Talk:Saqifa

message: ----
I am not sure it's accurate to call him the founder of Islam.  That is like calling Jesus the founder of Christianity or Abraham the founder of Judaism.  He is a focal point but he was not the first Muslim (his wife was) so, I don't think that is a correct way to put it. gren —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 22 December 2004 (UTC)

message: The details should be presented using authentic references. The phrase "the details of which are highly contested" is not a good reason to justify avoiding to disclose the narrated facts. Mhhossein (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The details of saqifa

message: One down, and Succession to Muhammad to go. This is a complete rewrite. I've tried to make it as NPOV as possible. We'll see what happens. 
Besides all the stubs to be done, we also need references to Sunni and Shi'a accounts of the meeting. I took three hours to write this with just Ibn Ishaq and Madelung, and didn't take the time to google. It would be good to have a selection of Sunni and Shi'a websites with their versions of the matter. Zora 00:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some to the Shia section. Now we only need to wait for the VFD and the regular accusations of Shia biased propaganda :) --Striver 22:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, dang it, Striver, the Shi'a section is now a DISGRACE. You know your command of English is poor. You know that I'll rewrite if you bring up a good point in Talk. Why do you INSIST on presenting the Shi'a as illiterate tub-thumpers? Zora 00:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete revision 

message: Saqifah is a arabic word meaning something i dont remeber, so im going to rename the article to The meeting at Saqifah. --Striver 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver, you don't DO that without consulting other people. Saqifah means shed, and it is the usual shorthand for the meeting. The title you picked is bad WP style -- we don't use "the"s. I'm going to move the article BACK. Zora 10:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the article describing the event is named "shed", and not "the meeting at the shed"? Sure. Lets do that, im not going to bother... --Striver 11:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: The article had been revised by Shi'a editors, and included huge swathes of Shi'a polemic and invention presented as fact, and later worked over by a Hizb ut Tahrir editor who larded it with references to caliphs and the caliphate.
I cut it down drastically. This is NOT the place to argue the succession to Muhammad, Shi'a/Sunni differences, or push HuT propaganda. Zora 08:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be civil, provide evidence of the specific sentences you believe are Shia inventions, and what exactly you object to in menioning the word caliphate, after all that was what the purpose of the meeting was about. For your information do not throw around wild accusations, I am not a HT memeber, and most of what you deleted was not added by me, but was referenced so we cannot delete it unless it is challenged. Please list the sentences, or statements you diagree with and we can talk about it sis. I concede your point that there is a Shia bias, especially citing sources 2,3,7 & 8 is disingenious, because they are Shia websites, so it does need a reworking, but try and list your objections first Aaliyah Stevens 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another complete revision 

message: All those quotes from a Shi'a website are complete invention. If they aren't, they should be sourced to wherever the Shi'a got them. 
Your lavish insertion of links to caliph, caliphate, Islamic state, etc. are links, I think, to other articles that have been slanted to the HuT POV. This is definitely an attempt to use WP for sectarian purposes. The links are not needed to explain the article, which should be a minor one. All the major arguments should be at Succession to Muhammad. This is not the place to push your agenda. Zora 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enlighten me on what my agenda is? Please calm down, and be civil, I want to accomodate you as much as I can, and I recognise that the article has a Shi'i slant, hence I have already removed  material.  I am neither pro-Shia or Sunni/HT on this, but we can't remove referenced material just like that, and just because the article uses the words Caliph does not mean it is automatically a HT slanted article - HT do not and should not have a monopoly on the word, after all it is the core political institution of Sunni Islam, this fact is undisputed, regardless of if you believe it is an invented word, the Sunni Ulema considered it core to their political theology. I have removed most mention of the word caliph, and caliphate, except where it is used in the referenced quotes, or it states that a particular sect argue a point regarding it. Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq is not a Shia source, ibn Ishaq is accepted by Sunnis, as a tabi'i. Ibn Ishaq has the earliest account of the whole issue, so we cannot discount him. I have removed more, but I am at a loss to work out what you want: I will remove anything you suggest if it is not properly referenced, or you convince me is irrelevent, please provide a specific list of issues you have instead of throwing accusations, possibly quote which parts you disagree with, and then we can move forward. Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have restored some completely A-HISTORICAL material 

message: "Sunnis believes that Abu Bakr, first converter to Islam, Muhammad’s closest companion, adviser and Mohammed's father-in-law, is the successor of Mohammed, because he was the one had been appointed by the prophet to led Muslims in their prayers at Prophet's Holy Mosque at the time of the prophet's illness"
Abu Bakr was not the first converter to Islam. Ali is credited in more accounts to have been the first early convert to Islam. Change it or make it neutral and add "by some accounts Abu Bakr is believed to have been the ...
I am the city of knowledge and Ali' is it's gate so whoever desires knowledge let him enter the gate. Muhammad 
24.80.105.24 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revise

message: I'd like to improve the flow of the text, add a few new primary and secondary sources, and expand or clarify the Shia viewpoint in some places. I'll discuss major changes (if any) here on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits