Talk:Ahl al-Bayt

message: As a whole, this article contains an inordinate amount of original research.  There are numerous instances where factual claims are made with only "according to such and such person" as citation.  I just removed the worst section, which literally contained nothing but original research and not a single citation.  I'm going to start combing through the rest of the article during the next few days; I would encourage anyone else with the time to do so as well.  We need to get more outside sources to verify what's in here, because as it is i'm having one hell of a hard time cross-referencing everything. MezzoMezzo 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and as mentioned above, the whole article reads like a pro-Shia screed. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag everything with dates. Delete everything already tagged. Be mindful however not to delete things merely because they seem to support a Shia standpoint, however. I'm all for burning away all of the OR in this article, frankly I think that will contribute greatly to cleaning it up. Peter Deer (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much original research

message: I've been asked to come in and clean up the article and remove the original research. I'm going to tag it up for now and over the next few days I'm going to try and find sources personally for most of this, and anything that seems even remotely dubious if it isn't sourced I'm just going to delete it.
I'm going to put a little list here of certain issues I would like help on in my edits and I welcome any I can get. I'll probably work on this more as I 
*The Kisa Tradition section is just a total mess, almost to the point of being unreadable. It contains some reference to Hadith, which albeit a primary source is still a source, so I'd prefer it be cleaned up by someone who knew what they were doing instead of bulldozed by me.
*The Sunni Interpretation section has similar problems.
If anyone can think of anything else tell me. Peter Deer (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd like to see is the article focusing on the concept of Ahl al-Bayt from the general Islamic perspective, then we can have a views section where the variances between the Sunni and Shia approaches can be discussed. I do agree that substantial changes are needed, and I shall try to incorporate citations where possible. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to remove the whole section "Ahl al-Bayt in hadiths" for now because it's an amalgamation of copy-pastes taken from various websites such as this. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd like to see much more compounding of things into common ground as opposed to conflict. I'd also like to fix the lead section and the second "Ahl Al-Bayt Family" section, because it seems to me like the second section is just a lead section that got too long and was cut off into a different section. Peter Deer (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though for the record I do think that the mentions in Hadith are important to the article and should be incorporated moderately and responsibly and only when relevant. Peter Deer (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend using third party reliable sources to establish the significance of any primary sources relevant to this topic. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think insofar as notability is concerned that Hadith should, of course, have some inclusion (as it's so expansive it may be preferable for Ahl al-Bayt in Hadith to have its own article) but I think that the current deletion is necessary to getting this article back on the right track from the train wreck of unverifiable and obscure selections it had become. Peter Deer (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see that makes any sense. The current section is one paragraph with links to the Imamate and Ismah pages... what, exactly, would you delete? Ogress smash! 05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Twelver and Ismaili branches of Shi'a Islam differ in regards to the line of Imamate. While the Twelver believe in a lineage known as the Twelve Imams, the Ismaili believe that the descendants of Isma'il ibn Jafar were the inheritors of the Imamate instead." This doesn't seem to fit in the article. In fact this section is kinda just a recap of the opening paragraph where the Shia view of ahl ul-bayt is already expounded. Maybe just a "see also" with links would suffice?Shabaniyya (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performing major cleanup and purge of original research 

message: So the Ahl al-Bayt means People of the Household and refers to the household of Muhammad. Ahl al-Kisa means the People of the Cloak and refers to the persons in the Hadith of the Cloak. Ahl al-Bayt is often by Shiites considered to be referring only to the persons also considered the Ahl al-Kisa, and Sunnis consider Ahl al-Bayt to be more inclusive and pertain to all persons under Muhammad's household, not merely His descendants and son in law. 
Does that seem accurate? Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems about right. ITAQALLAH 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've really only fairly recently started familiarizing myself with a lot of this terminology, so you'll have to bear with me as my English-speaking mind catches up with a lot of this. Part of the reason I'm doing this is to make this more comprehensive to Western peoples so that people have a place to learn a scholarly English presentation of Islam instead of having to learn about it from their preacher or from the war coverage on the news. Peter Deer (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ahl ul-bayt actually refers to the larger pool of Muhammad's descendants, like the children of the Imams and so on. This is why Shias visit the graves of these people, as well as those of the Imams. Shabaniyya (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahl al-Bayt vs. Ahl al-Kisa 

message: If you don't have enough time to read long discussion this is a brief version. I think these are the main problems of Itaqallah's version.
# Overemphasizing on Shia/Sunni differences.
# Collecting of more important and less important hadiths beside each other.
# Mixing different issues which can be separated to make the issue more readable. 
# Finally, we shouldn't judge on the article on the basis of its effects. I agree that if we say there is consensus among all Muslims that Ahl-Kisa are among Ahl al-Bayt, it's in favor of Shia perspective. But it's not good reason to remove the issue and try to mixed the issues and Overemphasize on the differences.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should wait for me to finish writing the significance section so that the content can be assessed as a whole. In any case, we shouldn't try to gloss over the point that there are fundamental differences in interpretation which have doctrinal implications, and we should mention that before we discuss the specifics of what is accepted/rejected. 2) All hadith related to ahl al-bayt are relevant here, especially if they contribute to understanding the differences in understanding, and especially if they are mentioned by a third party reliable source (which is the case here). 3) I don't believe issues are being mixed in my version. I have categorised content according to whether it pertains to the issue of defining ahl al-bayt, or whether it pertains to understanding the religious significance of ahl al-bayt. Both are distinctly separate. 4) A neutral way is simply to tell the readers what Sunnis accept/reject, and then tell them what Shia accept/reject - which is what I have tried in my version of the lead. That makes things a lot more neutral as opposed to implicitly favouring one perspective. ITAQALLAH 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to defend the old version. This is not the version which I defend. We can write our versions in another pages such as our personal pages and then compare them.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I will get to looking at these in a while, but for now I think it would be beneficial to say prayers for forbearance and try and achieve harmony. I know it's a lot to ask to put aside a dispute which has been raging nonstop for over a thousand years, but if you could give it a shot... Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose disputes are sometimes inevitable on controversial articles, which is unfortunately what many Islam-related articles are. I don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing, all I want is an article of high academic, scholarly, and professional quality, which covers the issues in a clinical, dry (almost boring!) manner. I believe that Islam-related articles, this one included, deserve that much at least, and so do our readers. ITAQALLAH 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but looking at the arguments the main issue between the two of you is whether emphasis is being given to one side or the other. Peter Deer (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the previous version of the article was unduly slanted towards one perspective. But I don't see my conflict with Seyyed as some sort of personal Sunni v Shia thing, which is what I (mis?)interpreted from your comment. Sorry if I misunderstood. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing but the result of your work is that.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is bound to be about differences in Sunni and Shia conceptions, which should be recognised and appreciated. The whole point is to not implicitly favour one argument over another. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest you guys should calm a bit down.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. We can discuss later.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd rather not have separate sections for Sunni/Shia views, I think they should all be mentioned together as I think it's a more neutral presentation (sections according to POVs are generally not advisable). Three paragraphs in the lead for what is a relatively small article should IMO be joined together to make two instead. I don't see any problem in mentioning the Sunni/Shia perspectives alongside eachother. ITAQALLAH 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahl al-Bayt is a more important and loaded concept for Shias I guess. It might be even appropriate to have an article on Ahl al-Bayt in Shia thought. The reality is that there is a distinction between the two views and creating subsections makes this distinction more clear. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a point. I feel we have basically two completely different concepts that we are trying to force into one article. --Enzuru 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main disagreement(in brief)

message: I'm thinking a good idea would be to replace most instances of Ahl al-Bayt with something in English like Muhammad's kin/family/relatives/household etc. It makes things much more readable for English speakers IMO, as opposed to unnecessarily crowding up the text with Arabic phrases (which can in most cases be mentioned in brackets). It's also beneficial from a stylistic perspective. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I follow this myself. For example, you will see on Shi'a templates I put English versions of things like salat (a phrase which half of Muslims themselves don't even use, namaz is the popular term in Pakistan, India, Iran, etc) or hajj. But, when it comes to Ahl al-Bayt or Ahl al-Kisa, there is no scholastic term, there is just a translation as "family." We need a proper noun, and until someone can find one that is used by scholars, I believe we should stick with the Arabic phrase. On another note, Ahl al-Kisa, People of the Book, is actually used by many scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim. --Enzuru 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know, there are plenty of English renditions available in scholarly texts, such as kin, family, household, and so on. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in prose 

message: I can quote the Aql phrase by scholars (Tabatabai can be our reference or citation) and even its hadith, it's not just a popular idea unimportant to Shi'a creed. I haven't put it back in myself because perhaps you want to put it somewhere else? --Enzuru 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can put it back if you find an academic scholarly reference for it (I don't mean Tabataba'i here, as there is disagreement over whether such sources qualify as reliable on Wikipedia), but it'd probably be better placed in the body of the article than the lead. If this is an important theme then it should be pretty easy to find verification in an academic text. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no issue. Is Corbin fine? --Enzuru 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If he talks about the conception of Aql in Shi'ism, please feel free to incorporate it into the article (my preference would be in the Significance section). ITAQALLAH 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aql 

message: Please refer to our former discussion below Ahl al-Bayt in Quran and Hadith.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: About 520,000 google hits for AhlulBayt (many of which are anyway mirrors of this site) vs 580,000 google hits for AhlulBait. Isn't there a wiki policy about article names following the most common version of the name?81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bayt or Bait

message: I am unable to make sense of the section that reads:
:Loving Ahl al-Bayt according to Sunni Islam
:First Caliph Abu Bakr Said :
:Look at Muhammad through his family.‏ 
I don't even know if Said is part of his name or a miscapitalized verb! The section needs to be rewritten by someone who has the communication of encyclopedic knowledge in mind. --Haruo (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless section 

message: It says in the text that Ahl al-Bayt in the verse 33:33 refers to the wives. That is incorrect according to the Shia view, which can be proved. First of all, in the same verse God says "houses" (buyut in Arabic) in plural form when talking about the wives, but house (bayt in Arabic) in singular form when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Secondly God uses the pronoun "kunna" (you group of women) when talking about the wives, and "kum" (you group of at least one man) when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Thirdly there is the famous hadith of the Cloak, al-Kisa, that says Ahl al-Bayt are Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn, and that shows that no wife is included in Ahl al-Bayt. Other historic references are about this. The only argument Sunni Muslims have for including the wives in Ahl al-Bayt is their own scholars interpretations, which are wrong according to the Shiite viewpoint. 4. When talking about Ahl (folk) in Arabic here, it must be taking into consideration that in verse 11:46 God doesn't include Noas son in his family, "laysa min ahlik". Why is that? That is because he wasn't pure. And the persons in Ahl al-Bayt are pure like the Prophet himself and the Quran, and therefor they are the successors of the Prophet (see hadith al-Thaqalayn) and can touch the Quran, and have all knowledge of it, (56:79). Thank you and hope you correct this fact in the text.--AronSimonEli (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: welcome to Wikipedia. It is structured to support your above opinion by Reliable Source. Quran is classified as a primary source and secondary sources are needed.Saff V. (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Qur'an 

message: There is quite a bit of ongoing edit war here and there are also several subpar sources in the article (almaany.com, Mufradat al-Qur'an, Faith and Reason, al-Islam.org, ...). It's often the case that these sources can be safely replaced with more reliable ones. In the next few weeks, I'm hoping to look into these issues and also copy-edit the text, where needed. Albertatiran (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war and subpar sources 

message: I've made all the corrections I can to clear the no target errors on this page, but there are still two outstanding. Both Glassé 2001 and Sharon 2014 have nothing to link to, the cites should be included in the Sources section. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll take care of the two remaining ones. Albertatiran (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No target errors 

message: This link links to the father of Maryam 46.144.128.210 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to father of Mosu