faith, and secular scholarship all agree these groups are Twelver. Your opinions don't matter, facts do. --Enzuru 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Can you please change the world wide shia muslim demographis? It is totaly wrong, it is 200 million Shia muslims in World. You have written that 10-15 % of the muslim population are shia? Yes just use your calculator and find the answer of the muslim shia population in world. It is estimated 200 million. And please change that picture of the map showing shia and sunni map. iT SHOWS THAT iRAK, irAN HAS A LARGE SUNNI POPULation? This is totaly wrong, Iran has 90% Shias as you had written, and 65% Irak. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safavidboy (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate that map, we need to fix it one day. One day. --Enzuru 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written that 10-15 % of the muslim population are shia. This is written on the basis of the source. I correct it if you can show us a reliable source which support your claim.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have place a table: Shia population distribution in Middle East and South Asia in the section Demographics, it represents corrected version of the map depiction. If you all think it appropriate map could be commented until it is updated. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we nominate this article for a GA?

If a couple people spent time cleaning it up, don't you think this article could be nominated for GA, and then later FA? --Enzuru 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

God willing I'll check it.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I dislike some part of the article especially its order. The artice should begin with demography. In adition, somebody has removed origin and concept of Imamat [4]. Finally, Sunni & Shi'a relations is awful. Why should some issues like Mohr, Mut'ah and Infallibility come beside each other. It should be rearranged and theological issues separated from Fiqh. Then less important issues like Mohr should be substituted with the more important methodological ones. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How much work is needed to fix this? It sounds like mainly rearranging! --Enzuru 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think first of all a rearranged format should be posted on talk page to avoid any future edit war. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Shi'a Force generally doesn't have edit wars within, we usually end up with edit wars over pictures and vandalism saying Shi'a are not Muslim. --Enzuru 11:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently an edit war is going on between User:Khkuhk & User:Thingg on various articles of Twelver Imams on issue of picture. Anyways I still believe its better to have discussion & consensus(atleast baseline) and then there can be edits/updations/restructuring/formating/etc followed by mutual reviews. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Khkuhk is a banned user, and like many others before him he's tried taking down the pictures with rather loose reasons. But sure, Seyyed, put down the plans before you execute them. --Enzuru 22:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Shia-Sunni relations section is not written in encyclopedic style. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in this article. Why is it in this article and not the Sunni Islam article? It needs to be a separate article altogether. --Enzuru 04:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article:Shia Sunni relations.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So we should remove this section & include all the main articles mentioned in this section in See also section. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting) Sounds good to me. --Enzuru 07:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the section but left persecution section as I think it is worth mentioning on main article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding a section about history of Shia and write persecution in that section.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What may be smarter is fixing up the Twelver article first (in the model that I have done the Ismailism article), and then we will be able to use that material combined with the Ismaili material and perhaps some Zaidi material to create a well written history section. --Enzuru 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the Ismailism article as it stands now serve as an example for the redaction of this article? Or are you referring to a former version of it that is not there any longer? And are you referring to its structer and layout, or to how it has been worded, or something else? I apologise again for my confusion and for being so new at all of this. PinkWorld (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

I think the best part of the article is the description of branches. We need something about basic ideas of Shia. What's your idea about origin and concept of Imamat [5].--Seyyed(t-c) 06:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That'll be good. We can borrow matter for Origin and concept of Imamat section from Article:Imamah (Shi'a doctrine). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Imamate section should be split between the Imami groups (Twelver and Ismaili) and the non-Imami (Zaidi) that differ over divine leadership and ismah. --Enzuru 20:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Conventions

After introducing the concept of Shia Islam and its various spellings, might it be a good idea to revert to a more Western spelling - that is, without accent marks and such for the remainder of the article? (Shi'a -> Shia) PinkWorld (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

I agree with you but I think this is not an issue to be decided & discussed at this talk page, as this is an issue of policy & convention it should be discussed at higher platform e.g. wikiproject Islam, Arabic, Persian, etc. If you are making such move plz inform me as I'll like to participate in the discussion. Thanx. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-Worthy Sources?

Is anything written by Shia scholars acceptable reference material for the Wikipedia article about Shia Islam? Or must it all come form the academic world outside of Islamic scholarship? What of works by Shia Muslims who have some sort of academic standing, such as Hamid Alger? I mean, I tihnk that he is a Shia Muslim. What about primary sources, such as classical scholarly texts of `aqidah or the modern Tawdih al Masa'il texts of fiqh? My many apologies; I am so new to Wikipedia and very uncertain of myself yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use primary sources such as the Qur'an, and classical secondary sources are discouraged. You must use sources that satisfy WP:reliable, which are primarily secular sources. If a Shi'a Muslim for example is prominent in the world of secular scholarship such as Hossein Nasr and Hamid Algar, you are allowed to use sources by them. Because of the issues of orientalism (see Edward Said), when using Western sources they should have been written within the last two or three decades. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is biased and wrong

Shias came first then all the muslims followed so do your research carefully —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.139.216 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Give us sources jaan and we'll put it in. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Here I am at a public library, and the picture associated with "Part of a Series on Shi`ah Islam" is exactly when I was talking about some time ago when I was suggesting a picture for this article. Cool beans. PinkWorld (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Suspected Vandalism

There are two links in "External Links" that I think are problematic.

This one is junk.

• [6] Jewish Encyclopedia on Shiaism's origins

And this one should be http://www.shiachat.com Shiachat.com Discussion Forum

• ALShiatalk Discussion Forums —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, there were lots of junk links there. We need to keep professional resources there, so I deleted most of the links. Britannica, Iranica, al-Islam, al-Khoei, are good ones we should keep. I'll try to add some Ismaili ones. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I liked the rafed one, though. Like al-islam.org, it hosts a gazillion books - many more in Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu (I think) than al-islam.org, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add that one back in, then! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The English section has suffered an HTML malfunction. Though I wanted to post the English section, I just posted the general site (Arabic) for now until the English section is fixed again. PinkWorld (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I think that we might still have a vestige of previous vandalism. In History -> Origin, three theories of origin are referred to, but only two are listed. Is it ok to set the "three" back to "two"? PinkWorld (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Yeah, that was the same issue we're going through on our other article. I'll change it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has removed 15% from the 15-15% Shia/total Muslim stat towards the beginning of the article. Should we revert that or leave it as is? PinkWorld (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

10-15% is correct. Go ahead and revert it (so you get used to reverting things). --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Word Choice Questions

The following sentence (fragment?) is in the "Concept of Imamah" section: "But during Abbasid revolts, other Shīa, who came to be known as imāmiyyah (followers of the Imams) follow theological school of Ja'far al-Sadiq."

Is that supposed to read "But during Abbasid revolts, other Shīa, who came to be known as imāmiyyah (followers of the Imams) follow**ed the** theological school of Ja'far al-Sadiq"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC) oops: PinkWorld (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

I think you are right about tense and article usage.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if the phrase "The Shi'a Islamic faith" is the best way initial reference to the sect as a religious/demographic unit. PinkWorld (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

It's fine. The problem is anti-Shi'a Islam individuals try to use phrases like "the Shi'a religion" or "the Shi'a faith", so I try to make sure usually whenever the phrase Shi'a is written, it has Islam or Muslim near it. Some vandals even come and delete the word Islam or Muslim whenever it has Shi'a next to it! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is way to word "in contrast to other Muslims, believe that his family, the Ahl al-Bayt (the People of the House), including his descendants known as Imams, have special spiritual and political rule over the community" such that it does not lead to the assumption that the Imams were divinely appointed because they were progeny. The wording as it stands also lends one to think that the progeny in general and Imams in particular have a special spiritual and political rule. Perhaps the following? "in contrast to other Muslims, believe that leaders known as Imams from among the progeny (Ahl al-Bayt, or People of the House)of Prophet Muhammad have special spiritual and political rule over the community"? (ps: I forgot to check the "minor" box when I deleted a comma - sorry)PinkWorld (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

In actual there are traditions which put progeny of Prophet(s.a.w.a.) thru Bibi Fatima(s.a.) i.e. Sa'daat little aside from rest of Muslim Um'mah e.g. their good deed is rewarded two times & same is case of their bad deeds there is double az'aab; in khums Sa'daat have special share; etc. Regarding Imams there are traditions both agreed by Shia & Sunni that they have precedence as executor of prophecy. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruthless revamping

The article has begun severe revamping. Ruthlessly edit, ruthlessly source, ruthlessly delete, and ruthlessly redecorate. We are mirroring the organization of the FA-class article, Islam. Similiarly, before calling any team in to investigate the article, we will strive to make the article as close as possible to Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag: "The largest and best known[neutrality disputed] are the Twelver..." The phrases "best known," "notorious," "well-known," and "known" have been disputed in the Hamas article because of the difficulty of verifying widespread opinion on the matter through a reliable source and without doing original research by compiling a long list of sources as evidence of notoriety. Those phrases have also been used by people who themselves have an agenda against all things Palestinian. That was a long way of explaining my own personal preference not to use phrases indicating popularity or infamy. PinkWorld (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I wonder if we could move the sentence "The Shī‘ah believe that just as a prophet is appointed by God alone, only God has the prerogative to appoint the successor to his prophet" to the section on Imamah and move the section on Imam `Ali below the section on Imamah? Thoughts? PinkWorld (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I might be able to do something for the section on occultation. There is a small chance that I might even be able to do something with clergy (should it be in a section on practises?), too. I do not know what I could offer on the other one in that are whose name I forgot (aaauggghh!!!) but could try to look up sources that others might be abe to use? Is someone already on the occultation section? Is it ok if I have a try at it? PinkWorld (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Sugestions for Article "Succession of `Ali"

assalamu `alaykum Just wondering how the following sounds.

`Ali was Prophet Muhammad's first cousin and closest living male relative, as well as his son-in-law, having married his daughter Fatimah. `Ali would eventually become the fourth Muslim caliph.

Shia Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad had appointed `Ali to be his successor. However, others made arrangements that prevented `Ali from being recognised as such for thirty-five years.

When Prophet Muhammad died, `Ali and Prophet Muhammad's closest relatives made the funeral arrangements. While they were preparing the body of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr, `Umar, and Abu `Ubayda met with the leaders of Medina and elected Abu Bakr as khalifa ("caliph"). `Ali and his family were dismayed, but accepted the appointment for the sake of unity in the early Muslim community.

It was not until the murder of the third khalifa, `Uthman, that the Muslims in Medina invited `Ali to become the fourth khalifa.

While `Ali was caliph, his capital was in Kufah, Iraq.

`Ali's rule over the early Muslim community was often contested. As a result, he had to struggle to maintain his power, waging "increasingly unsuccessgul wars." After Ali's murder in 661 CE, his main rival Mu`awiya claimed the caliphate. Some of the problems came from the very people who had initially supported `Ali's claim to rule. While the rebels who accused `Uthman of nepotism affirmed `Ali's khilafa, they later turned against him and fought him.

`Ali ruled from 656 CE to 661 CE, when he was assassinated.

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.

Looks good, I'd make a few changes to it once you put it in, but not now. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fizzing out fast here (biological clock reverting to normal now that Gaza Genocide is in a lull) and don't really understand you. Do you mean post now and revise later, or revise now and post later? Also, I plan to look up info on refs, but if anyone posts here first how to add the name attribute so that one book is not in the notes list a gazillion times, I will be very, very grateful. Thank you all so much for all of your hard work. PinkWorld (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I really feel as if my piece does not flow well. I feel as if it is detached from the section's lead (and wish that we could move that first sentence to Imamah). Are there other sources that I could use in order to flesh it out? Are there ways of constructing transitions that do not constitute original research so that one sentence/paragraph flows to the next? Is there anything that anyone could give me in the way of critique? PinkWorld (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

References

References Section

Now that I have learned ow to add references, I need to learn how to do it so that one reference is not repeated a gazillion times every time something in the article cites it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that I found the sytle for which I was looking. It is called shortened footnotes. The footnotes section would mention the author's last nam, the year, and the page number. The References section would flesh out things like the title, author's name, etc. I am also wondering if it is ok to use the MLA style of citation. It looks most like what has been used so far. PinkWorld (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Lead/Introduction

Should the fact that there are two origin theories be mentioned in the introduction? From what I can see, only one is alluded to. PinkWorld (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

salam
I Think that I might have found something for one of the fact tags that I inserted into the intro: "There are various Shi'a theological beliefs, schools of jurisprudence, philosophical beliefs, and spiritual movements.[citation needed] Shi'a Islam embodies a completely independent system of religious interpretation and political authority in the Muslim world.[citation needed]" Would the material at http://www.rafed.net/english/books/beliefs/shiah/07.html serve as a reference for the first one? I am still stuck on the second one. PinkWorld (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

More Potential Sources?

salam
just wanted to check these with you all:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia_1.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6213248.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2881835.stm
Yes-No-MaybeSo?
PinkWorld (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

The BBC is a good source. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Is Out There?

salam/hi
Just call me Pink. I do not pop into the page as often as I should, but I do want to try to contribute and continue improving the article. I am unsure of myself as a Wikipedia contributer, so I will definitely appreciate the presence of an experience Wikiperson (please).

What I can offer:
I am an Usuli Twelver Shia, so my personal experience and knowledge will centre around that segment of Shia Islam. In terms of source-texts, I have already squeezed everything out of my library that I can. I have access to Momen's book through Google Books. The pages that are restricted rotate, so by checking it out occasionally I can fill in gaps as needed to flesh out sections of the article. I also have access to a couple of Tabatabai's books through the graciousness of Shia Muslims who digitise Shia books. I am a grammar nut and have decent spelling capabilities, and I am not afraid of code such as BBCode, HTML, Wikicode, etc. It is a process, though, and I am not an expert at all. If I don't show up as often as needed, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Lately, I have been better at checking it than any articles.

Who else is around?
PinkWorld (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Me, although I am pretty busy with school. Shi'i, non-specified although Ismaili-leaning. I have written a few articles on the Shi'a and try to maintain and upgrade the existing ones. Ogress _smash! 04:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

assalamu `alaykum:) Way cool to hear from you again. I get the impression from the work that you have done so far that you are experienced with Wikipedia. True? Do you know how to start new articles? Re-organise existing ones? Dream in WikiCode? Also, what kinds of books do you have access to, and what cool abilities do you have? I noticed, for example, that you are able to work with funky phonetic characters. PinkWorld (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Walai`kum'as`salam,

Faiz here, ;) I'm a Shi'a Athna Ashari Muslim and active on Wiki for around 2½ years. As I live in India which is quite a pluralistic society I have overview of most of the religions e.g. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism and ofcourse Islam with its various sects e.g. Shia(Athna Ashari(Usuli, Akhbari), Ismaili(Khoja, Bohra, Seveners, Batini),etc), Sunni(Deobandi, Salafi/Wahabi, Bareilvi, Ahle-Hadis, etc), Sufi, etc. & madhahibs e.g. Jafari, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki. I have access to various Arabic/Persian/English/Urdu/Hindi literature. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Just a bit of an FYI: there seems to be an edit war occurring on this article between two camps of editors, over the inclusion of some 6 KB of text. One of you regulars should really step in and calm things down. Huntthetroll (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We all support this version which was written to be part of our redesign. This version is cited better, first and foremost. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit war is being waged between registered & established users who are trying to maintain the article as per Wikipedia ethics & guidelines and anonymous IP based users who are known for their history of vandalism. I think this article must be locked for edit and anonymous IPs should be blocked.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shia Islam, Twelvers, and Sharia Law

I find it rather odd that there is less than one paragraph on the Twelvers, even though it is the largest denomination of Shia Islam. Rather small compared to the other denominations listed: Twelver

Also, since a majority of Shia are Twelvers, and almost all Twelvers abide by Sharia Law, wouldn't it be proper to at least mention Shariah Law since it's such a crucial part of Shia Islam?

So what do you guys think? Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The only denomination which section is larger than the Twelvers is the Ismaili. We're working on the issues, we have to trim all the sections really. And part of the reason we can't give Twelvers undue weight is for a long time in Islamic history, the Zaydi and the Ismaili were huge political opponents of the Sunni caliphs, and it wasn't till the Safavid dynasty do we have a strong Twelver presence in history. And it's difficult to mention shariah on here because the Zaydi, Twelver, and Ismaili are completely different on the issue, and we can't generalize. That is a Twelver-specific issue that should be handled on the Twelver article and in the Twelver section. We also can't make the Twelver article Usuli specific and talk simply about Ayatollahs, we have to talk about the Twelver in general, since Usulism itself is a recent thing. But you're correct, we will make sure the article is slightly slanted towards the Twelver, and the Twelver article is slightly slanted towards the Usuli. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Sharia portion can be little more described under sub-title Ja'fari jurispudence. Articles need to be balanced as this is not a Twelver or Usuli or Ismaili encyclopedia. I think little re-structing of section Telver is needed. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire branches section needs to be rewritten. While we should be balanced, I think specific information should be kept in specific articles or specific sections. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just like to say I'm not expert on the various Muslim denominations, but I feel that the Sharia aspect of Shia Islam is woefully understated, and practically non-existent. Can we incorporate and/or emphasis this topic into the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We can and we will, but it will be mainly be focused in the Twelver and Zaydi sections of the article. You are correct that the shariah aspect of Zaydi Shi'a Islam and Twelver Shi'a Islam is understated, but of Shi'a Islam itself there is little that all three have in common that we can incorporate. Some Shi'a adhere to shariah, some believe it is abolished. Those who actually believe in shariah have every little in common, aside from what is covered in the article on Islam and various articles dedicated to the topic of shariah. We can't make generalizations about shariah in Shi'a Islam including its validity, though if we can find some common ground perhaps we can include that. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it just seems rather weird not to have it in the article. Shariah law is one of the most popular, if not the most popular Islamic-laws implemented in sovereign theocratic governments. It would seem fair (and factual) this article reflect that.

It is popular in Islam itself, but it isn't de facto in Shi'a Islam, many prominent groups such as the Alevi and Nizari reject it. You mention a theocratic government, but even in the Twelver world, the idea of a theocratic government is only a little older than Khomeini himself, before that the Twelvers were quietist because of the Occultation. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there is some portion where we can either cut into or make an entire new area of writing. Shariah Law is a vital part of Shia Islam, as far as I know. Also, I do appreciate the intricacies of Shia, but to disclude Shariah doesn't make sense in my opinion.

As I stated before, it isn't a vital part of Shi'a Islam. It is practiced by the Zaydi and the Twelvers, but even then, those two have nothing in common shariah-wise, and there are Twelver groups which reject shariah outright. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How might we specifically incorporate Sharia into the article? I'm hesitant to make my own edits simply because I'm not an expert and seeing as how sensitive these kinds of things can be. And, I'm soooo tired of getting in trouble over edit wars. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being diplomatic about this. If we're both being honest, we have to admit there isn't a universal system of shariah for Shi'a Islam that we can put here. What do you suggest we put, what do all three have in common? Shariah will be mentioned in this article, but it will be mentioned in the specific denominational sections this article will have. There is no way we can correctly put shariah in this article that would apply to Shi'a Islam in total. If there were just a few fringe groups that didn't believe in shariah, I would oblige here, but that's not the case here, and even the shariah of Shi'a Islamic groups contradicts with each other. There is virtually nothing they share in common, even amongst single denominations. I noticed on another page you told a user not to sugarcoat shariah, but that's not what I'm doing here. You (absolutely correctly) said that the actual application of shariah needs to be discussed not some ideal version of it on that page, and that applies here too. We can't sugarcoat the issue and put Twelver shariah for the sake of having shariah because it seems important enough to do so. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I suggested in starting of this discussion. For Twelvers we can expand Ja'fari jurispudence, but I don't think it will be appropriate to put whole article here about sharia, few snippets will do. For Zaydi it we will have to start a sub-section, anyways Zaydi section need tob expanded. It seems our effort and initial enthusiasm to form this article on GA track has subsided partially due to Muharram(in South Asia it is around 90 day affair starting evening of 29^th Zilhij to evening of 8^th Rabil'awwal followed by Eid-e-Zahra on 9^th), other engagements and priorities. I think we can re-chalk our plan as adding of Sharia related matter can be utilised to re-do branches section. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that at the moment, certain sections are heavy. This is not an ideal situation, and we are hoping to continue the progress towards a fine Wikipedia article. My understanding is that current imbalance is temporary. I hope to get material moved to other articles or to get new articles made to hold excess material from here in order to even out the balance and maintain uniform coverage for each sect and each genre of article coverage (fiqh, `aqidah, history, etc.). I do want to make that move with all due caution so that nothing is lost in the transition.

I understand that there much that is not held completely in common among the sects of Shia Islam. I wonder if a more pluralistic approach might work better. The article could explain the importance of a topic to various sects of Shia Islam and also the lack of importance that it has in others. I am defnitely not aiming at anything comprehensive, just a more uniform approach to the article that will present information on aspects of Shia Islam that would help one to understand on a basic level the beliefs, practises, history, etc. of Shia Islam in general and of each sect. As an example, if I were a non-Muslim and were to come to this article after reading the article on Islam or on Sunni Islam, I might fall into the error of thinking of Shia Islam as more of another rleigion than a separate sect of Islam because certain commonalities are not addressed before branching off into those aspects that are unique to Shia Islam.

I second-guess myself as I write, so any other thoughts would be much appreciated. PinkWorld (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

I think you are correct, this article seems mor to be expressing defferences(may it be from rest of Islam or may it be internal), which gives reader a negative impression about Shia Islam. Need to work about it, but with caution and consensus. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that, as an encyclopedia article, this article cannot be used to present something in a good light or, conversely, a bad light. Wikipedia should not be used to evangelise, only to inform. There are certain sources that are acceptable and some that are not; and we also need to be cautious of POV issues.PinkWorld (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

I'm not saying that differences should be suppressed or removed but there should be equal mention of common ground between mentioned parties.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shia population in Pakistan

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

“ According to Demographic Reasearch Institute of Karachi University, Shias make upto 12-15 per cent of the Muslim population. Shias themselves claim to be more than 30 per cent, while Sunni sources put the Shias at only 6 per cent of the Muslim population (Qureshi, 1989:109). ”

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)

Start of restructuring of article

Salam
Dear editor friends as per previous discussions & talks I'm going to restructure the article which will involve

• balancing of article,
• inclusion of references(preferable verifable),
• shortening lengthy sections,
• elaborating missing/too short sections
• removing duplicacy(if any)

Seeing current edit war I think it will require great effort & patroling to be successfull in our excercise.
I'm expecting co'ordination, support and suggestions from you.
Any of my edits which you all feel inconsistent can be reverted with reason(preferably a short discussion on talk page in this section with sub-section for each conflict).
was'salam
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

salam

You've made some changes, but I do not see any mention of them on the talk page so that they could be discussed before you made those changes. Would it be better to check in with each other abot changes that we would like to make to the article before making thsoe changes?

PinkWorld (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

As I mentioned, if there is problem with any revision you can mention here at this section; I'm refraining from opening discussion before edit as its my experience that usually too much talk before edit leads us to nowhere. Anyways the edit done my be is based on previous discussions in section Shia Islam, Twelvers, and Sharia Law (there are few talk sections which are now archived). I have removed explanations from the lis of pillars/roots/branches etc. as there are articles who are dedicated to these points. Addition of few sentences in Twelver is also based on prior discussions in which we all felt that Twelver sub-section needs to be eloborated little more to create a balance between branches section as Ismaili sub-section was outweighing it. Any further comment/reply is welcomed. Thanx. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These changes are good, just remember that we are trying to design this article like the article on Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, I have that as an standard in my mind, as we have decided before. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the continuous Ismaili user vandal need to be carefully watched --193.188.117.67 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alhamdulillah. I was concerned that the article would become to weighted on one sect of Shia Islam and stray form the Islam article model. I hope someday soon to be able to dosome more work (mostly menial). I still have spring fever, though, and can't seem to stay indoors very long or refrain from massive cleaning projects around the house, planning gardens, etc. Strange, too, because the blast of spring has subsided back into winter. PinkWorld (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Should we have a section on practises? Also (OT requesting feedback) doesn't it seem as if one could life the Islam article saving for brief phrases and small sections and place it in its entirety in the Sunni Islam article and not need to make many changes? Or is it just me? PinkWorld (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Section 2.3 "Light of Aql"

I as an Ithna `Ashari am not accustomed to a particular emphasis on `aql as a part of our belief system. Has it been emphasised by other Shia sects? PinkWorld (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Actually, ‘aql has always been the basis of Shi‘i thought, as it is the intrinsic ability that the Imam has which enables him (to date "him" anyway AFAIK, and certainly for 12ers) to be the Imam. It was the revered scholar and Imam Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī al-Bāqir al-‘Ulūm who wrote the primary treatises on the issues of ‘aql, and thus only the Zaydis don't rely on his works. (He was quietist, hence they supported az-Zayd, as they believe the Imamate requires a pitch for power for it to be valid.) Ogress _smash! 00:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I should append that for Twelvers, Mūsá-al-Kāżim ibn Ja‘far, the 7th Imam, expanded and redefined the importance of ‘aql for Twelvers (he is the point of divergence between the Twelvers and the Ismailis). Ogress _smash! 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not heard it emphasised yet in majalis or khutuba; and I had not yet read it in such primary texts as Risalat al I`tiqadat or in other texts related to `aqidah until I chanced upon a mention of it in Shi'ite by `Allamah Tabataba'i (hamza at end, or `ayn?) - and there, I didn't really feel that he made a big emphasis on it. I could be wrong, though, about the emphasis thing in Shi'ite. I might also come across it in other texts that I read as I dive into more and more boks. For now, my eyes and hands are killing me. I definitely cannot pull an all-nighter tonight. :( PinkWorld (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I actually wrote [the majority of] the article on ‘aql, so I'm sure about this. There are some excellent books cited; there is one that is specifically about the development of its meaning to the Partiers (lol, literal translations ftw) such as Twelvers, lemme see... Moezzi, Mohammad Ali Amir (1994), The Divine Guide in Early Shiʻism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, ISBN 079142121X Ogress _smash! 02:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Light of Aql(The way of Intellection and Intellectual Reasoning) has been primary Shi'a alternative to Sunni methodology of Ijtihaad(consensus); infact Aql is Second Method of the three Methods of Shi'ite Religious Thought. Reference : SHI'A by Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sister, Do you have the relevent quote from Moezzi establishing `aql as a fundamental basis for Shi`i belief? What other references have there been in addition to Moezzi to `aql being a fundamental basis of Shi`i belief? Is it possible that `aql serves more as a methodological approach to Ahi`i `aqidah and fiqh than as a core element of Shi`i `aqidah?

Brother Mohammad, Shi`i fiqh is derived using ijtihad. One of the four sources of Shi`i fiqh is ijma`, which means consensus and refers to the consensus of the `ulama on a matter of fiqh. Another of the four sources of Shi`i fiqh is logical analysis (forgot Arabic term); and `aql is a basic principle of the use of logical analysis. Mawlana Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi of the Toronto jam`ah has some excellent texts on this matter. I am not sure if he has made inroads with the secular academic world, but his books serve very nicely in the religious world. PinkWorld (talk)Pink

I forget sometimes that in Usulism these metaphysical ideas and methods of deducing fiqh are so closely related. Either way, outside of the deducations of fiqh, this idea is extremely important in Shi'i spiritualism and understanding the nature of Imamate. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually initially Shi'a were against both Ijtihad & Ijma but later i.e. after 6-7 century of Hijri these words started to be used in broader prespective by Sunni ulema and gradually Shi'a ulema accepted this broader meaning and start using them. Mention of this change can be found in most of the books of usool-e-fiqh & ilm-e-rijaal. Actually now also meaning of Ijtihad in Shi'a & Sunni usool-e-fiqh is different. Ayatullah-al-Uzma Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai clearly mentions this change in meaning in his book Shi'a. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources assert with great assurance that there is no Ijtihad in Shia Islam, while others assert that there has always been Ijtihad in Shia Islam, or that it was revived by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Shia Islam believes that Ijtihad is extraction of the true meaning of Sha'aria law, rather than innovation, and in that sense there has always been Ijtihad in Shi'a Islam, though the latitude of interpretation allowed may have varied.

Two Different Conceptions of Ijtihad

The term ijtihad as used in the writings of scholars of different Islamic sects conveys two different meanings, each of which gives rise to different viewpoints regarding the sources of Shar'i ahkam. In the first conception ijtihad means derivation of Shar`i hukm through personal judgement and ray for an issue for which the mujtahid does not find any express text in the Quran or the Sunnah. Such a meaning of ijtihad is found in the writings of `Abd al‑Wahhab al‑Khallaf and most of Sunni fuqaha' also subscribe to this view.

Ijtihad in this sense is. considered by most of Sunni scholars as an independent source parallel to the Quran, the Sunnah, ijma` and `aql, and is acknowledged as one of the bases for determining the ahkam.

It means that in the same manner as a mujtahid relies on sources like the Quran, the Sunnah, `aql and ijma` for deriving ahkam, he can also rely on ray and subjective opinion by taking recourse to instruments of presumption (like qiyas, istihsan, masalih mursalah, istislah, madhhab al‑Sahabi, fath al‑dhara'i`, sadd al‑dhara'i`, etc.) for issues on which there is no express text in the Quran and the Sunnah.

In the second conception ijtihad means deduction of the fari ahkam from the reliable sources (the Quran, the Sunnah, ijma` and `aql). Ijtihad in this sense occurs in the writings of Ahmad Mustafa al‑Zarqa', the author of al‑Madkhal al‑fiqhi al‑`amm, and Shi'i fuqaha' have sub­scribed to this view long since. According to this conception, the activity of the mujtahid involves deduction of the laws of the Shari'ah for emergent issues and new phenomena of life by employing general principles and rules. Thereby the mujtahid refers new secondary issues to the general principles and applies the general laws to their particular instances in external reality, thus obtaining the ahkam governing them. According to this conception, ijtihad is not counted as an independent source of law parallel to the Quran and the Sunnah, but merely as a means for deriving and determining the ahkam from the sources. (Source: Jannati, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ijtihad: Its Meaning, Sources, Beginnings and the Practice of Ra'y, al Tawhid Islamic Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2 &3, Vol. 6, No. 1, Vol. 7, No. 3 Qum - The Islamic Republic of Iran )

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

un-indent: Mashallah, it has been a bit of time since I have read materials on ijtihad. Thank you for the refresher. I have been skimming the article and noticed that there is only one source used as a reference for this section? I still have concerns about placing this topic under the beliefs section. I would not mind seeing it as part of a section on Shia philosophy or something similar. Are there more sources that we could use to reference the the section on `Aql? And might it be possible to change the name of the section to simply "`Aql"?

Actually, just `Aql would be preferable, since it's not much of a light in Ismailism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know from where this title Light of 'Aql popped out because after lot of search (in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, English sourcs) I could not find use of this term. Nearest English translation of orignal term (used) is The way of Intellection and/or Intellectual Reasoning. So I'll prefer dropping of piece Light of leaving just 'Aql . --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing this discussion, a couple of IPs have tried to delete the entire Light of Aql section of the article. Since the last several messages here have talked about renaming or moving it out of the Beliefs section, several of us have been reverting the wholesale deletion of this part of the article. If someone more knowledgeable on the topic of Shia Islam could continue this rename/move discussion, and/or help prod things toward consensus, I would appreciate it. Otherwise if anonymous editors keep deleting entire sections, I will probably have to semi-protect the article. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry - I have been in something of a hibernation from Wikipedia. I do appreciate the protection that I have seen on the article. Thank you. Inshallah someday I will come out of this hibernation and do some real work here. PinkWorld (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Pink

Section on Occultation

assalamu `alaykum I am trying to gather verifiable sources on occultation inshallah. I simply haven't felt that what I have to date is enough to make a proper section. I think that I might have found a Nasr book in Google Books. :) I also found a B Lewis mention of the split between Sunnni and Shi Islam and a bit about Imam `Ali, so inshallah I will be able to add it soon.

OT: As I posted to the Islam talk page, I really want to try to learn how to organise references into a notes section and a references section so that one will not have to type out every single bit of information about a reference for every single citation. I feel that I really muddied up our reference section; and what I see on other articles appears much cleaner. There seems to be a notes section listing auther's last name, year of publication, and page number. A references section follows that fleshes out full auther's name, full title name, etc. If anyone is familiar with writing references sections in that way, please help me to learn how to do the same.

Thank you, all. PinkWorld (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Sorry to intervene like this but I do not how else to reach the writers of this article, but to my knowledge it was the elders in Mecca that choose Abu Bakr NOT the elders of Medina, in fact the people of Medina were not asked, maybe some one can correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.230.24 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found something that quotes ibn Babawiyyah! Allahumma salli `ala Muhammad wa aale Muhammad! I am still in the process of compiling things about occultation, but I am definitely making progress. I wonder if there are other things that quote him? Regarding the above, I am so clueless about Saqifah. I used to know, but that part of my memory is still in a black hole. PinkWorld (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Pink

The Shi'a of Yemen

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 75.141.130.148 (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 festival.com is NOT a reliable source

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 [7] [8][9]. 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)

Grammar

The grammar of this article is exemplary until someone inserted the following sentence in the second paragraph of the section "Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt":

Imams are human individual who not only rules over the community with justice, but also is able to keep and interpret the Divine Law and its esoteric meaning.

This is nonsensical, but I don't presume to rewrite it. Billcito (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yemen

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 Rizvi^talk! 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Distribution map

It is totally wrong and very old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.110.176 (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, however it is the only properly sourced and cited map we have. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

May be some day I'll get time to do a map myself, but it is not a near possibility as triad months of Rajab-Shaban-Ramzan are continuing. So probably after Id-Al-Fitr (i.e. in last week of September) Ill be able to do it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph

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)

 Done! Whoops, looks like someone beat me to it. How about that...Peter Deer (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shiism criticisms

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph appears to be tampered with

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. 71.240.189.31 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Garrett 4/23/10

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

ambiguity

'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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 119.157.130.68 (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 174.115.198.24 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Related" section

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?

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 Haider^tc_s 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 Haider^tc_s

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 Haider^tc_s 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 Haider^tc_s 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)]

Doesn't make sense

"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 Shiism...how 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 142.58.132.95 (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)

Incorrect: Mahdi works with Mujtahids

"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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Careful

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 83.250.177.40 (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 142.58.132.95 (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 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of the article

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 Haider^tc_s 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 Haider^tc_s 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)

Section:Family Tree of 6 Islamic Nabi and Shia Islam

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 Haider^tc_s 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:

Quraysh

'Abd Manaf

'Abd Shams

Hashim

Umayya

'Abdu'l-Muttalib

Ab'l-As

Harb

'Abdu'llah

Abu Talib

al-'Abbas

Muhammad

al-Hakam

Affan

Abu sufyan

Fatima

'Ali

'Abbasid Caiphs

Marwan

'Uthman

Mu'awiya

Hasan

Husain

Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya

Later Ummayad Caliphs

Early Ummayad Caliphs

Idrisids in N. Africa, some Zaydi Imams

'Ali Zaynu'l-Abidin

Kaysaniyya Sect

Muhammad al-Baqir

Zayd

Jafar as-Sadiq

Zaydi Shi'ism

Isma'il

Musa al-Kazim

Isma'ili Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt

'Ali ar-Rida

Isma'ili Shi'ism

Muhammad al-Taqi

'Ali al-Hadi

Hasan al-Askari

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 Haider^tc_s 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)

Adnan

Yaqub (Jacob)

Banu Quraysh

Bani Isra'il

'Abd Manaf

Musa (Moses) - 4

Isa (Jesus) - 5

'Abd Shams

Hashim

Umayya

'Abdu'l-Muttalib

Ab'l-As

Harb

'Abdu'llah

Abu Talib

'Abbas

Muhammad - 6

Hakam

Affan

Abu Sufyan

Fatima

'Ali

'Abbasid Caliphs

Marwan

'Uthman

Mu'awiya

Hasan

Husain

Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya

Later Ummayad Caliphs

Early Ummayad Caliphs

Fatima

'Ali Zaynu'l-Abidin

Kaysaniyya Sect

Muhammad al-Baqir

Zayd

Idrisids in N. Africa, some Zaydi Imams

Jafar as-Sadiq

Zaydi Shi'ism

Isma'il

Musa al-Kazim

Isma'ili Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt

'Ali ar-Rida

Isma'ili Shi'ism

Muhammad al-Taqi

'Ali al-Naqi

Hasan al-Askari

Muhammad al-Mahdi

Ithnā‘ashari Shi'ism

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 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)

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

	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)