This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just because something is critical, that does not make it "not neutral" or "unencyclopedic". there are plenty of critical articles on Wikipedia, espepcially on other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism. They even go further and criticise sects such as Catholicism, Protetantism, Mormonism etc. Why should this article be treated any different. Especially when it is providing arguments from credible, respectable sources. We must not allow the fanatics to scare us into complacency or inaction.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect Ialsoagree, i believe you should remove the neutrality tag, since this surely cannot stand up to higher criticism, a part of which i have already provided.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's questionable, no matter who does it, I just happened to notice this article. That being said, if consensus favors your opinion, then I'll admit to my own mistake and not object to the tag's removal. ialsoagree (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I also believe i am offering the chance for neutrality, by allowing those who are being criticised the chance to respond to the arguments against them. Hence, the reader can be swayed either way- for or against Twelvers. So where is the bias in that? The layout of the article is most appropriate for the oppurtunity for neutrality. I have seen other critical articles that lack this clear outlet for defense. Therefore, this article allows all stakeholders to voice their opinions. Let the reader decide which opinion appeals to his/her common sense of right and wrong.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Instead of waiting 24 hours before removing the tag, i decided to wait 1 week. I thought this would allow a more comprehensive study of peoples opinions.Atheistic Irani (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Work in progress
This is most definitely a work in progress and hopefully i will be able to update it when i am not busy studying or partying. So please bear with me. Hopefully, the wider Wikipedia community will also get on board and support the growth and perfection of this article. I understand that this article is sensitive and provocative for some, and will definitely come under vandalism attacks from religious fanatics and the weak spirited. However, it is my firm belief that the knowledgeable and consensual Wikipedia community will counter these fanatics' attacks and enable the knowledge provided by this article to continue to reach the wider community.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A note on article layout
If i could just say; i believe the best format for the article is to have the heading of the twelver belief being criticised, followed by the actual twelver belief being criticised, followed by the reasons it is being criticised, finally followed by a concluding paragraph that also links the belief to the broader twelver history. This should then have a "Response to criticism" subsection. I believe this format is the easiest to follow, reduces bewildering clutter, and is the fairest for all stakeholders involved.Atheistic Irani (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Twelver Shia are led by child Imams: Response to criticism: John the Baptist
After some intensive research I have discovered that the statement in the article that “John the baptist (Yahya) was given authority (hokm) while he was a child according to the Koran (19:12 )” is in fact incorrect. This is due to a number of undisputable reasons:
Firstly, the Arabic word used in this koranic quote was not hokm (authority). Rather, the Arabic word used is hokmah (wisdom). This is clear for anyone with even an ounce of Arabic comprehension and pronunciation. I would like to think this was an innocent rushed mistake, instead of deceptive trickery that was used due to the similarities in the words hokm and hokmah.
Secondly, every single online English Koran translation I found (whether it be from an Englishmen, to an Arab, to a south Asian) translated the word in question (i.e. hokmah) to wisdom, rather than authority. Quite humorously, the person who incorrectly edited the section (at 19.33, 26th May 2010) as hokm (authority) also translated the koranic quote in question as wisdom. This further leads me to believe this editor has made perhaps an innocent mistake.
Therefore, based upon these discoveries I have changed the wording from hokm to hokmah i.e. “John the baptist (Yahya) was given wisdom (hokmah) while he was a child according to the Koran (19:12 )”. Whether this new correct rephrasing of the words is any longer a relevant rebuttal, I leave for the original editor or other interested parties to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheistic Irani (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When an 'atheistic Irani' edits Wikipedia based on online translations of Koran, (admittedly showing his/her ignorance of Arabic language) the result is not better than this. Several points are to be made:
1. The word in question is Hokm (حکم)، there is no such word Hokmah, in Arabic. Hikmah (حکمه) mean Wisdom, whereas
Hokm can mean Wisdon, as well as Authority and Judgement. For example check Josef:40.
2. It seems that the User Atheistic Irani is not aware of the basics of Arabid grammer. The 'a' at the end of recitation
al-hokma in the verse in question shows that the word 'al-hokm' is a grammatical object, so the vowel 'a' (without any 'h')
is used as a so called declination of the word al-Hokm; it does not change the word into the non-existent word Hokmah!
3. It is true that some translations translate Hokm into Wisdom, but there are others who use 'judgement' instead.
Again, it's Sourah Maryam, verse 12: Check e.g. translations by Arberry and Sahih International.
All is all, the article has been modified in a reasonable manner. However I wish not anybody allowed himself/herself to play an expert where his/her cluelessness is so manifest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.255.175 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think Wisdom is the criteria why one shuold have authority. So if John the Baptist was the most wise person of his land, he should have been the ruler whether child or grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.32.212.11 (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My answer: with all due respect, may I advice you upon not rushing into an argument when you clearly have not assessed the evidences and arguments in any depth whatsoever. This kind of hasty response can be very misleading. Let me answer all your points as simply as I can.
Your statement “Don't you think Wisdom is the criteria why one shuold have authority” is really misguided. Wisdom is definitely one criterion, but definitely not the only criteria in order to have authority. Besides there are many people who are wise or have wisdom (perhaps you may know a few such people), but that does not mean they should all of a sudden have number 1 authority.
Your statement “So if John the Baptist was the most wise person of his land, he should have been the ruler whether child or grown up” is simply untrue. The Quranic quote nowhere mentions “the most wise person of his land”. The Quranic quote only says John was given wisdom while he was a child. While he was a child there may have been people who had more wisdom than him (e.g. If his father Zachariah was still alive, or Mary mother of Jesus- if she was yet born and much older, or other older people) - so perhaps you believe all these people should have shared the leadership of the Israelites? How would they have shared it- on a monthly rotational basis?
Besides, for John to have had dominant authority while he was a child, he would have had to of been a divinely designated Prophet while he was a child (just as the Twelver Shia’s child Imams were divinely designated the Imamate). However, nowhere does the Quranic quote mention that John was a Prophet at this child phase of his life- it only mentions he was given wisdom- and I am sure if he was a child Prophet then the Quranic quote would have said he was given Prophethood (rather than wisdom) while he was a child, since Prophethood includes wisdom plus much more including: divine revelation, miracles, highest moral and spiritual standards etc.
Anyway, in my opinion, using the John example to justify the Imamate of the 3 children should be rejected and deleted from the article. Whoever added this argument did so based upon a Quranic quote that is too vague and in no way addresses the issue of the 3 children being the highest unparalleled authority for the Twelver Shia communities of their times. Plus, there are no references (of scholars, intellectuals, debaters etc.) that were produced for this John rebuttal, which leads me to believe that this was added based upon the poorly thought through reasoning of its initial editor. However, since this is a sensitive topic I do not intend to fan the flames and so will be patient until there is loud consensus for its deletion.Atheistic Irani (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I didn't give any judgement so there was no point calling me a person who "have not assessed the evidences and arguments in any depth whatsoever"
Second, as you said Wisdom is not the only criteria for a person to have authority, would you care to tell, what then is the criteria, according to Islam, for authority?
Third, if God can give wisdom to a child, which is not likely in normal circumstances, is it not possible for God the Almighty to give Authority to a child?
Fourth, Did God Almighty not made Jesus (Isah) a Prophet (Jesus was a Rasool not just Nabi) while he was Infant. What is the authority bigger then the authority of the Rasool of the time?
I hope you know that Allah Al-mighty said in Quran "we didn't sent any messenger but for that people should obey them"
Fifth, you assumption that John the Baptists (Yahya) not a divinely designated Prophet at that time is wrong. According to Islam A prophet is a prophet the day he is born. According to Islam prophet were prophet even before they were born (Qur'an 3:81-82)
Anyhow, I have said enough, peace be upon you...
The ages of the child Imams
The User:Humaliwalay indirectly brought my attention to a very important issue, which I had lazily ignored. The issue being: to revise the ages of the child Imams (when they assumed the Imamate), in order to make them more accurate. I had previously recorded the 9th, 10th and 12th Imams as being 8, 5-8 and 5 years old respectively when they became the Imams. However, more accurate conversions, calculations and rounding-off (to the nearest 0.5 years) revealed their ages to be 7.5yrs, 6.5-8.5yrs, and 4.5 years old respectively. For those really interested, the values before rounding-off were 7yrs7months7days, 6yrs4months29days-8yrs4months27days and 4yrs6months24days respectively. These new values were also determined while being lenient and using the given values that actually gave these child Imams their highest ages possible (in order to placate any fussy or combative Twelver Shia readers and editors). My working out is too long and tedious to been shown on this discussion page. However, if anyone would like to work out their ages for themselves, then this can be done quite simply by following the Wikipedia link for each Imam then recording the birth and death of each of the last 5 Imams using their equivalent Islamic or Gregorian calendar dates throughout. This is then followed by subtracting the death of the preceding Imam by the birth of the succeeding Imam. This gives the age at which the Imam succeeded his predecessor. However, I would advise anyone who does not want to waste their time to not bother, because these values are as good as they are going to get. Regardless of the revised or pre-revised ages, these 3 Imams were still assigned the Imamate while they were children and while they were less than 10 years old.
I have also removed the citation tags since the details are by no means “dubious”. In fact I was only using the details that were given by the Wikipedia article link of each Imam (which I would imagine were added by Twelver Shia editors rather than any polemicists) to determine their ages upon assuming the Imamate.Atheistic Irani (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
hi MatthewVanitas. thnks for asking me. Yeh even though the ismaili’s and twelvers have similarities I would’nt change the title to just criticism of shia islam because this would eventually make the article too long in future. Also ismailis, alevi and allawites and others have similar beliefs to twelvers but they also have unique beliefs that would make criticism too long. then on top of that you have the zaydi's who are categorised shia but have many unique beliefs such as about the imamah and have many similarities to sunnis. I think it would be like trying to criticize all protestasnts like Anglican, lutherann, evangelicals, Pentecostals, presbytarians and more in 1 article….this would be too much, too long, too confusing.hope to hear ur opinion.Suenahrme (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd still make the case that the article could be both narrowed and widened. I think the overall thrust of the article as it stands, and the direction in can easily head, might be best covered as Sunni criticism of Shia Islam. I would argue that the primary Sunni objections are to beliefs and practices held by Shia at large, and that the primary source of geo-politically significant criticism of Shiism is from Sunni commentators. I'd argue that the article as it stands would need very little modification to both confine itself to criticisms from the Sunni perspective, and to ensure that it covers Shiism at large vice simply the Twelvers. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Primary needed improvments to the article?
Greetings, since the AfD is reopened for discussion, I'd greatly appreciate any input on how we can get the article to at least a, say, 80% threshhold where we can attain consensus that the article is worth keeping in the first place. And from there we can continue to improve it and keep it watchlisted to keep inappropriate POV commentary out.
What do folks seen as the main lackings? Should the scope be narrowed and/or widened, as I suggest above, possibly by focusing it specifically on Sunni criticism of Shia Islam, which is arguably the most notable aspect of the debate in terms of explaining the perspectives which fuel sectarian violence. I would also argue that the eventual creation of Shia criticism of Sunni Islam (previously deleted as an attack page) could provide a key support to maintaining two POV-free layouts of ideological conflict. The current Shi'a-Sunni relations is a neat article, but focuses more on the history and geo-political aspects, whereas this article (and any related article on the other side) are focused on the discourse surrounding the conflict.
Thanks again for everyone keeping an open-mind on the issue. I would argue that this article should become an article that does not in any way offend a Shia reader, but rather one that even Shia readers would appreciate as a clear and neutral breakdown of contested theological issues that would help readers of any background to understand the sectarian conflict. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
With lots of thanks to user Matthew for his bold edits which resulted in saving of the article. There are lots of matters which are needed to be added. I suggest to discuss the article subject by subject, and as there is no deadline in Wikipedia, we shouldn't be worried about time. A further point which I'd like to add is that there are dark points in all religions and sects. Our duty here is to inform readers about realities, and while paying attention to the wording we use, we won't distort an existing fact for satisfaction of any reader, including Shia readers. On behalf of my self, I'll try my best to reflect all the matters about Shia sect with related responses.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and it's not even so much a matter of "dark side" as "these two groups have diverging opinions on topic X, which contribute to the conflicts between these branches." To ignore that such conflict exists would be too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but to explore the motivations behind dischord can be really educational. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Good, so don't prohibit yourself from writing something that you think could be offensive. Feel free to write anything you want, as you'll have my strong support in this case. Here I am listing some of the main criticism topics and if you or any one else know something more, s/he is welcome to add. We can discuss them one by one below its section.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
General related discussions
Can I take it from your list of subjects that you might support a re-name and slight tightening of focus to Sunni criticism of Shia Islam?MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be better that you, as a third party user, decide for this matter. I won't disagree with any rename proposal by you.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've leave the suggestion up for a week or so, but barring any objection I'd support the move. At this point about the only changes that would entail would be slightly modifying the lede, and in the Child Imams section making some slight distinction between which imams are Twelver and which Ismaili (and if necessary what branch), though overall concerns about whether children can be imams are likely to be applicable to all sub-denominations. Regarding the ABDILP site, at this juncture it appears worth recognising as authoritative on Shia issues but statements taken from them should probably be caveated with something like "According to the Shia think-tank ABDILP..." or whatever phrase seems appropriate to make the source's perspective clear to the reader. So not necessarily authoritative as to "who's wrong or right" (outside the scope of WP anyway), but in terms of "here's a recognised, representative Shia viewpoint on the matter". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we can add a section about name of the article. I and some other friends are currently following a successful approach here. We can do so here as well. I will start, and wish to see more and more users in this discussion.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked many of our criticism articles, and I suggest the name Criticism of Twelver Shia (I'm still doubtful about whether we must use the word Twelver or no) for 3 reasons: To have similar style with other criticism article; Using the simple and well-known word Shia instead of Shi'ism; and that in future there might be criticism on Shia on behalf of non-Sunni groups, so it's better to ease the work of next generation editors. But still I preserve your priority to choose the name.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Afd discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism" is a article without providing sources that help readers understand from who in particular is criticism recieved for Twelver Shi'i Islam, which is a strictly followed religion of about 200 million people in the world. I think the article may qualify under G-1 Wikipedia:Patent nonsense perhaps as the article is original research, POV, in bad faith and soapbox. References given are non-verifiable and out of sync to the matter which they are tagged to. Nothing in the article can be checked for verification, except few sources which are not related to "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism". Those only help explain that Twelver Shi'i are up to 10-15% of total Islam and are the minority and few quotes from Khomeini and his criticism (You can't criticise whole community based on single person). When I read an article in which the faith of about 200 million people is criticised I expect the article to to guide me in understanding why this is and who in particular are criticising their faith. The article even contain quotes such as "Twelver Shia themselves undermine Ali’s authority", which is a strong indication that this article is made to bash Twelver Shi'i Islam.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete - This article is badly sourced and references cited are through hate sites like www.islamicweb.com, www.ahlebayt.com, www.abdurahman.org. Criticism is not constructive rather its an attempt to humiliate an entire community with millions followers worldwide with the reference of propagandist websites. Wikipedia requires neutral, authentic, reliable and verifiable citations rather than propaganda contents.Humaliwalay (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
isn't it funny that the one who requested the speedy deletion promotes himself as a shia! that's the first thing to consider. i will be as short as possible.
the one who first proposed deletion says he is shia on his userpage. conflict of interest.
faizhaider propposed eletion not long after i last edited the page by deleting false shia propaganda that was added. faizhaider did not object previously to this false shia information that was added.
faizhader proposed delation by informing 2 previous shia users humaliwalay and another shia user whose name i forgot. he also informed the creator atheistic irani even thouhg he has not been on for a very long rime. but he did not inform me even though i was the last to edit it before him....maybe trying to pull a back handed unfair attack.
my section i wrote on fatimah recieving divine revealtions is fully sourced from respected sunni scholars who are criticising shia. these scholars criticise them in their books. what is wrong with a sunni scholar. it does not need to be only secular scholar.
when i link to so called hate wbsites i only do this to highlight the views because sadly the books i used are in arabic only and not translated yet. so i do this to express better this view until the books i used are translated.
just because shia are millions of people doen't mean they cannot be criticed. there articles criticising catholics, islam and more who are millions or much bigger than twelver shia. so this argument is stupid.
the artcile is very fair and shia can defend themselves in it. amybe they really cannot defend themsleves so they have to resort to trying to delete it so to protoect their dignity. remeber a stwlever shia proposed deletion. very suspicious.
khomeini is grand ayatollah meaning he is highest of twelevr scholars and he said the hadeeth of fatimah getting revelation is authentic. does faizhaider think khomeini is wrong in this case...if he does please provide your evidence why he is wrong and you are right!!!!
all the stuff i wrote is releveant and faizhaider is lying when he says it is not related or is not clear. he is lying for sectarian reason. provide proof faizhaider!!!!! he is trying to abuse the system wikipedia has in place to provide good content and lie to use that system against a good article.
yes the other shia user is moheahlolbayt. he is shia s he defended the shia against criticism and his name strongly suggest he is shia. okay i am leaving now. so do not listen to faizhaider and speddly delete the artcile. leave it for more discussion soto prove that faizhaider is wrong and worried only for his sectarian peace of mind and not wikipedia good articles or otherwise.Suenahrme (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments: If a sunni user (i.e. AllahLovesYou can request csd for a sunni article i.e. Criticism of Sunni Islam, why is it funny that I a shia muslim has request csd for this article.
So what I'm Shia muslim I don't hide this and my edit/talk history will show that I have never been dismissive/accusative/bad-mouthed to any one, I don't go on accusing people due to their believes, nationality, sex, etc.
My objection is to article as whole, both parties are putting irrelevant, POV and orignal research data which is based on primary sources (or no relevance, connection to what is being said in article and what is being said in source).
I didn't proposed deletion in some secret corner of wikipedia, I placed notice on article, created nomination page, added a sub-section on talk page, notified creator of article and put notice on talk page of recent editors; this lot more than what is required for csd, may be I missed an editor or two but there is big notice on article which calls for attention for all.
Your section about Fatimah sa, contains in total 12 sources but only three of them are verifiable of the two are primary sources and materila in this article is copyvio from those primary source, third source specifiaclly cricizes Khomeini and not Shia Islam you can't ransom 200 million people for one guy.
that is the point, everybody could be critcised but ut should be criticism and not bashing. The article has been in place for more than six months (since 2010-05-11) and has been turf for editwar and in these six months forget any improvemnt, article has become more garbage than before.
defend???? is this a blog? it seems really suspicious that a sunni is trying to block the deletion of the article who has been primary contributor to all of the matter which is copyvio & orignal research.
Khomeini is just one of the maraji and not highest of them i.e. Maraja-e-kul, basically he was a major philospher (of political theory) and not major historian, jurist or jurisprudent. Apart from that different maraji have different opinion about different things.
I also can use same words for you but throwing words of allegation is not my trait. Words used by you show your state of mind and your level.
whats that about?
I want to point out that this article defies several wikipedia policies, few of them are:
At last I want to say that I announce my clear identity on wikipedia because I am what I am, I don't need a comouflage, anonimity or pseudo identity to hide myslef for my acts and I am not afraid of personal attacks even if they hurt me (yes, I get lots of mail from so called sunni elitists which like their ancestors & leaders are bad-mouthed, why because as there is an urdu saying that truth is sour; they simply can't take logical & factual criticism & they resort to abusive language & allegations.)
To whoever is judging the delete issue please read the points I wote in defense of not deleting it before above and you wil see that faizhaider didm’t answer them but tried to divert attention using false arguments. I will again quickly respond to faizhaider’s false points 1 by 1. To the judges when faizhaidetr compared a sunni wanting to delete criticism of sunni islam to this all I can say is please have a look at that article compared to this shia one. The sunni one was saying very stupid false thing like it is ok to write quran with urine!!!!!!!!!!! And otjher very stupid sectarian things. So faizhaider this a stupid comparison.
i will anser his point 1. You say you have good history. You also have more edits than me and nice user page. So what!!!!!!! That does not mean you are wanting deletion of this article in good faith. You are not an angel and will be judged every time on your proof and intention.
I will answer point 2. The only people putting POV and original research are shia in the article. This is easy for everyone to see in the history. The criticisms are referenced very clear except in your eyes faizhaider.
you missed probably the most important editor…..which is me when you put up for deletion and I was last editor before you….why????? and why you put it up for speedy deletion??????? maybe you thought you can speedily delete it before I even knew so to stop me defend leaving the article!!!!!
i used 3 very good sources for a very specific criticism of Fatimah receiving divine revelation. Do you want more than that??!!! How many people you want to criticize such specific thing??????!!!! 100 people!!!!!!! I used 2 primary sources of al-kafi and khomeinis words yes and I gave them good links. I use the first alkafi because this is what the sunni scholars criticize in the books I referenced to. I used the second of khomini because he is telling everbody that the alkafi source that sunni scholars criticize is really authentic. If I did not use alkafi with Khomeini then twelve shia will defend themselves bny saying the alkafi source is not authentic. But Khomeini prove them wrong. And do not lie…nowhere do I criticize Khomeini…prove it!!!! I only mention quoting what he say. You say not to ransom shia for 1 guy. I say I will not do this if you faizhaider can prove you are right and grand ayatollah Khomeini is wrong. If Khomeini is proven and shown wrong I will remove. But for now I think Khomeini is more knowledgeable in shia hadeeth than you and I think you will have trouble finding even 1 ayatollah who agree w=ith you.
if you listen faizhaider I already said the so called hate sites I did not use as my sources for criticisms. I only use them because the sunni scholars books are not translated so I can’t refer people to them so I use these to eelaborate. Please resad my earlier defense for this. They can be removed easily if the judges agree this is best.
do not lie and exaggerate. This article not bashing. It is very fair for all because everone has a say and the criticism is very formal and referenced. This article is not turf for edit war. Do not lie. Anyone can see you are lying by looking at the history and it is interesting and no surprise that the only ones adding stupid garbage POV again and again are shias not criticisers and the article will only get bigger and better with time and I will build and improve it also.
it seems really suspicious that shia proposed speedy deletion!!!!! No????? do not make this out like I am doing this lik on internet forum like I am a bad guy. As I say the evidence speaks for itself and it will show that you are not sincere in your delete request. I alrwady said there is no original research or copyvio and this is clear for all. And why do you pick only on my section faizhaider???????? What about atheistic irani??????? Or is it because I used sunni scholars and books and he did not or because he has not been back for along time so he is not the threat to your plan for deletion???????
like I said about Khomeini…you must prove he is wrong and you are right. And do not lie about him to protect your argument. He is not just major philosopher of politics theory. He is also major historian, jurist and jurispudent as his books prove. Faizhaider I did not know you can become a grand ayatollah without being a major jurist!!!!!!!!! Don’t grand ayatollahs have to give religious verdicts???????? Don’t they have followers who seek their religious guidance??????? Was Khomeini only giving philosophical rulings??????!!!!! This is absurd and blatant lie by you faizhaider which only make you look more untrustworthy.
I am not using bad words except to say you are lying and this is showing the more you pursue your agenda of deletion for false reasons. And I am in good state of mind so do n’t worry about me faizhaider but I worry for your intention.
you pick on me but not atheistic irani. But I already explain this before.
All the things you say the article defies are false. But I like how long you made the list!!!!! Did you add every imaginable violation you could find scouring Wikipedia.!!!!!!!!!!! Very funny yes but I show thses already to be false.
Am I hiding!!!!!!!!!!! I did not realize this. I like how you refer to sunni as if they with their ancestors are always elititist…very common shia propaganda which I can only laugh at. “they simply can't take logical & factual criticism & they resort to abusive language & allegations”…this to me mirrors a case at preseent. And no faizhaider the truth is not sour….the truth is actually very sweet and you should try tasting….it is only sour if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and you find it hard to swallow. Maybe a bit like your current predicament. So to the judges I hoope this explains the case for keeping the article and shows the insincerity of faizhaider. If you need more input from me let me know and I will respond.Suenahrme (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well again you are dammed by your own claim and its hilarious too that I and User FAIZHAIDER are allied. Please visit this Talk:Hallaur#Article_issues page and read the differences of opinions between us you will change your mind. We are all concerned about GOOD FAITH EDITING without any prejudice or malice against anyone. Thanks, I am with you if you are right. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: What is being said on this page & what has been there on the article in question will be judged by Admins, best in intrest of article in specific & encyclopedia in general. But imo Suenahrme statements above are violation of comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive and I take them as personal attack.
Is it not amazing he thinks himself most important editor of the article it seems he has ownership dilema.
I don't know what Suenahrme knows about Shi'i hawza system but its like genral education system where everybody has to be read everything and master its basics but that does not mean each individual is master of everything different Maraji were expert of different fields e.g. Khoei was a jurist & jurisprudent while Baqir al-Sadr was master of political philosphy. If you read Khomeini's article it clearly mentions, "but is most famous for his political role. In his writings and preachings he expanded the Shi'a Usuli theory of velayat-e faqih,... .... ...He taught political philosophy,[24] Islamic history and ethics... ... ...His seminary teaching often focused on the importance of religion to practical social and political issues of the day... ... ...Khomeini studied Greek Philosophy and was influenced by both the philosophy ... ... ...Apart from philosophy, Khomeini was also interested in literature and poetry". Also different maraji have different opinion on subject e.g. I quote from Sistani's article "Like his predecessor Khoei, Sistani does not share the definition of the doctrine of Velayat-e faqih (the authority of jurists) supported by Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran's current supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei." Being grad ayatollah does'nt mean being maraji-e-taqlid e.g. there are scores of Grand Ayatollahs at present but Sistani is Marja-e-taqleed for most of Shi'is like Koei was in his time despite Khomeini als being alive at same time (because Khoei was major jurist & juriprudent then Khomeini who was major philospher).
Its true you used 3 sources and atleast two in which you referred regarding revelations are actually good but the problem is they are primary sources (and they don't have word of critics in them for Shi'is) then you put a third reference which is about criticsm of Khomeini (& not Shi'i muslims) and lo! you add them to have your own inference and that is called original research.
Per se, Project:No original research, " drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy." & "Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources."
Per se, Project:Burden of proof, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So it is you who have to prove because you have added the material and no body else is compelled to do so (yes, anybody can do it but burden lies on you).
As iyo, you are the most important editor of the article so Burden of proof lies on you.
Anyways, now the article is under burden of Project:copyvio, so I think things will have to be sorted out in faster pace.
unbelievable!!!!!!! i feel like i am dealing with brick walls. did you and humaliwalay even read what i said??????!!!!! i said theres no copyvio anywhere and this is shown in article. the charges against this article just keep piling on by you2 just to help further your sectarian causse of deletion of article. and article is not POV or primary as i alreaaaaadyyyyy explained. stop piling on false charges to help your false cause. i did not make up what i wrote. i use the sunni scholars books and transfer accordingly translations of what they say about fatimah recieveing revelation as shia believe. this not my own words but words of highly prominent scholars who are ctricising and who happen to be sunni. then what about atheistic irani and his secular scholar sources????????!!!! why not complain against his section???????????!!!!!!!! and to humaliwalay stop trying to bring up false excuses. you say you and faizhaider disagree sometime....well i saw where you disagree and its about a indian town called hallaur. yes you may disagree about a less emotional issue like an indian town but you unite when its about defending the same religions sect because this is emotional topic and you and faizhaider are treating this with pure emotional side and it has nothing to do with upholding the wiki policy but you clothe a wolf in sheeps clothes!!!!!! to conclude i ask the judges to compare my above reasons with humaliwalay and faizhaiders reasons and hopefully they will see the truth. and also a note....this whole fiasco started with faizhaider only after i removed a shia editors adding his own unreferenced POV in the article while trying to defend his twelevr dhia at 8.40 29th november 2010. so i believe and i think the evidence will show faizhaider only started this due to his frustration and seeing that the twelevrs shia weere not able to defend themselves properly against the articles arguments.Suenahrme (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Suenahrme, please remember not to make personal attacks on other editors. Your arguments will hold more weight if you are able to stay cool and ground your points in Wikipedia policy as far as possible.--KorruskiTalk11:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I can only conclude that you are a bad faith Editor and keeps shouting all the time. I don't want to argue with you and have left this with admins. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is of any use to any further argument in respond to Suenahrme as most of the things have already been said. I hope after all this bashing which has been offered on this page, admins will look into the issue and resolve the situation in best intrest of article & encyclopedia.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs12:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If only you knew my frustration korruski but yes I will from now on only strictly criticize the contributions and not contributors. I will leavfe the judges tyo criticize the contributors. Thanks.Suenahrme (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
oh and i just visited khomeinis wiki article and as you said faizhaider he was indeed interested in philosophy, poetry and literature. but it also clearly say he was intrersted in hadeeth as well and he wrote a book it says about forty hadeeth. just to note.Suenahrme (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I urge contributors to this discussion to remember that this nomination is not intended to be an argument, nor a vote, but a discussion to establish whether or not this article is suitable for inclusion. I understand that judging by your "tone" there are almost certainly personal (cultural and/or religious) motivations for your arguments. Try to be as objective as possible and coming across as being upset (by the use of multiple exclamation marks and overly long, repetitive statements directed at individual editors) only detracts from the weight of your opinion. If you are unable to keep your own cultural/religious affiliations separate you would be wise to distance yourself from this discussion as you would have an insurmountable conflict of interest. In short, if you cannot set aside your own beliefs or affinities leave this discussion to those with no involvement in the subject matter who can objectively evaluate the article's suitability. --§Pumpmeup10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition do not, ever, mention another editor's cultural or religious background in order to discredit them, this is a severe personal attack. There are several blatant personal attacks present in this discussion and I would imagine this will cause the reviewing sysop to entirely discredit the attacker's arguments. --§Pumpmeup10:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep, but major improvement needed. As a disinterested party, I don't find the article to fall under the "hate" umbrella, particularly as the primary editor has a done a relatively great job of phrasing the issue from an objective perspective: "XYZ commentator critices that yadda-yadda [footnote]" as opposed to "the following things are terrible about Foo". Is still lacks a solid lede, and the sourcing needs some tweaking (though not as much as implied by above opponents). I do join in cautioning the primary editor that links to hate sights aren't inappropriate because they're hate sites, but solely because drawing conclusions from primary sources falls under WP:OR (original research). It is, however, totally legitimate to cite academic sources which observe, rather than participate in, criticism of one sect or another. Plus we have plenty of articles or sections on "Criticism of X belief", so I don't see any particular reason the Shi'a should be exempted provided it can be done encyclopedically. Note also that a CV tag appears to have been maliciously added to block the text. The tag provided no URL for the alleged vio, it was not added to the CV notification page, and not even an Edit Summary was given to explain it. So I've deleted it (which would normally be an Admin issue only) do to lack of any attempt to comply with CV procedure. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to have a fast look to what I wrote below about the references of this article. The whole article is just based on self-interpretation and cheating by distorting the content of sources. Thanks in advance. --Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely, no one discredits criticism but if you see the article does not provide clear sources which criticizes Shia Islam, it takes one chunk from here and another from there and draws conclusion (which I think is counted as Original research) in addition to it the article heavily resides on hate sites & non verifiable resources. If you'll search criticism of twelver Shi'ism you will get nothing except wiki pages. Also, editors primarily active on article keep on removing counter-criticism material and their actual feelings have been already demonstrated in their preceding comments. Just to point out article Criticism of Sunni Islam was deleted on similar pretext. Also CV discussion page exists for this article i.e., [Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_November_30] and it is mentioned there on article's talk page. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In total in the article there are six verifiable links, they are:
http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/shiislam.htm#6 - used for child Imams criticism - This source fails to address the issue of child Imam anywhere, it just gives overview of Shi'a Islam and is irrelevant to issue of child Imam.
http://www.archive.org/stream/910_shia/910_shia_djvu.txt - used for child Imams criticism - the source states His youth became a cause of controversy among the Shi*a, some asking how such a boy could have the necessary knowledge to be the Imam. Shi*i writers have countered such suggestions by relating numerous stories about his extraordinary knowledge at a young age and by referring to the fact that the Qur'an states that Jesus was given his mission while still a child... ... ... Once again the Shi*is were faced with the problem of a child Imam., although the article mentions criticism but fails to mention counter criticism mentioned in second statement. Is this balanced criticism or POV? if article history is to be seen the point of counter-criticism whenever entered has been removed by few editors, is this correct approach?
http://abdurrahman.org/innovation/fatwaonshias.html - used for divine revelations criticism - This source is basically a hate site. This source criticizes specifically Khomeini and not Shi'a Islam hence irrelevant for the topic.
Comment on possible improvement. I submit that the basic concept of the article is valid, though the above concerns do need to be addressed. The "child imam" criticism from the Archive link seems useable provided the counter-criticism is also recognised. So far as other legitimate additions, note here[1] one example, likely of many, of an academic source mentioning Sunni allegations of "disrespect of the Sahaba" due to Shi'a antipathy to the earliest Caliphs. With another source or two this could easily be used as to form a totally valid NPOV observation of the history of Sunni criticism on that issue. The article definitely needs some chopping, and we need to distinguish malicious CV from over-long cites, and definitely need to watch the OR issue, but I think a couple editors could knock in some pretty valid academic commentary in a day or two. I'm just concerned that the AfD might have too much emotional basis mixed up with the legitimate objections. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Day or two? I have been watching that article for around six months and things never improved so I thought putting Afd request might do some magic but no original editor wants to admit that there is something wrong with the article. They will simply not allow the article to be cleansed. I hope some overnight magic happens. Meanwhile can you clear of the contested matter, it seems the editors on article will accept edits of a mediator.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's good this was brought to the public attention then; I just ran across it on WP:ISLAM by happenstance. I'm a little jammed later today, but I'll try to put at least an hour into it tonight, primarily to cut out some OR, and put in a really basic section on criticism of "Sahaba disrespect" (which, incidentally, is one common criticism I've seen from Sunni radical groups). Again, disinterested party and hope that the original editor will recognise this and be willing to take some neutral input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, cut out a possible CV (more like an excessively-long quote). Removed some of what appeared to be OR/presumption/ijtihad without secondary source backing. Also combined the footnotes so it's easier to see which sources are used repeatedly, and identified one article as being a personal homepage, though it might be the case that the author is still a recognised commentator. Also moved the shielded list of possible future sections to the top so folks can check for legitimate secondary sources covering those topics. I'm quite sure we can find something on Sunni criticism of temporary marriage. EDIT: I also submit we may be able to move the article to Criticism of Shi'a Islam, for the simplest title possible, unless the criticised beliefs (or many of them) are non-applicable to other Shi'a denominations like the Ismailis, etc. I take it they also believe in the young imams, Fatima's revelation, do not support the first caliphs, etc? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: The content of this article is accusations not criticism. To verify what I am saying, one need to pay attention to 2 points:
1.Most of the sources are Wahabism and Bahai' Faith sources which their animosity to Shi'ism is obvious.
2.That a child was Imam is true, but who has criticized this fact?If you again pay attention to the sources, the accusation is one behalf of Wahabis sources. W.Madelung is just reporting this, and as far as I know he hasn't criticized it. It's notable that there were thousands of other child who became kings. Or there were several Sunni child Caliphate in dynasties. Moreover, Jesus was considered a religious figure since he was born, but in Criticism of Jesus and Criticism of christianity we don't see that this fact be criticized. Fatima's devine relation is also easily comparable to Mary (mother of Jesus)'s divine relation. Taqiyya and Ashura are part of religious traditions, and in none of the other religion criticism articles, traditions are not criticized.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: A fast analysis of the references of this article reveals many facts:
Ref 1. It is a Shia book which explains What is Taqiyya, there is no critism!!!!!!
Ref 2. A Sunni source which I explained above. If you open the link, you'll recognize the author used the impolite word of Rafidi which is a common word that Wahabis are using against Shia.
Ref3.Again a Sunni source, and if you read, it is talking about that Shias are not agreeing on Sunni's ideas, which is a fact. Is this criticism???In non of the religious criticism articles, the poit that one religion doesn't accept the other ideology is not criticized.
Ref. 4:Bernard Lewis is reporting Rukn al-Din Khurshah was chosen as Imam while he was a child!!! Ruk al-Din Khurshah was not a Twelver-Shia Imam (See The Twelve Imams to verify)
Ref. 5: An unrelibale Bahai' website whose animosity is obvious with Shia.
Ref. 6:Just a paper from a Sunni author.
Ref. 7: Madelung is relibale, but there is distortion here: Madelung is discussing Ismaili Shia not Twelver. In page 114-115 he has just reported who is the 12th Imam and his specification including that fact that he was a child (He is not even talking about the other child Imam, 9th). You can easily verify this obvious cheating here. Just a report, but self-interpretation has changed it to criticism.
Ref8.A RS but has the problem of Ref.7. Just need to content of chapter 4: [2]. The author is only reporting what are ideas of Twelver-Shia.
Ref 9.It's not verifiable.I didn't find any book with that tile in Google books. Also Google search reflect Wikipedia's article and Just I found that this book exists, but what is the content? and if it's criticizing or just reporting? It's notable that the author is a Shia.
Ref. 10:Just reporting the Imam was child, no criticism and obvious self-interpretation.
Ref. 11: the source is website that is just reporting Fatimah's divine relationship. No criticism and self-interpretation again! It's notable that Sunni's also believe Umar had devine relationship.
Ref. 12: It reports that Sunni's don't believe Fatima's devive relationship. Is this Criticims?!!
Ref 13: OR as it's primary source. It is also a Sunni source. further more, it's just reporting, on behalf of Sunnis, what Sunnis think and beliieve. No relationship for this article
Ref. 14:Obvious OR of a primary Sunni source
Ref. 15:OR from a primry Sunni source.
Ref. 16: Sunni's Fatwas against Shia beliefs. OR, unrelib
ale sorce.
Ref. 17: Just reporting belief of existence of the Fatima's book from a Shia website. No criticism.
Comment - I agree with Aliwiki, the way he has explained its apparent that this article is a mere anti-shia proaganda by the Sunnis and Wahabis rather than being an encyclopedic material.- Humaliwalay (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I can only answer for Refs 1-3 and 12, which are the ones I added. And note too that I removed several portions which were non-encyclopedic, so I'd argue the article continues to improve. Further, the basic concept of the article is a valid one, so I wouldn't necessarily be against removing the last two sections until they can be improved, given the sensitivity of the issue.
I would argue that Aliwiki's list of comments above present some "moving goalposts", in that he appears to be against quoting Shi'a books or Sunni books, and against scholarly commentary or quotes from sectarian commentary. So if a book mentions criticism, it's not in-and-of-itself criticism. And if it criticises, it's sectarian? In response to cites 1-3 which I added:
Ref 1. It is a Shia book which explains What is Taqiyya, there is no critism!!!!!!
Click the link, third paragraph down starts "Some have criticised Shiism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyya..."
Ref 2. A Sunni source which I explained above. If you open the link, you'll recognize the author used the impolite word of Rafidi which is a common word that Wahabis are using against Shia.
"If you open the link"? The quoted text itself uses the term, so any implication that the biased nature of the quote is concealed is incorrect. The point is that it's quoting an example of Sunni objections to Shi'a belief. Since the sentence is about noting bias, the use of the quote is NPOV since it's in context.
Ref3.Again a Sunni source, and if you read, it is talking about that Shias are not agreeing on Sunni's ideas, which is a fact. Is this criticism???In non of the religious criticism articles, the poit that one religion doesn't accept the other ideology is not criticized.
Ref 7, thanks for the link, will add to the article. Note however that despite the word "Ismailism" in the title, in the specific cited section the author is discussing Shi'a Islam overall (Imamiyya).
The word "criticism" is explicitly used, and further I don't think it's even slightly stretching to consider "rejected the idea...", "opposed unity until XYZ belief was dropped.." as criticism of those beliefs.
Ref. 12: It reports that Sunni's don't believe Fatima's devive relationship. Is this Criticims?!!
Definitely. If group A disbelieves a major precept of group B's religion, I don't see how that could fail to be seen as criticism.
Glancing at your other points, I've not too convinced that the others are correct either. You portyray #17 as Ref. 17: Just reporting belief of existence of the Fatima's book from a Shia website. No criticism..
17 ref is most clearly not a Shi'a website, and is quite clearly a criticism of Shi'a belief in revelations post-dating Muhammad. If you mis-portray such an obvious source here, how are we to believe your opinions on any of the above? Did you not actually look at the link, or are you intentionally misrepresenting it? I do, however, note that it's a non-authoritative sectarian site (non-authoritative in that it's not like it's Al-Azhar or Darul Uloom Deboand issuing an official criticism), so I'm fine removing that one.
Again, we have a page-full of "support" for deletion which is mostly two posters, and then one who arrived today. I appreciate the listing out of specific objections, but as noted I don't think the objections to 1-3 are valid. So far as the two following sections, I can't speak to them as immediately, but a spot-check shows flaws already. The latter two sections need substantial work, but the two earlier sections I added I think are pretty decent. More importantly, I'd say the overall concept is quite valid and educational in helping readers understand the differences between different segments of Islam. Following WP:BEBOLD I'm going to go chop out the non-authoritative references, to include, unfortunately, several books that might be correct but which we can't easily access online. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've made some pretty sweeping cuts to the article, including removing several non-authoritative authors, and several inaccessible books, as well as some long stretches of text that verged on POV, or were simply too exhaustive. Again, adding to my concerns over bias being a motive in this AfD, I note that many of the criticised sections may have indeed had poor footnoting, but also were pretty inarguably true. When someone wants to remove a pretty basic fact for "poor referencing" rather than find a better ref, I do tend to suspect they want the fact removed more than they want it to be proven. Major Sunni commentators and institutions undeniably criticise temporary marriage, the Imamate, "disrespect" to the Sahaba, etc. Attacking those very basic points over footnoting, rather than working to improve footnoting, is rather suspect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Mr MatthewVanitas, thank you very much for your comments. There are some points that I need to discuss in more details: Twice, in your last post and in the first one after my post, you have mention the matter of Majority/Minority of Shia/Sunni. The question is that Majority is a base for reality?Can majority beliefs affect reality? By a simple comparison, Christians are majority ovr Muslims, so can you conclude Christianity is right and Islam is wrong? Or, compare the idea of around just 10 millions Armenian about Armenian Genocide in which the other parts are Turks and Arab-Sunnis with about 300 millions population. Can you conclude the majority idea can affect this undeniable fact that has occured? We must consider the density of groups to be able to compare them. 8 centuries prior to the Fatwa of the Shaykh al-Baz, the grand saudi Muftih that the earth is flat, the shia scholar, Biruni estimated the circumference of the earth.If you want, it will be my pleasure to discuss this matter in more details. You mention the case of Shia negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. I wonder how much you know about these companions? They were among greatest criminals of the Human's history; Umar ordered the two greatest libraries of the ancient word, library of Alexandria and Ctesiphon be burnt. AbuBakr gave the title Sword of Allah to Khalid ibn Walid upon his shameful raping to Malik Ibn Nuwayrah's wife. Uthman subjected the whole Islamic nations to his family and established nepotism. Now talking about the one who has negative view of these great historical criminals must be criticized? Can you be kind to show me some example about criticism of some people who has/had negative view on Hitler, Gengiz Khan, or...... Maybe you don't know who was Judas Iscariot, or maybe you haven't read about that when Moses left his companions for 40 days, they started worshiping a golden goat. Any way, there are much to be said in this case, but logically this matter can not provide any base for Shia criticism. About the ref 17, it's my duty to apologize for my carelessness. About Ref 1, you have just read the first sentence of that paragraph, but seems you haven't read the rest which is its clarifications. If you say some I reserve the right for the author to ask who is this some. To discuss more about this Ref, the author is a Shia and he is defending Shia's idea in his book, I can not understand how his words can be interpreted as criticism. the whole Taqiya section is based on this source. About Ref 2, i explaned a bit above, and I would like to add according to WP:NPOV this source can not be used because the source is a Sunni source. Everything Sunni or Shia say about the other one, can be called only and only accusation not criticism. Criticism must be on behalf of a third neutral party. Ref. 3 has same situation. Ref 7, Madelung is discussing the 12th Imam and his characterizations, and says twelver shias are believing to him!Where is criticism??About Ref 12,I guess my explanations above should be enough. Thank you again.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Couple points here:
1) Yes, Tabatabi is writing from the Shi'a perspective. However, he is noting things the Shi'a have been criticised for and is responding to them.
2) Yes, Ref 2 is a Sunni source, but the whole point is that it's being explicitly, directly quoted as an example of the kind of argument Sunnis use against Shi'a, not as a neutral authority on the subject, but as a case-study.
3) Same thing with Madelung as Tabatabi: he's pointing out an argument used against the Shi'a and then explaining how the Shi'a respond to it.
4) As for the first bit, I have zero idea what argument you're making. Where have I ever said that the Sunni are right based on numbers? Are you mistaking the word "major" (as in a recognised authority understood to speak for at least a portion of the Sunni community) with "majority"?
5) On the bit about the Sahaba, it's not in the slightest a legitimate argument, and frankly is the sort of POV attack on the article that drew me into this debate in the 1st place. Your response to the simple statement "Sunnis believe Shi'a disrespect the Sahaba" is to give some lengthy argument that "persons XYZ should be rightly criticised, and nobody can criticise the Shi'a for criticising them?" It's as though you are, yourself, literally just reiterating the Shi'a argument rather than arguing the validity of the statement. Again, several critics of this article appear to recognise that the Sunni criticise the Shi'a, but are simply against any mention thereof; replying with arguments that "the Shi'a are right, Abu Bakr was evil and shouldn't have been caliph" is completely outside the scope of this argument, and again shows a lack of neutrality on this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, about your points:
1) For sure you are familiar with the following structure in Wikipedia: Somewho? claimed that ..... This section has one source and that source is defending Shia idea, the author is a Shia and he has discussed the answer to any possible criticism.
2)Argument of Shia/Sunni is not related to criticism of one of them. Criticism must be on behalf of a third neutral person, and the involved parties can not criticize eachother. As I told before, any party claim against the other one is ACCUSATION not CRITICISM. To verify this fact, you can have a look to other religious criticism like Criticism of Christianity. It can be a good idea to start two articles with titles Sunni views of Shia and Shia views of Sunni.
3)About Madelung, as it's a RS I need to clarify it better. in page 114, Madelung is reporting Twelver Shia beliefs, such as temporary marraige and other beliefs including the Shia 12th Imam (Who became Imam when he was a child), then he is explaining Shia's doctorine in this matter very well and clear and says:Shi'a belief the knowledge of an imam comes from "inspiration, not acquisition", and thus that even a young imam is not considered unprepared, receiving revelation upon the death of his predecessor.. In fact, Madelung's explanation is a clear answer to any criticism. Here I would like to explain about the other RS of this section, which is from the famous orientalist, Bernard Lewis. Mr Lewis in that book has provided a detailed study of Assassins which was a Nizari Ismaili movement and its founder was Hassan-i Sabbah. It's notable that Hassan Sabbah was inventor of Suicide attack and now if you pay attention to the title of the book Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam , you can easily realize what's that. I don't know how much you are familiar with the Islamic topic, but it would be worthy to mention that the word Imam has two meanings here: Imam, a general word which means leader;Second is confined to 12 persons see this. Now, Mr. Lewis is describing the Assassins movement, and that they chose a child Rukn al-Din Khurshah as their leader with the title Imam which here is in its general meaning. (Just search the word Rukn al-Din Khurshah inside the book to verify this fact). Now if you have extra time, you can reat the following to understand how a 9-years-old child Imam overcame a debate in the presence of several educated persons [3]
4)The word Majority which you used twice made me to understood that. My mother tongue is not English, so if you say you didn't mean that, again it's my duty to ask you to accept my sincere apology.
5)I know that It's not directly related to here, but that you mentioned the negative view of Shia on Muhammad's companion, made me to clarify this point. I gave example of Judas Iscariot who was an apostle of Jesus, I am proud to say I have negative view on him and I believe if the whole over 6 billion todays human tell me that they love him, won't affect my negative view on him. The case of Muhammad's companions are exactly same. Can we criticize someone who has negative view on Hitler? The answer is No. We can never accept the title Sword of God to a woman raper. If any group including Sunni wants to criticize Shia's negative view on some of Muhammad's companions, first they must prove their loyalty towards Muhammad and Islam, which they failed to do after 1400 years. Now they want to solve this problem by their higher number, but their lower density (which I mentioned above) has limited them.
I guess till now, our debate has covered all the points of article content except the Fatima's book. For more clarification, I will add the following point as-well:
6)Fatimah divine relation: This section has 2 sources. first one (Ref 9) is just an informative source, which informs the shia belief of existence of Fatima's book and her divine relation. The second source (ref 10) exact wording is this:The Shi'ahs believe that at this time God made special revelations to Fatimah, the Prophet's daughter, ...It need scarcely be added that the Sunni writers deny every word of these traditions.. Obviously there is no criticism here, just informative sentences. That's all. Further more, that Sunni's believe non-Prophets do not have divine relation is an obvious lie, because Quran chapter 19 verses 16 to 21 and Quran 3.45 are clearly mention Mary's divine relation, In addition, Sunni's reports shows ordinary people also can have divine relation and here I just give two examples of their most authentic book:[4],[5][6]. Now, when such people can have divine relation, but Fatima can't?Sunnis must criticize Quran and their books prior to criticizing Shia.
Delete An article can be written, but without the purely negative tone of the present one, which is pervasive it would be better to start over. criticism of articles are always a problem. In this case, the dispute between the two sects is notable enough to support an article like this--and I suppose the opposite also, but it should discuss not just the negative criticism made, but the positive response to it. It is not anyone's concern here which side has the better of the argument; the purpose of an article like this is to inform someone who comes here knowing very little of this what the argument is about, using sources from both sects, and also from outsiders. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree that it's a "tone" issue. The subject is negative, in that it is criticism, but I think the article makes it quite clear that it's about criticism of Shiism, not the article criticising Shiism. I agree that more classic/standard rebuttals from Shi'a commentators would be good, though unfortunately some of the responses were removed (along with the criticisms themselves) due to sourcing issues. Note that in the newly added material, such as the taqqiya section, I added a common rebuttal from the Shi'a perspective, and the child imams section mentions the rebuttal that there is instantaneous transfer of knowledge upon assuming the imamate. I would also like to point out that these debates have cropped up earlier in articles such as Criticism of Islam, and that there are several similar articles such as Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I appreciate your NPOV comments, DGG, as overall I'm very concerned about POV pushers deleting religious criticism, and this debate had been a bit emotional earlier on. That's been a major problem on articles of various Sunni sects and figures, where properly-footnoted and neutrally toned paragraphs of "Mullah X of ABC Institution took issue with Mullah Y's assertion, citing that yadda-yadda-yadda, and ultimately issuing a fatwa declaring Mullah Y's views invalid." Then IPs come in and nip it out, or editors remove it and then argue forcefully that criticism in a bio is "disrespectful" and Mullah X is an amazing figure beyond criticism. I still submit the basic topic of this article is valid, and I'd welcome any concerns on tone issues in the current article, though again it being a criticism article an NPOV depiction of negativity seems the order of the day. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Mathew in the point that the tone of the article doesn't have severe problem. in addition, we must take into account that the article is about criticism of a system not individuals, and the article aimed to criticize a system called Shia not individual mullahs; for example criticism of G.W.Bush is different from criticism of US's foreign policy, while they are related together. As I have pointed out before, the main problem of the current article is that absolutely non of the provided sources supports the given idea in its related text, and I discussed this matter in details in my previous comments.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, I dispute the claim that footnotes and text don't match up. They match up quite closely, so I'm baffled by the allegation.
1: Article "The Shi'a have been criticised for this practice [taqiyya], deemed cowardly"
Source: Some have criticized Shiism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery
2: Article text is a footnoted direct quote from a published Sunni book of answers to religious questions, from a question regarding the Shi'a.
3a,b: Article describes ecumenical movement which stalled out due to Sunnis being displeased with Shi'a "disrespect" of the Sahaba.
Source: All of these writers followed the same line, rejecting a dialogue with the Shi'a clerics until those ulama began to purify their education and writings from all profanity accorded to Sahabah.. Likewise source specifically states following footnote, that self-flagellation during Ashura was banned by Khameini.
5: On this iteration I can't get a preview of the page quoted, but Madelung specifically says that child imams were not considered problematic because their knowledge, as I directly quote, was derived from "inspiration, not acquisition".
10: Article: "Sunni critics argue that Fatimah never received divine revelations"
Source: It need scarcely be added that the Sunni writers deny every word of these traditions [revelations to Fatimah]
Okay, so how can you claim that the footnotes and the article text don't match up? This isn't some matter of pasting some arbitrary footnote on to a sentence to make it look legitimate. The page numbers are hyperlinked, and the texts I've included specifically support those arguments; or better yet, I read the texts and then encyclopedically summarised the arguments while footnoting. So wherein lies the referencing problem? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems you haven't reviewed my comment on 04:16, 6 December 2010. Also in my previous comment I said the sources don't support the given idea.
About Taqya:It's enough to write: Some[who?] have criticized Schiism...... In addition I noted the author is a Shia who is explaining Taqya in that paragraph. Fortunately the preview is available.
About Sunni sources, I told you many times, whatever they say is accusation not criticism. Just check some other criticism articles. Can Muslims criticize Christianity? Criticism must be on behalf of a Academic research, not uneducated Sunni Mullahs. Yes, Shia believes in Fatima's divine relation and has negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. What's the problems? which academic source has criticized this matter?
About Madelung. Follow this structure to verify what he is saying: first see the content, pages 111-115 is about Imamya (=Twelver) Shia, and he is just reporting Twelvers beliefs, such as temporary marriage is permissible untill day of resurrection and many things else. Among this report he is mentioning Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who became Imam when he was a child and he is continuing that Shi'a belief the knowledge of an imam comes from "inspiration, not acquisition", and thus that even a young imam is not considered unprepared, receiving revelation upon the death of his predecessor.. Just you need to search the some words like temporary marriage, Mahdi, inspiration, acquisition and .... to verify this fact. Changing this report to criticism is just self-interpretation. Isn't this? I gave some examples before which you didn't pay attention; Jesus had divine relation as soon as he was born, but we don't see criticism of this matter in criticism of Christianity. For sure studies about Christianity is tens of times more than Twelver Shia. Or consider the case of people like Adam or Noah; according to Judaism, Christianity and Islam they lived more than 1000 years; A normal human will become fool after around 130 years-old. Have you ever seen any criticism says Adam or Noah were fool due to their age? --Aliwiki (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: More about Taqya: Two historical examples, one Shia and one non-Shia, can help to have a better understanding: Two great scientist in the history of the world, Avicenna and Galileo. Both were sentenced to death by uneducated foolish Mullahs of their time (Christians and Sunnis), so they denied what they were believing in the court to save their life. It's clear who must be criticized in this matter.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is changed lot (for good as now it looks like a criticsm article & not a bashing one) and imo we can have article stay for now as it is getting improved each passing day (Thanks to efforts of Matthew). I'll try to contrubute to the article but as of now I have other priorities (both on WP & real life). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment This article should be included in [Criticism of Islam]. As a stand alone article it appears redundant and creates and air of "bashing" Islam. By the way, encyclopedias are not known for there criticism, they are known for presenting generalized information that is accurate about a diversity of subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I believe this article should be kept separate from Criticism of Islam, as this article is primarily focused on criticism internal to Islam between the two major denominations. If it would make this distinction clearer, I'd be willing to support a title-move to Sunni criticism of Shia Islam and a slight tightening of focus. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep: I appreciate Matthew's edits on the article, and I am changing my opinion about deletion and vote to keep, as I believe the space which this article can provide for criticism points and related responses can benefit readers. I will make an analysis section on the article talk page to discuss improvement of the article and I invite others to join.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
recent POV-pushing edits
I have removed the edits by user Suenahrme, since his/her edits are in conflict with several wikipedia's policies. There is significat difference between marriage and prostitution. There are several styles of marriage in some cultures which are not recognized in other culture(s). As examples,Polyandry marriage in some Asian/African communities, Polygyny, and etc. Especiafically about Temporary Marriage, there are several highlight points. I have listed few of them here:
Mehr which is a gift from groom to the bride (usually money), is part of all types of Islamic marriage, not only for temporary mariage.
Same as other types of Islamic marriage, temporary marriage has Iddah (the period that woman must observe after finishing the marriage period), so the woman can not sleep with another man or simultaneously with more than a man, while in prostitution it's reverse.
Temporary marriage can last up to 99 years. It is based on a contract by both parties and for example, both couples might not ask for any material things.
Children born from temporary marriage must receive inheritance unlike those from prostitution.
Temporary marriage is illegal for married Woman. A married man must obtain the permission of his wife (according to the major Shi'i guide Ayatollah Sistatni) to perform such a marriage.
Temporary marriage owith prostitutes is Haram
Sunni muslims practice similar marriage, known as Nikah Misyar
Wikipedia should follow strictly academic sources written by experts in the field. The sources which used are nothing but POV fork written like an editorial, synthesizing questionable biased non-academic neo-con sources like BBC and Washingtonpost.Use only academic non-political sources, not as some sort of an attack device in their political and ideological "crusades". Here are some highly credential academic sources which describe Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution:Hossein Nasr professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University [7];Japanese scholar "Sachiko Murata, "Temporary Marriage (Mut'a) in Islamic Law," Alseral XIII/1 (Spring, 1987),". [8]. Also here is an academic source which declares Temporary marriage is a means of eradicating prostitution [9]. Ofxord dictionary of Islam has also recognized Temporary marriage of shia as an Islamic marriage [10].--Aliwiki (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi aliwiki and all viewers. Sorry I diid not respond to your discussion before I made my revert but I thoufght there was nothing to discuss. I am not going to bother to answeer your reasons why nikah mutah is not considered prostitutuion aliwiki. Just because you say it is not prostitution does not mean that we cannot add that many others criticise it as prostitution. I will give you a example: on the wiki page “Criticism of Islam” they criticise that the quran is not reliable. Now just because I am a muslim and believe that ithis is absolute lies and disproven errors does not mean that it can no longer be criticised. Because actually you will find that people have criticed quran then it must be added to an article about criticism od islam. Another example: in the wiki article “Criticism of the Catholic Church” they also criticise the popal infallibility. Now the same rule applies. Just because a catholic can argue that this criticism is false does not mean it has no right to be in the article. So aliwiki your points defending mutah are pointless.
Now to your ppoints about my sources. They are not neo-con as you say and biased and whatever else you say. They are not anti-shia propaganda. If you read them fully you will see that they mention that mutah is widely criticiesd by even shia, western, sunni, and secular people and feminists. But they mention this in their contexts of reporting on the overall issue. Anyway the only reason I added the criticism of mutah was because I took your advice. Yoou mentioned on this discussion page under a section called “Matters to be discussed” the following edit *Temporary Marriage
“Criticism about this type of marriage has always been a topic in shia criticism discussions”
Now this was your very own words and you acknowledge that is is a source of continuos criticism. But you deleted your own edit on 11 November 2011. I saw your edit summary for your own deletion and it read “(self-revert of my edit)”. Why did you remove this after so long and when I added the mutah section that you yourself suggested?
Like I said on my edit summary. We should let a non-shia judge the appropriateness of my mutah criticism. Actually I already asked matthewvanitas a while ago to do this because I know from experience that he is trusted by both sides. But he has not reponded and I am waiting for that. in the meantime please stop removing the mutah edit.Suenahrme (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Suenahrme. Everything can be criticized without any limitation. I was among the users who tried to keep this article from deletion. My later suggestion was to improve the article. But criticizing important things like a religion, must be done very precisely by using highly trustable and reliable sources. You can not attribute prostitution to hundreds million people just by bbc report written by a non-expert reporter, while we have several academic sources disagree with it. Please bring your reliable sources and discuss your matters here before pushing such a great POV in front of the million visitors of wikipedia. I posted my sources, but in your comment you didn't give any technical explanation. You are welcome to criticize anything you want, but by highly credential reliable sources. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not try and diminish my sources by only mentioning 1 source I used. I used five sources and from respected academics and writers. So pleae do not maje it like I am just looking to criticeise with any source I can find lying around. You say you have sources to counter my edit, then please feel free to mention them below my edit- as has been done for every other criticism on the article. Once again I state that I am not just criticizing for the sake of it. I have used more than enough reputable, releveant sources to warrant its inclusion. Perhaps you have not read them. Could you please state where my referenxces do not add value to the criticism or why they do not deserve inclusion? I will then add why they should be included and where they appropriately citicise mutah. As I said before you can add a pro-mutah paragraph below the criticism. And as I said before, we should also get a non-partisan editor to judge the appropriarteness of the mutah edit ie. a non-sunni and non-shia. I realiuse you did help to keep this article and I praise your iopeness, but I think you should read my sources fully.Suenahrme (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Your edit in comparing Temporary marriage to prostitution has problem and it's in contradiction with several Wikipedia policies. I repeat again for your convenience. First of all, there are several other types of marriages, as example I mentioned Polygyny and Polyandry, but they are not considered prostitution because they are accepted in some cultures as marriage but rejected by other cultures. Second, I highlighted some special points for temporary marriage such as existence of Mahr and Iddah like all other types of Islamic marriage (also in Nikah Misyar which is practiced by Sunni Muslims). It's not legal for a married woman and temporary marriage with prostitutes is absolutely Haram. Third, your sources are whether non-reliable or not reflecting what you want to push on article's body. Read WP:criticism, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. According to WP:RS, sources must be provided by expert and credentialed scholars, specially when we want to criticize something that hunderd of millions people are involved in. From the link you have provided, it's obvious that you typed Nikah Muta Prostitution in google and took some results from google without reading and verifying whether they are reliable or no; This is called WP:CHERRY in Wikipedia. TV, magazines and newspapers report can not be considered reliable for highly important articles such as criticism ones, so you can not attribute prostitution to hundreds of millions Shia, 200 millions of them living now, by BBC or washingtonpost report. Your third source, Islam for DummiesbyMalcolm Clarke; No need that I clarify more about its reliability since even a beginner Wikipedian can understand that it's not reliable for here. Now the other too books; You accused me of not being aware of their content and not read them, while it's obvious that you didn't so. The reference that Malise Ruthven is Shahla Haeri; Aapart the fact that she is only a director and assistant professor, even if we consider her book as reliable, again your opinion is wrong since you haven't even look to the what she wrote. She states temporary marriage it is not prostitution, but you are cherry picking few words of her sentences. she does provide different perspectives but what matters is that her own scholarly perspective rejects such a conclusion. Forth, on the other hand I provided several highly credential academic sources such as Sachiko Murata and Hossein Nasr, oxford dic. of Islam that described Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution, and a reference that described temporary marriage as a means of eradicating prostitution. Thus you have no specialist source on the topic to meet WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for random results found on google search and Mass perception is not equal in weight to opinion of scholars on the topic.WP:Criticism states: Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic.'. Fifth, the tile of the article is criticism of twelver Shia, while Temporary marriage is not only for Shia Muslims but for other too; here is the link of the First Encyclopedia of Islam which is a reliable source and it declares (on page 776) that Sunni Muslims also practice temporary marriage. Please stop reverting blindly without discussing your points which are backed by reliable sources.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems you have thrown a lot of accussations but without quoting where the problems are. You say they are unreliable. I think they are reliable and all clearly mention that throughout the ages mutah has been criticised as an excuse for prostitution. You even mentioned it was a source of critique. As i said many times before; we should allow a non-shia, non-sunni to judge this and i have already set about having this done. As i said before; you may very easily mention in a paragraph below the criticism the reason why mutah is acceptable. Let's have a bit of patience here and allow for non-partisan judgement. But i feel the issue is mentioned in the most concise, reliable, referenced, unemotional way possibleSuenahrme (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I gave my complete detailed explanation in my comments, but unfortunately you are keep repeating your point of view with discussing it according to wikipedia policies. This is not good. Please respect, and explain your ideas in detail and please read my previous comment and discuss it instead of keep reverting. I told you, you are free to criticise everything, but it must match to policies. You can write about temporary marriage as mush as you want and I didn't disagree with it. The point that Temporary marriage is legalized prostitution is the topic of our discussion here, not any other matter of it. Hope you respect. --Aliwiki (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You still hane notaddressed any of my reasons to sipport keeping it. Look at it in this simple way, if you remove the second half then you are removing the reason for the criticism. There is no point in just mentioning what belief is criticised. It is criticised for a specific reason to start with anf in this case it is because it is seen as an excuse for prostitution. This is ehat the sources all say.Suenahrme (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of something is a POV. You cannot have a "Criticism" page without showing a POV of someone. There are published sources that criticise mut'a marriage as being a cover for prostitution. That is a criticism, and a criticism that can be sourced by published sources, too. I do not see what the problem is. If you have sources that state that mut'a is not prostitution, then add: "However, so-and-so disagree and state that mut'a is not prostitution." What is the point of having a criticism page if you are not going to have any criticism ?! Unflavoured (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
@Suenahrme. Your comments is an example of WP:HEAR and it's not nice that you keep repeating non-sense word and refusing to discuss the main point and reliability of your sources, and support your behavior by comments of invited users. I have seen these methods, which is absolutely not work here, and I remind that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, so collecting more votes while refusing to discuss the topic itself don't solve your problem. So for the last time I repeat, hope you and your friends will hear, stay on topic and discuss you points. Everything can be criticized if the cited sources can match to the Wikipedia policies, including Temporary marriage. Our topic here is not that, but it is Temporary marriage is legalized prostitution. Is that clear to you and your friends? Now I explain my comments again very clearly. First of all, as I said before, there are several other types of marriages, as example I mentioned Polygyny and Polyandry, but they are not considered prostitution because they are accepted in some cultures as marriage but rejected by other cultures. Second, specifically about this Islamic type of marriage, there are some additional points as follow:
Mahr which is a gift from groom to the bride (usually money), is part of ALL TYPES OF ISLAMIC marriage, NOT ONLY for temporary mariage.
Same as other types of Islamic marriage, temporary marriage has Iddah (the period that woman must observe after finishing the marriage period), so the woman can not sleep with another man or simultaneously with more than a man, while in prostitution it's reverse.
Temporary marriage can last up to 99 years. It is based on a contract by both parties and for example, both couples might not ask for any material things.
Children born from temporary marriage must receive inheritance unlike those from prostitution.
Temporary marriage is illegal for married Woman. A married man must obtain the permission of his wife (according to the major Shi'i guide Ayatollah Sistatni) to perform such a marriage.
Sunni muslims practice similar marriage, known as Nikah Misyar
and several other points which distinct it from prostitution. Third, what you have cited as source, are whether non-reliable or not reflecting what you want to push on article and being distorted. As one can see and understand easily, you have typed Nikah+Muta+Prostitution in google and took the results here without verifying whether they are reliable and match to Wikipedia policies or no, and this is called WP:CHERRY and absolutely unacceptable, and in contradiction to several policies such as WP:criticism, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Sources )specially in highly disputed matters or criticism articles) must be provided by credentialed scholars, who are recognized experts on the exact topic. Now let's check again your cherry-picked sources together. The first two are just report of BBC and Washingtonpost which their authors are not expert of this topic. Random reports of TV, magazines and newspapares are not considered reliable sources, specially for important articles like this one and attribute prostitution to hundreds of millions Shia, 200 millions of them living now. About your the third source, Islam for DummiesbyMalcolm Clarke, as I said before no clarification is needed to prove it's not reliable for here, and even a beginner Wikipedian can understand it. Sources number four and five written by Malise Ruthven and Shahla Haeri. The book of Malise Ruthven is not discussing this topic, and just writing an paragraph about temporary marriage and in a sentence saying some critics have said..., without saying who are those critics (are you familiar with Some people say[who?]...?if no read WP:Weasel), and the reference of his sentence is Shahla haeri (your next source). About Shahla haeri, aapart from the fact that she is only a director and assistant professor, even if we consider her book as reliable, again it's clear that you have distorted her saying 180 degrees! She states temporary marriage it is not prostitution, but you are cherry picking few words of her sentences. she does provide different perspectives but what her own scholarly perspective REJECTS such a conclusion, and it's a question now that why you are trying to distort her sentence?! Four; I provided several highly credential academic sources such as Sachiko Murata and Hossein Nasr, oxford dic. of Islam that described Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution, and a reference that described temporary marriage as a means of eradicating prostitution. I remind you that WP:Criticism states: Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. As a conclusion of my comment, you have no reliable source that support your point of view, and your sources are in contradiction to several reliable sources in addition to many Wikipedia policies. Now I have clearly discussed my points and expect that you explain your points clearly while staying on the topic and answer me my points one by one, writing your first point is wrong because...., second point due to ..... That I removed only the sentence about attribution of prostitution in the article was to respect you and prove that I don't disagree with any criticism, and my point is problems of your sources. I'll ask an admin to intervene here too. Thanks for your understanding and hearing. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Aliwiki, the sources cited clearly state that mut'a is criticised because some see it as a cover for prostitution. The sources include BBC, Washington Post, and three separate published books. What is the problem ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Aliwiki asked me to comment here. Let me give a brief response, and later when I have more time I'll try to give more input. Basically, you're both (in my opinion) wrong. Aliwiki is wrong to want to try to exclude all of the information from the article. Given the nature of this article, criticism needs to come from "good" sources, but not necessarily academic sources. The BBC and Washington Post are reliable sources for this matter. However, the others are wrong because the section as currently written is not neutral, because it paints too wide a brush by saing that mutah is "widely criticized"--because that's not what the articles say. The BBC article, for instance, explicitly says that it is "Iranian society" that criticizes the practice. The Washingpost says that Sunni Muslims and women's rights activists crticize. Unfortunately, I can't see Law of desire, so if someone can tell me what it says, that would help. I can't see Islam for Dummies, but that's not a reliable source. I can see Islam: a very short introduction, but on the linked page I don't see any mention of mutaa (so a quote/quotes would help there, too). Basically, I think the section needs to be expanded so that it is more explicit about exactly who criticizes the practice and why. If someone can provide some details on those 2 book sources, I can try to craft something.
A final note: Aliwiki, you're trying to defend the practice by arguments about what the practice actual entails, or its comparison to regular marriage, or its religious background. All of that falls under original research. However, we can provide brief rebuttal points as long as they come from reliable sources; we shouldn't have too many since the focus of this article is criticism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Iranian society + Sunni Muslims means pretty much 95% of all Muslims. Reword it, perhaps, to specifically say something along the lines of: "Sunni Muslims, women's rights group and members of the Iranian society have criticised mu'ta as being a cover for prostitution..." ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As for the quote: Law of desire: "While tacitly - and sometimes explicitly - acknowledging the similarities between prostitution and temporary marriage, the Shi'i ulama distinguish the former from the latter on the basis of their implications for individual well-being and for the social order." etc etc "On the contrary, the ulama maintain that temporary marriage, while performing a similar sexual function for the individual, symbolizes social control..." ( emphasis mine. ) Unflavoured (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian; Thank you for your comment. You mentioned useful points. About the pints I mentioned about temporary marriage; They are not OR because I gave the link of the book in my first comment, but no worries, because we can include it on the answer section since both me and Suenahrme have no disagree about it. About the Law of desire, as the author explains, My focus is on the perception of the institution by some Iranian men and women whose live have been tied together by a contract of Temporary marriage. The book is also about law and customs, religion and morality, public and private contracts, eroticism and desire.. We need a neutral wording paragraph, including a criticism sentence and its answer. Since our problem is only the criticism sentence and which sources are reliable for it, it will be perfect if you suggest a neutral wording of a suitable sentence, then me and other involved users, will brain storm together about it and hopefully finish this matter. Thanks, --Aliwiki (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Aliwiki: your most recent edits on this article go against what was discussed above. You re-edited the nikah mutah section in a way that goes totally against the articles name i.e. "criticsim". You edited it as though to support not criticse mutah. As was discussed you may add a shia view, but this is to be added as a seperate paragraph below the original criticism- not in and dominating the paragraph. Secondly you deleted a whole criticusm called "the occultation". Why did you do this? There seemed to be genuine criticism in it but it did appear a bot too long winded. This is not an excuse to simply delete the whole section. I will see what shortening it needs then we may discuss its relevance.Suenahrme (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
@ Bahraini Activist: actually aliwikis edit is not appropriate for the articlr. It reads like a pure defence of mutah. First and foremost the criticusm must be mentioned which has been removed. Secondly the sghia virw is added after the criticism not before and throufghout. I am not asking for much. Leave the criticism as it is then add the shia virew in a new paragraph. otherwise if you want to simply revert we can again refer to other editors opinions on thw matter.Suenahrme (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
User Suenahrme, I am strongly warning you to stop your childish behaviour and leave WP:Ownership of this article. Your didn't participate in the long discussion we made, and just when there is an edit, you appear. It was brainstormed to write a good paragraph. We explained what is Nikah Muta, the base of disagreement, content of disagreement, and their answers which is the manual of style of writing in Wikipedia. If you have problem with anything or any reference, write it here and discuss it instead of blind editing. For the case of occultation, it was written by an IP with no reference. You can open a new discussion here, bring your source and add whatever you want if it matches Wikipedia policies.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
about the iccultation section: just because someone does not have a username does not negate their edits. The section also does in fact have a referebnce if you did bot notice. About the nikah nutah section: your edit does not say why mutah is criticised. It is clear for anyone other than shia editors that your edit is not a criticism but a defense of mutah. If you areso persistent upin your edit then i say we should bring in neutral editors as before to discuss and reach consensus. In the mean time the previous accepted edit should remain. or you could start a new paragraph to give the shia ciew. An idea in starting it could be as follows: (new paragraph) "However, according to Twelvers nikah mutah is practised because....".Suenahrme (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay si i have taken the following steps:1. I re-added the occultation secrion that was again removed. 2. I rewrote the mutah section from the error filled previous edit that had the following clear mistakes and propsganda: it said that misyar and mutah wre the same when this is clearly false because misyar is permenanr marriage unluke mutah. Second it mentionned as if with certainty that sunnis forbid mutah because of umar this is inly shia propaganda because sunnis do not practice it because we have hadeeth that prophet Muhammad forbade it not umar. This is riduculous propaganda. So i fixed these but kept the shia defense of mutah still.Suenahrme (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Look at the entry for Nikah Misyar. It shares many similarity with Muta. Misyar is not a conventional permanent marriage. If they were married permanently then how come so many rights from the regular permanent/nikah are waived? The comparison made is correct and you have to be neutral and fair here. 01:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs)
I also take offense at your language and your tone. Obviously the Prophet never saw or spoke to you about his cancelling the Muta. There are many conflicting report in the Sunni books. But the overwhelming majority agrees that it was Umar who forbade the muta. Stop making arbitrary changes based on your whim and fancy. Xareen (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Misyar is not contractual, nor is it temporary. This is the "Criticism of Shiites" page, and Misyar is not a Shiite practice. Unflavoured (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That is semantic. All marriages are contractual. The basis on making misyar has the same argument for muta. That is the main reason why it should be allowed. And like I said before, Why are you removing what you dislike. That is a dishonest practice. Xareen (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
@Suenahrme. You didn't involve in the long discussion we had for Nikah Muta. Now stop your blind edits and if you have some points make clear here; which source has problem, and what is the problem and what is the solution. The paragraph is written systematically in agreement with Wikipedia policies. First it's explanation of the case and then base of disagreement is explained. The the content of disagreemnt (cover for prostitution), and finally answer. --Aliwiki (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This page is a mess
Why are users making arbitrary changes here? Check the history of the page. There is a major edit war going on here. Can someone please tell me who is the administrator that should be contacted? Sunnis vs Shia war. I don't see any legit reason presented when user are changing. When they don't like something they remove the info they don't like. Xareen (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This pg is not a mess. Sure it has criticisn but the shia view is not neglected. The only people who seem to oppose it and remove content is unsurprisingly shia editors. But it would be better to seek consensus instead of just removing or addong content for the sake of it.Suenahrme (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I can same pretty much the same thing about you. You are posting garbage and nonsense. Do you know that Bahai is a different religion. Why are you adding Bahai information on this page? Oh right, you have no clue about Shii'sm. If you are ignorant about Shia'ism then why are you removing their edits? You have removed everything according to your whim and fancy. You have no explanation except saying it is full of propaganda. Xareen (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The occultation
@ Xareen: plz stop removing this section just because it is a bahai criticisn does not mean it can't be included. This oage us about critidm whether drom sunni, atheist, bahai or even shia does not matter. Hope you understand that.Suenahrme (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You have no clue what you are doing on this page. You are writing garbage and nonsense here. This is not your personal blog. Bahai is a different religion. Why are you posting that level of ignorance here? Go and see this page on Mahdi. If you want to add Bahai related info then go ahead. But stop adding malicious edit here. Xareen (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Plz do not accuse me of having no clue. Let me explain cery plainly why the occultation is added. 1. It is in fact an area of historical criticism of shia ie. that the 12 th imam never existed. 2. Many different grouos have criticised his existence through the occultation. 3. Just because the criticism is coming from a bahai source does not nean it is not criticism. 4. No one is saying that bahai are mislim. These are your own accusations. Everyobe should ni they are a separate religion. So plz stop removing it for bo reason that makes any sense.Suenahrme (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is quite a bit of original research you have going on here. Have you published your finding in any conference or journal? The idea of occultation is very old and it even exist among the earliest Shia including the Ismailis. Do you know that even the Druze believe in the occultation of their fatimid caliph al-amir. Bahai is new religion. It has nothing to do with Shiism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Again you are making no sense for your deletion. You cannot delete it just because it is bahai critidism. And no it is not my original research. I got it from the article about the 12 th imam. Plz stop deleting it as it is obe of the critisisms of teelvers.Suenahrme (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a criticsm of Shii'sm. Bahai religion is very very new. Shia occultation happened a thousand years ago. You need to find better sources. Why don't you understand this? Shia occultation happened in 8th century AD. Bahai religion 18th century AD? Do you understand what I am explaining?Xareen (talk)
Islam talks about Jesus son of Mary. Muhammad doesn't pretend to be Jesus. I hope you see the difference of talking about something and being a pretender of that person. Xareen (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That was not my point. You removed the Occultation section with the excuse that the criticism comes from Bahai sources, even though Bahaiism came after Shiism. Logically, that is not a valid reason. A new faith can criticize an old faith. Also please note that I am not personally interested in adding or removing the section, just pointing out that your blanking of the section with THAT excuse is wrong. Unflavoured (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and the response below by Xareen is not relevant. You'll just have to accept this point, Xareen: if you don't, we have other issues. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
But you have removed the misyar marriage because you said it is irrelevent. How come you get to decide what should stay in and what should be removed. I also showed you the occultation page which already contain the bahai views about mahdi The Occultation. The Bahai view is already represented on wikipedia. Xareen (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Why do we have a Bahai section in this article
The vandal who has no clue what he is doing has now added a bahai section in this article. Can someone please tell me what is going on this article? Why do you keep allowing malicious edit on this page? Can't you see that he is posting nonsense? Here is the wikipedia about the Mahdi. Read the information on that page to see the reality of the Shia occultation. Xareen (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Calling them a vandal does not make it vandalism. They can view your removal of content as vandalism as well. After watching you two revert each other and not talk about it, I suggest you contact an admin. Unflavoured (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's an admin. Both of you, stop edit-warring. Xareen, do not call this vandalism or you will be temporarily blocked to prevent more name-calling. Let's look at this calmly, please. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome. Glad to have you here. Can you please revert this page to say 12 hours ago. Most of the sections are broken by edit war. I was trying to restore them but it is so hard. Xareen (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Editors here need to make a couple of decisions. I've read over the talk page, and that's not exciting or well-written reading. Above, MathewVanitas makes some valid points and I have to chime in. a. The article is called "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism." So, that means criticism--not modified criticism, just from Sunni Islam for instance. It allows for poststructural, atheist, neo-Kantian, and Bahai criticism; it's as simple as that. That means that Xareen's recurring edit summary is incorrect: "bahai religion is not a legit criticsm for Shia Islam" is plain wrong; why wouldn't it be? b. The source cited in the disputed edit, this one is not IMO a reliable source. Momen is cited in a couple of Wikipedia articles but that doesn't mean much. Especially in a disputed area the sources should be beyond reproach. So I won't advocate reinstating it.
In short, you all need to do some figuring. What do you want the article to be about? "Criticism" or "Criticism from a specific angle"? That will answer the basic question quickly. Oh, next one to revert gets a block; the next to revert that revert also gets a block. To make sure you get the idea I will give you both 3R warnings. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Xareen, I am not sure which version you want reinstated; I did not see in the history which is to be preferred, but that is the essence of edit-warring. PLEASE y'all don't start editing and restoring and fighting. If that happens I will have no choice but to lock the article, and whatever version is up will be the one protected. You don't want that, I'm sure. Talk it out here. If needs be and you can't figure it out, go to WP:DR. Ask Mathew to drop by; he's not an idiot, as far as I know. Again, good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, one war at the time. I can't really see a reason to prefer one over the other, and since Suenahrme lost their Bahai section, perhaps you may have to lose this one for the while. But see more below. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok i will seek extra sources for the iccultation criticism. I will also try and find other groups than bahai who criticise this. Thanks to you and unflavoured.Suenahrme (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One more time: what I think you all need to do is to figure out what the title/topic of the article should be. Sources will come; reach agreement on this point. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, this is about what kind of criticism the article should list. Again, the title suggests no limitation whatsoever. If Kermit the Frog wrote an article published in a reliable source with some kind of criticism of Twelvers, it should be acceptable since the title poses no limitations. Please stick to the topic--and please, you two (three) talk this out amongst yourselves. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Admin, are you also aware that they have removed textual written about Misyar marriage.They argue that this is irrelevant to the discussion. Can you please restore the page before the edit war because much info has been lost. I also don't agree with your argument about kermit the frog. Do you think people who denies holocaust should be allowed to write their propaganda on wikipedia on the page about holocaust to deny that it ever happened? That is exactly being done here. Xareen (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
once again misyar is clearly not equivalent to mutah. Mutah is criticised because it is not a permanent "marriage". That is why it is criticised. Misyar is permanent marriage. So how can you equate the 2? Why don't you just equate all marriage mutah?Suenahrme (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
See. This is the unfair attitude I was complaining. You are playing with semantic. I already said before Misyar is equal to Shia Muta with very minor differences. The basis on making misyar has the same argument for muta. That is the main reason why it should be allowed. And like I said before, Why are you removing what you dislike. That is a dishonest practice. You are removing what you don't like. And adding stuff unrelated from other religion here. How come you get to add something from bahai which is a different religion but at the same thing remove Sunni practice of alternate to nikah? Xareen (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not the same. Just because they are alternatives, does not mean that you can include them both: Fascism and monarchy are both alternatives to democracy, but they are not the same thing. Mut'a marriage: Fixed-term, temporary. Misyar: Not fixed-term, not temporary. Last but not least, and as I repeated several times already: Mut'a marriage is a Shiite issue that is being criticized. Misyar is not a Shiite issue, and does not belong on this article. No more Tu quoque, please. You are not addressing the actual issues that have been brought up, even though several editors have now repeated the same arguments and spelled them out quite clearly. Unflavoured (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we handle one thing at the time, please? Xareen, I am going to say this one more time. If "criticism" is not specified as to what kinds of criticism are discussed, then all (notable, verified) kinds of criticism are allowed. It is a very basic thing and has to do with grammar, with how nouns and adjectives work. You need to argue that there is some kind of limitation to be imposed on "criticism". Why would you exclude Bahai criticism? Leave the holocaust out of this--it has nothing to do with the topic. If you cannot explain why an unqualified "criticism" would exclude Bahai or any other criticism, and/or if your explanation is not reasonable and does not find consensus, then we are done here, and Bahai criticism, if reliably sourced (with books and academic articles, for instance) is in: it is as simple as that. If you respond with holocaust or whatever, I have no choice than to conclude that you cannot follow logic and/or English. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the logic here. I have provided a page on occultation with many view points including Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Bahai and Druze. I urged the poster to make his edit on that page as that is where all the views on occultation belong. But I am trying to understand why you want him to plagarized and replicate all the views here? My second objection is how about the stuff that has been removed from this page specific to Nikah Misyar? Xareen (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I rest my case. You again have not answered the question. Thus, I see no reason why Bahai criticism of Twelvers should not find a place in the article. You could have argued that the article should be about Sunni criticism, but you didn't. Whatever you have to say about occultation in its own right is irrelevant. It is suggested that Bahai criticizes the Twelvers' thoughts about occultation; such criticism, if properly verified, can have its place in the article. Your further repetition of the points you've made, none of which were pertinent as far as I can tell, is a good reason to invoke Wikipedia:DIDNTHEARTHAT: it is disruptive.
Suehrname, please don't go and simply reinstate the section with that reference; I suggest you plow through this search where you may find lots of other interesting things. I suggest you take your time, if only to step away from the formalities of WP:3R.
I make no comment on this marriage dispute you all are having, but it has no bearing, as far as I can see, on the Bahai question and the general issue of the name and topic of the article. If you cannot agree, you may seek resolution at WP:DR. But continued edit-warring may lead to a block and article protection. Note that you are both currently warned for 3R violations, and those include all reverts, not just the Bahai reverts. In other words, keep your cool and try and talk it out here. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Nikah misyar is a Sunni issue, not a Shiite issue. The Occultation is a Shiite issue. If the Occultation is criticised, and that criticism can be backed with a reliable source, then it should have a section. If not, then it should not have a section. IMHO, it is a simple problem with a simple solution. There is no need to have this storm-in-a-teacup over it. Unflavoured (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. Still, I placed a notice on the administrator's noticeboard, asking them to keep an eye on it to prevent further/future disruption. Should that occur, blocks and protection may still happen--though I noted what I would call an exception: reinstatement of Bahai criticism with a reliable source. Thanks Unflavoured. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sunni or Shia the issue is the same. Misyar and muta are both an alternative to Nikah. They share more similarity than differences. Why have the misyar section removed from this article? You guys don't like it and deleted the writeup. Xareen (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The Occultation page has a very comprehensive information. It tackles the issue from many different sects and religion. It also includes a section on Bahai. The bahai religion is represented on Wikipedia and so is every sect including Shia, Sunni, Druze and Ahmadiyyah. You can add a link if you wish rather that replicating everything again on this page. Xareen (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou again Unflavoured and Drmies. Yes i will look up the website you suggested Drmies but i will take my time since things have become a little too heated and repetitive at the moment.Suenahrme (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
