Talk:Najis

message: Khomeini believed non-Muslims to be najis. The information can be verified here. AucamanTalk 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Muslims

message: Sorry, my last edit summary was incorrect -  is, in fact, the right verse.  All the others were wrong.  We need to be more careful about these things.Timothy Usher 04:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting the links. Pecher Talk 07:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong verses cited

message: "Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, may be the product of Zoroastrian influences" 
to
" Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, according to Bernard Lewis may be the product of Zoroastrian influences."
Moving my conversation with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on this issue: 
Hi Aminz, you are possibly right, however on wikipedia we are not supposed to state the author of the source in the articles text unless there is an opposing reference *and* if the original source is considered unreliable. Bernard Lewis however, is considered reputable and reliable enough. Feel free to add another reference so that you can spell out your complaints without it being original research. Usually by virtue of the name of the author of a source appearing most people will assume the article is suggesting that the person is biased.-- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
:I understand your argument, but I think it is a common sense that all shia jurists will reject this idea. Let me think about this more. Thanks --Aminz
Well its not common sense to me. I am admitedly not an expert on shiism or anything, but I think I am probably more knowledgable on it than an average person and I really wouldn't have the foggiest idea that it is common sense to Shiite Jurists.
:The reason that I am saying it is common sense is that Shia jurists are expected to merely use Qur'an and authentic Hadiths. That sentence implies that there are some Hadiths that Shia jurists believe are authentic but they are actually forgeries + the forgers were influenced by Zoroastrians. Please let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz
The reasoning you provided not only doesn't seem like common sense but seems quite esoteric (to me, probably not to you though). I think you are just going to have to provide a reference for this one man. I understand what you mean though, for every culture there are things that have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness and memory from such a young age that it is near impossible to understand how some poeple do not already know it. I guess that is a problem with having such a heterogenous community on English Wikipedia.
:Yes, you are right. It is not a common sense. I am sorry for using "common sense". It is not. Can you please let me know if you think we still need to quote from Bernard Lewis or not. If not, you can remove it meanwhile we are discussing it. It has been like this for a long time and we can let it remain like this until we end up in a conclusion. Thanks for your civility. --Aminz 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I realized that Pecher has already reverted it back. I'll move our discussion here to the talk page there soon. Thanks --Aminz 07:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no need to attribute this opinion, as we say "may be", not "is", so it's clear to anyone reading the article understands it is someone's opnion. THe reference to Lewis is in the footnotes. Pecher Talk 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am afraid I may not be able to edit in wikipedia for some time, so if you guys could continue this discussion that would be great. Thanks. --Aminz 10:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last changes 

message: "Designation of non-Muslims as unclean is mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism" is incorrect. See the view of Sistani who is an Iraqi regarding uncleanness of non-Muslims: Ali al-Sistani states that Jews and the Christians who do not accept the prophethood of Muhammad "are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak [that is, clean]. However, it is better to avoid them." --Aminz 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sistani is Persian, and was born in Iran.  I suppose he is also an Iraqi.Timothy Usher 23:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but he is a jurist for the Iraqi people. Please have a look at his comment: "..are commonly considered najis"; Were this only true in Iran, he would have said so. There are two major Shia schools of religous studies; one is Qom (Iran) and one in Najaf (Iraq). These two schools have a very close relationship. Iranian Shia's and Iraqi Shia's are very close to each other. Had were there a controversy, Sistani wouldn't have said "..are commonly considered najis". I don't say this is a "proof"; but an evidence. Let's assume this is only true in Iran, then "The concept is of particular importance to Shi'a Islam, where the belief in the uncleanness of non-Muslims" will be wrong. These two sentences contradict one another.--Aminz 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.Timothy Usher 00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, please look up in the dictionary the words "solely" and "mostly" and come back to describe the difference. Pecher Talk 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But Pecher, Sistani is no minor figure.  My question is whether this is traditional in Iraqi Shi'a or an Iranian-inspired innovation, and second, when Lewis says Iranian, does he mean as opposed to Iraqi and Gulf Shia, or as opposed to Maghrebi and Egyptian Shi'a?  I don't know, I'm only asking.Timothy Usher 10:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Lewis means that the observation of this commandment was largely limited to Iran. Bat Ye'or mentions Shi'ites in Lebanon limiting contacts with Christians, but that's pretty much all we have. If you know this practice being followed in Iraq, give the sources, as I'm not aware of any. This stands in stark contrast with the memoirs of European travelers to Iran, who unanimously mention the enforcement of the uncleanness custom, including the prohibition to go out in the rain. Apparently, the practice struck the Europeans as something particularly barbaric and noteworthy. Pecher Talk 13:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what the source says, then that's what should be in the article.  We're not here to protect anyone's reputation (are we?)Timothy Usher 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pecher, who are these "European travelers" who "unanimously mention the enforcement of the uncleanness custom"? Can you reference or name one besides the "unnamed European traveler" who is quoted by Bernard Lewis? --ManiF 06:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracy 

message: I tried to make the Shi'a ideas about this issue more NPOV by using "Islamic low"(Resala Amalya) and I tried to show all of the viewpoints not few of them. --Sa.vakilian 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kafir and Ahl kitab

message: Should this be merged to Ritual purity in Islam?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: There appears to be a contradiction between the two lines: 
“Najis things cannot be purified, in contrast to things which are defiled only..”
and “It is possible to purify a thing which has become najis.” 21fafs (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction 

message: sbxbxn
Dhxbnc
Fbcvxv
Cncxbn
Cncnmf
धज्डज
Fbcbx
CR cncb 2409:4051:4E1D:B38D:0:0:770B:9D05 (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  आपका