Talk:Historical Shia-Sunni relations

message: and i dont know enough to be a help, but i am seriously confused, right off the bat. i mean, you talk about ali, and bakr and caliphs with no mention to who they are, when they were alive, how they were related, where they ruled specifically. in the first paragraph of the article proper alone, it seems like you refer to ali as if he lived and died or rather maybe he was two people... ("a violent coup d'état against Ali in his first day as caliph" at least possibly suggests to me that he died in the violent attack, but not necessarily, but who did the coup, why, and when?) ali who? son of who? lived in where? related to who? serious, i don't know what the hell is going on.
--64.142.79.210 09:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the article has a link to the Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split which is kind of necessary for this article.  To understand some subjects you sometimes need to go read some other things first.  I think this article is pretty good overall but some specific parts do need help. --W00tfest99 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs help 

message: Please make citations so references can be checked.  Adding Arabic script is not going to help and therefore it is just like be unreferenced.  Provide something that makes it trackable for peer review. gren グレン 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arabic that you are referring to is actually the name of the text, the reference itself. I left it in Arabic, because I wasnt sure about the proper transliteration. I will write its English transcription beside it.--Zereshk 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, just make sure there is something (ISBN at least) so that we can identify the source and cite it.  Page numbers in a certain version would be heplful.  This is controversial and if only you know your source that's not going to be good enough. Try to make it more accessible. Wikipedia:Cite sources shows all of the reasons sources need to be cited, etc. gren グレン 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, does the Quran have an ISBN number? Or how about the prophecies of Nostradamus? Or the Bible of Matthew? Likewise, texts that were written several hundred years ago are the same. If you know Islam and Arabic well enough, you will know the books that Ibn Athir for example wrote. Or Nizam ul-Mulk's Siyasatnama. And you will know Ibn Athir's al-nihayah wa al-bidayah. These are obvious sources. Your putting an NPOV tag just illustrates your partisan and obstructionist position. Why cant people just accept that there is injustice in mainstream Islam as well, like everywhere else?--Zereshk 02:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They all do have ISBNs in modern publications... unless, you happen to have a very old book they will have some way to trace them.  It doesn't matter how much I know about Arabic or Islam the fact remains that you need to cite things in a way that others can check on them, just read the rules Zereshk.  You will note I never added the NPOV tag to this page..., and adding an NPOV tag isn't exactly partisan? It's saying the article is too partisan.  I have never denied injustice in mainstream Islam... so let's just cite sources.  Okay?  Also, if they're very old I recommend trying ot get them on project gutenberg or distributed proofreaders (Europe for foreign character sets).  Really, I don't see why this has become an argument about being partisan or not... it's a straightforward case of you must present your sources in a way so that others can research and fact check the article.  Thanks. gren グレン 03:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: does  bring any ideas? --Striver 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are going to have to explain what you mean Striver. gren グレン 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its strikes me as there is a place for a "religous persecution of Shi'as" article, and it should be linked there. Make a "religous persecution by the Shi'as" also, if you find any such material. --Striver 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure it deserves a place on the template (since we're getting into sectarian and smaller scopes, and the article is broad) but I do think you could certainly create an article.  This article almost is that already because it doesn't discuss good relations very much... and, of course there have been problems. If it's done well it could be a good article :) --gren グレン 05:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is what occured to me. Unfortunatly, there is not much good to report, but i do think that the good thinks from the "shia" aticle should be included.--Striver 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  template

message: I believe there are some issues that need to be adressed as to whom exactly called "Shiites" as "Kafir" by doing Takfir on them; 
It's important to know there were two form of Shiites in history wich both adhered to Shiite teaching (in this case i mean your typical Ithna Ashari)..
*(1) Shiites that cursed Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman, whom were called Rafidi's for them doing such
*(2) Shiites that did not curse Omar, Othman, Abu Bakr, etc, the Majority
If we consider that Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa were students under the Shiite Imam, Imam Sadiq, and we analyze how both of these characters have praised their teacher and in addition studied with Shiites alltogether, that Imam Sadiq taught them about Muta, Taqiyyah and other concepts and at the same time them forming a respectful difference in oppinion, we'll realize that these two characters that on the page that have refered to "Shia as Kafir" were refering to the "Rafidi" form of Shiism (1). Someone should definately be sure about whom he attributes the Takfir to and who the person was refering to. The other two Imams (Ahmad Hanbal and Shafi) in addition were indirect students of Imam Sadiq as well, as is generally known.--Paradoxic 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be enriching if you add this historical point to the article.--Zereshk 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstood concepts 

message: I haven't messed with it because I'm exhausted, and because I'm reading Moojan Momen's book, Introduction to Shi'ism. It's a solid academic work and seems reliable. I wanted to have a better background on Shi'a history before I tackled this mess. 
My impression at the moment, having read about 2/3 of Momen, is that the article title and content are both bad. It wouldn't hurt anything to AfD it. However, we DO need an article on the history of Shi'a Islam and if we changed the title and replaced most of the content, this COULD be it. So I'm neutral as to whether this should be deleted and a new article started, or whether this article should just be "morphed". Zora 08:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are deeply indebted to you for your tireless research. --AladdinSE 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Bahai's writings on Shias? hmmm. Not a good start.--Zereshk 08:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, the article is bad 

message: I think we need to remove a misconception here about shi'a sunni conflict, in the sence that it is mostly the Wahhabi Islam which is against Shi'as, and not sunnis. Most of the edicts that declare Shi'as non-Muslim, and call for their killing are from Wahhabis. Feb. 26, 2006 Peterhynych
:That is certainly most true nowadays. We can stress on that in the contemporary sense (even though I personally dont agree with it, but also wish not to stereotype Sunnis either). But for example, was Al-Mutawakkil, who demolished the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali, a Wahhabi or Salafi?--Zereshk 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wahhabism

message: Great job at answering Aladin, keep up the good work. --Striver 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indebted to you for this piece of merriment. I laughed heartily. How true it is that praise from certain quarters is the worst kind of censure! --AladdinSE 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zereshk

message: Due to an extreme amount of vandalism, I'm reverting back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations&oldid=74707408.  which is on 9th Sept. I'll try to go back through and fix up anything serious that disappears as a result of that, but that's as far back as one needs to go to get past all the vandalism. El Juno 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This article needs a lot of work and I would also support merging it into  which is clearer and better written.
I'm not a scholar of the history of Islam and cannot comment on some of the specific statements, but  there are many unsupported statements (ex. denying Fatima the Garden of Fadak), some that are clearly contradicted elsewhere (ex. length of Uthman's Caliphate), some that are of questionable relevance (ex. Fatima's children didn't want to eat without her), and far too many laden with unsupported value judgements (ex. "And what a wonderful Caliphate Imam Ali had become!")
Maybe I'll spend a little time cleaning up the language, but I think this article needs much more than I can give it.  I look forward to watching it improve through the wikimagic of collaboration
--Foosem 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not up to standards as written 

message: As a neutral observer (I am not a Muslim whatsoever), the "Internet" section seems rather one-sided and unnecessarily inflammatory to me.  Is it really necessary to have all of these quotes here? fraggle 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internet" section 

message: Many Sunni Ulema, did takfeer on Yazeed, and at his time Islam was not defined simply by Sunni or Shia. Sunni Ulema suffered under the ummayads too. It is wrong to say that Yazeed or the ummayads were authentic representitives of Sunni Islam. The repression of Sunnis in Iran also needs to be mentioned, and the Badr Brigades Death Squads wiping Sunnis out in Iraq (I'm not saying they represent Shiaism) Aaliyah Stevens 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni criticism of Yazid and support for Hassan And Husaains 

message: I moved the article because it is no longer historical, and I re-ordered it to give it some structure. Before it was very ad-hoc. Please state your objections on the Sunni-Shia Relations talk page , this title is much simpler and better Aaliyah Stevens 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Sunni-Shia Relations]], this article is not simply "historical"