Talk:Abu Bakr/Archive 1

Older comments
--Striver 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)[]The following is really problematic:


 * After the hard-won victory over Mosailima, Umar ibn al-Khattab (the later Caliph Omar), fearing the complete loss of the sayings of the prophet when those who had listened to ...

Not because I think that the Qur'an is not the words of The Prophet, but of God; but because it creates a confusion between the Qur'an and the Hadith.--iFaqeer 01:45, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

-

Since Caliph apparently meens "sucessor" shouldn't Muhammad be listed as the preceeding ruler of Abu Bakr? User: Dimadick


 * No, Caliph means successor of the prophet. Muhammad was not a "successor" and Abu Bakr was not a prophet. Abu Bakr was the first Caliph. Search "first Caliph" on the internet and you will find Abu Bakr. How can there be a predecessor of the first? OneGuy 03:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. interesting idea. Maybe in parentheses: (The Prophet) &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

?
Anyone mind if I put a, since this article needs both clarifying how the history is seen by different groups and copy-editing of the language.  &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:26, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mind. I keep meaning to get to it, and being distracted. Zora 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sunni/Shi'a and NPOV
Aladdin,

You restored most of the material you had added, material that I had excised because it was so Sunni-centric. We MUST give Sunni and Shi'a equal space here, and NOT write the article in such a way as to prejudge the issues at stake. It is not NPOV to give the Sunni view, then the Shi'a view, then detail the Sunni rebuttal. That is giving the Sunnis the last word and more space. Other turns of phrase that I cut out and you restored are Sunni-centric.

I'm tired and cranky and this is probably not the best time for me to deal with your edits. I will come back to it and try again to NPOV the article. Please try to put yourself in the place of the Shiites and consider how best to write the article so that there is nothing in there that they would find UNTRUE. For example, it is the Sunni belief that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph. If the article says that "Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph", we've taken sides. But if it says "Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph", then both Sunnis and Shiites would have to agree with that. When there's controversy, we step back and present both sides. Zora 05:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When I responded to the clean up request for this article, it was replete with Shia-centric POV material, as were several articles on Shi and Sunni figures. Nevertheless, in response to your concerns, I reread the article and revised the election paragraph so that the Shia rebuttal "has the last word". The other reverts were for the explicit removal of shia-centric POVs, as well as the factual health of the article as a whole. If you believe me to be in factual or NPOV error, I will be happy to discuss it with you at length in this Talk section, when you have had leisure to revisit the issue.--A. S. A. 03:30, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, good work on the Sunni/Shia parts. I just added some para breaks (humongo paras are daunting) and deleted one sentence, re all sects accepting the four rightly guided caliphs. I'm not at all sure that that's true. A citation from a Shi'a source would help.

I also changed much of the para on the Ridda wars. I didn't really discuss the problems I saw with that para, and I should have. Basically, when you call Ibn Hanefi a "pretender", or describe the rebels as "pagans" and "apostates", you're taking the viewpoint that Abu Bakr was absolutely right in beating them into submission. I disagree vehemently, and I think many other people would too. Didn't Muhammad at one point say that religion was not a matter of compulsion? Wikipedia cannot endorse a Muslim triumphalist viewpoint, in which the military expansion of Islam is a GOOD thing. It happened. Some people think it was good, some people think it was bad. That's the NPOV stance, I think. Zora 04:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The no compulsion in religion precept is accurate, nevertheless apostasy was a capital offense. In the context of the seventh century, just as in the Crusades, there is no need to revise every sentence for 21st-century political correctness. They did what was natural to them at the time, and it is reported as such. Also, regarding pagans, I linked to the Wiki article about paganism, where it clearly states that while it has been used pejoratively, especially by the monotheistic religions, the word has been rehabilitated and even romanticized in modern day encyclopedic usage, and is not intrinsically derogatory or POV. If you prefer, we can replace paganism with "idolatry" but we have to have something, because those tribes did not just abandon Islam, they went back to their previous worships. I changed the wording for the First Four Caliphs from universally accepted to just respected, but nevertheless I will research the issue for citations because I do believe it is accurate to say that their Caliphates were/are universally accepted because Ali himself submitted to them--A. S. A. 19:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people proudly proclaim themselves as "pagans", but when you apply it to people who didn't choose the term and who can't fight back, it's pejorative. It would be less pejorative to say that the tribes returned to their traditional religion, or tribal religion. Using the word "relapsed" is also pejorative, as one "relapses" into an illness, or an addiction. The sentence on the end is also subtly biased, by using the word "nation" (a modern concept, and most people think nations are good) and by insisting that Abu Bakr HAD to do what he did to preserve the community. My Zen group doesn't go out and conquer people to preserve its community. Yes, I do have a personal viewpoint here -- I'm one of the pagans who are to be converted by force. Hence I have some sympathy with the folks Abu Bakr was busy suppressing. Obviously I can't rewrite the article to say that his actions were wrong; that would be POV. All I can do is make sure that the article doesn't endorse them.


 * I'll accept the use of "respected" for now, unless a Shi'a arrives to tell us that it's unacceptable. Zora 20:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They didnt "relapse" to paganism or idolatry or nothing of that sort, they just didnt want to give Abu Bakr monny. look:

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483: Narrated Abu Huraira:

''When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle. I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right."'' http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.483

As is evident from the hadith, the renegades *did* indeed pray. they differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat, in other words, they did one and not the other.

As Umar points out, Abu Bakrs oppinion was contrary to the Prophets (as), "'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.'", and in no case is the punishment for not paying zakat death.

Thats goes for showing what greedy man Abu Bakr was, he started killing mulims that didnt want to give him zakat and started to call them apostates. Of coures that was not a valid claim.

As you can see, even the translator is baised by inserting " some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) ", as if renegading against Abu Bakr was equall to aposatcy.

I argue that its Abu Bakr POV to claim that they where apostates. Its not up to Abu Bakr to decide who is apostate.

From "and then i was guided":

Nor indeed can we explain the Qur'anic verse with reference to Malik Ibn Nuwayrah and his followers, who refused to pay Zakat (alms) in the time of the caliph Abu Bakr, for many reasons. They refused to pay al-Zakat (alms) and give it to Abu Bakr because they wanted to wait and see what happened, for they had accompanied the Messenger of Allah on his farewell pilgrimage, and voted for Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib at Ghadir Khum after the Messenger of Allah appointed him as Caliph after him, and indeed Abu Bakr himself voted for Ali. Therefore, they were astonished when a messenger from the caliph came to tell them the news of the holy Prophet's death and at the same time asked them to pay Zakat in the name the new caliph, Abu Bakr. It is a case in which history does not want to go too deep, for the sake of the Companion's honour. Furthermore, Malik and his followers were Muslims according to the testimony of Umar and Abu Bakr themselves and other Companions who disapproved of Khalid ibn al-Walid's killing of Malik. History testifies that Abu Bakr paid compensation for Malik's death to his brother Mutammem out of the Muslim's treasury, and apologized for his killing. It is well established that the apostate must be killed, and no compensation be paid out of the Muslim's treasury for his killing, and no apologies issued for killing him. http://www.al-islam.org/guided/17.html

The examples that I have cited in this study - besides many that I have not mentioned - are enough to refute this saying, because there are elements in the Sunnah of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman which contradict and negate the Prophet's Sunnah, as is so apparent. ....

The second incident that involved Abu Bakr during the early days of his caliphate, which the Sunni historians recorded, was his disagreement with the nearest of all people to him, Umar ibn al-Khattab. The incident evolves around Abu Bakr's decision to fight those who refused to pay Zakat [alms] and kill them, but Umar protested and advised him not to fight them because he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying: I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, "There is no other god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." And he who says it can keep his wealth to himself and I have no right to his [blood], and he is accountable to Allah.

This is a text cited by Muslim in his Sahih: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave the flag to Ali on the Day of Khayber, and Ali said, "O Messenger of Allah, what am I fighting them for?" The Messenger of Allah replied, "Fight them until they testify that there is no other god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and if they do that then they will prevent you from killing them and taking their wealth, except by justice, and they will be accountable to Allah." [98]

[98] Muslim, Sahih, vol 8 p 151 But Abu Bakr was not satisfied with this tradition and said, "By Allah, I will fight those who differentiate between the prayers and Zakat because Zakat is justly charged on wealth." And also said, "By Allah if they refuse me a rope which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah. I will fight them for it." After that Umar ibn al-Khattab was satisfied and said, "As soon as I saw Abu Bakr determined I felt very pleased. " I do not know how Allah could please somebody who is preventing the tradition of the Prophet. This interpretation was used to justify their fight against Muslims although Allah had prohibited making war against them, and Allah said in His Glorious Book:

O You who believe! When you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer." Do you seek the goods of this world's life? But with Allah there are abundant gains, you too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation surely Allah is aware of what you do" (Holy Qur'an 4:94).

Those who refused to give Abu Bakr their Zakat did not deny its necessity, but they only delayed it to investigate the matter. The Shiites say that these people were surprised by the succession of Abu Bakr, and some of them had been present with the Messenger of Allah at the Farewell Pilgrimage and had heard the text in which he mentioned Ali ibn Abi Talib. Therefore they decided to wait for a while until they obtained a clarification as to what had happened, but Abu Bakr wanted to silence them lest they spoke the truth. Because I do not reason with nor protest against what the Shiites say, I will leave this issue to somebody who is interested in it.

However, I should not forget to note here that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had an encounter with Tha'alabah who asked him repeatedly to pray for him to be rich and he promised Allah to give alms. The Messenger of Allah prayed for him and Tha'alabah became so rich that his sheep and camels filled al-Medinah, and he started to neglect his duties and stopped attending the Friday Prayers. When the Messenger of Allah sent some officials to collect the Zakat, he refused to give them anything saying that it was a Jiziah [head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule] or similar to it, but the Messenger of Allah did not fight him nor did he order his killing, and Allah revealed the following verse about him:

"And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah. If He gives us out of His Grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His Grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew"(Holy Qur'an 9:75-76).

After the revelation of the above Qur'anic verse. Tha'alabah came to the Messenger of Allah crying and asked him to accept his Zakat, but the Messenger of Allah refused to accept it, according to the story.

If Abu Bakr and Umar were following the tradition of the Messenger why did they allow the killing of all these innocent Muslims just because they refused to pay the Zakat?

As for those apologists who were trying to correct Abu Bakr's mistake when he interpreted the Zakat as a just tax on wealth, there is no excuse for them nor for Abu Bakr after considering the story of Tha'alabah who with held the Zakat and thought of it as "Jiziah". Who knows, perhaps Abu Bakr persuaded his friend Umar to kill those who refused to pay the Zakat because otherwise their call would have spread throughout the Islamic world to revive al-Ghadir's text in which Ali was confirmed as successor [to the Messenger of Allah]. Thus Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted to fight them, and it was he who threatened to kill and burn those who remained in Fatimah's house in order to extract the acclamation from them for his friend.

The third incident which took place during the early days of Abu Bakr's caliphate in which he found... (about Kahlid ibn Walid raping the widow of the man that didnt want to pay taxes)

http://www.al-islam.org/guided/23.html

--Striver 13:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First male to accept Islam?
An anon editor added a sentence saying that Abu Bakr was the first adult male to accept Islam and Ali the first "boy". I removed the sentence. I had scoured the Sirat Rasul Allah for just that point and found two accounts. One of them said that Ali was the first male convert, one of them said that Abu Bakr was first and Ali second. Ibn Ishaq does that a lot, give two accounts. Both were written down at the time the Sunni/Shi'a schism was deepening. That schism made the question, "Who was the first to adopt Islam?", of great importance, as being the first could be an additional argument for being the rightful successor. Ibn Ishaq supplied ammo for both sides. That was why I originally wrote "one of the first".

The formulation that Abu Bakr was the first adult male and Ali the first boy evades the question. Or perhaps gives it a Sunni tinge, as an adult male presumably outranks a boy. In any case, I think it's misleading to put that there without going into some detail re the controversy. That's why I removed it. We may want to footnote this, so that the article isn't broken up by yet another controversy, but so that the info is there. In fact, we may want to footnote the whole "first caliph" controversy too, as the article might flow better without it. Zora 01:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the Talk discussion trim
Firstly, please take care not to bloat the talk pages with massive amounts of text. A brief quotation and a hyperlink to whatever you want to cite will suffice. I have just completed a revision of the article. I find Striver's attitude towards Abu Bakr to be inexplicably bitter and it may be clouding NPOV judgment. Extrapolations from the Hadeeth and other "sources" are not logical at all. What's more, the sentence in the article clearly says that the Ridda Wars were because of a combination of apostasy and Taxes. And the Caliph does have the authority by the very nature of the office to declare apostates. Just as the Pope has the right to excommunicate or declare heresy. Most of what you referenced above is a confusing hodgepodge of badly translated and incoherent text that in no way collates to prove a point or support a position. Nevertheless, I have modified much of my editing to take into account may of Zora's points and concerns, but I have left what I deem to be legitimate NPOV and standard encyclopedic-style descriptions of the man and the events of his Caliphate. Idolatry is the worship of idols. It is not insulting. Some tribes apostatized and returned (changed that form relapsed) to idolatry. Simple fact. Apostasy is a capital offense under Shari'ah law. Withholding taxes is cause for war in any State in the seventh century. It's normal. Also, had he not fought the Ridda wars, there would be no world-wide Islamic religion today. For better or for worse, that is an awesome contribution. You cannot go around depriving historical figures of the credit for fighting and winning battles because you do not agree with their policies. What's next, are we to go to every Roman emperor's article and remove any mention of the lands they seized and the frontiers they expanded? I believe that there has been substantial compromise here and the article is better of for it. If these points continue to be reverted, then we should begin Dispute Resolution and solicit outside opinions.--A. S. A. 05:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladdin, idolatry is a term of abuse. It is Islam's term of abuse for followers of Arab tribal religions. It is not a term of science. I have several degrees in anthropology, have read widely in anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, history of religion, etc., and nowhere is the term idolatry used as a description. It is inherently POV.


 * As for your assertion that the Ridda wars were necessary to the continued expansion of Islam, that also is inherently POV. Are you really saying that Islam can only expand by conquering people? And what does that say about Islam if that's true? And yes, I'd correct any article about the expansion of ANY empire that assumed it was necessarily a good thing for the empire to expand. That's taking the viewpoint of the conqueror. What about the viewpoint of the conquered? Perhaps this would make sense to you if we were talking about, say, the Mongol invasions. Wow, lookit those Mongols go! Great! Pyramids of skulls! Cities destroyed! Sure tromped those Abbasids, didn't they?

Well, an article wouldn't be that blatant, but you could use language that suggested that everything that the Mongols did was perfectly natural and right and praiseworthy. Wouldn't that upset you? Zora 18:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is much in the Wikipedian spirit to boast of degrees and accomplishments. You are an equal here, and have as much right and indeed qualifications to edit as a janitor with no degrees at all. I have read your last post most carefully, and I detect a certain pacifist bias that while admirable in general, has no place in an encyclopedia. Suppressing revolts and beginning foreign conquest was simply reported without comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of war or religious freedom. Like I said before, for better or for worse, what he did had a tremendous, incalculable affect on the whole world. As for idolatry, we simply disagree utterly on it being POV. I did see, however, how "relapsed" has an association with the medical word which means degenerating back into illness, and I am grateful for that change.--A. S. A. 03:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Degrees don't matter, but expertise does. I don't have as much as some people, but I have some. Why are you so attached to the word idolatry? Told that it's offensive to non-Muslims, you persist in using it. I revised the sentence to avoid using ANY word for their tribal religion, and you inserted "idolatry" again. Zora 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humble POV

 * Why is saying that:
 * Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with safeguarding the expansion of the nascent Islamic empire.
 * a problem? I might just drop replace "safeguarding the expansion of" with something like "keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come" or something. What say?


 * About:
 * It is generally credited that while Khadijah was the first person to accept Islam, and Ali is the first boy to accept Islam, Abu Bakr was the first adult male to accept Islam.
 * I grew up a pretty mainstream Sunni in Nothern Nigeria and Pakistan, and that is what we were told. And I bet the Shi'as would like to agree with it even more. We could qualify it to say that some Sunni groups don't agree and present what their belief is. No?


 * On the use of the "idolatory" terminology. How about we put in something that describes all the characterizations. This is an encyclopedia, after all; it is supposed to give a complete view. And whether Abu Bakr had the right to declare someone an apostate or not (which is debatable--he WAS officially the Head of State and Head of the Religious Community; this wasn't post-revolution France, you know), the fact is, he did. Maybe something like:
 * Trouble started soon after Abu Bakr's election, in the form of threats to the unity and stability of the new community and the state. Various Arab tribes of Hejaz and Nejd raised issues that challenged the new leader and there recently-berieved religious community. The most prominent in history have been the refusal off some to pay Zakat, the poor due. Others outright apostatized and returned to their pre-Islamic faiths and traditions to different degrees. They claimed that they had submitted to Muhammad and that with Muhammad's death, they were again free. Abu Bakr insisted that they had not just submitted to a leader but acceeded to the Muslim religious community, of which he was the new head. Apostasy is a capital offense under Islamic law, and Abu Bakr declared war on the rebels. This was the start of what is known to history as the Ridda wars, Arabic for the Wars of Apostasy. The severest struggle was the war with the Ibn Habib al-Hanefi, who claimed to be a prophet and Muhammad's true successor. The Muslim general Khalid bin Walid finally defeated al-Hanefi at the battle of Akraba. Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come.

What say? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * IFaqeer, your edits are OK. I realize now that it was the term "safeguarding" that was triggering my POV detector, as "safeguarding" is usually deemed a good thing. Saying that X made Y possible is more like a statement of fact.


 * Please insert them for now, if you would. I am, however, meditating a reorganization of the article that would take the flashpoints we've identified (first to adopt Islam, election to caliphate, Ridda wars) and set them off as separate sections. This is what was done with the Aisha article, and it seemed to work fairly well. First you get a history, which has a good narrative flow, and then you have the controversies. This allows you to spread out more on the controversies and give more space to the various arguments.


 * BTW, as to the first to adopt Islam, the "generally accepted formulation" avoids the whole question of priority, which is crucial to the two accounts given in the Sirat Rasulallah. Regardless of the ages of the males involved, who was first? One account has Ali first, one has Abu Bakr. Zora 08:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I was never attached to the "first male to embrace Islam" description, and raised no objection when Zora removed it entirely. This compromise paragraph proposed by IFaqeer is promising, but needs some encyclopedic polishing, in addition to the glaring fact that we are omitting a historical fact that some tribes returned to the worship of idols, because of a convoluted fear of NPOV. You can't just say "they returned to pre-Islamic faith" without mentioning what that was. This is an encyclopedia, for the love of Pete. I will revise the paragraph presently, hoping to capitalize on IFaqeer's fresh perspective but preserving the necessary reference to idolatry/idol worship, the intrinsic insult of which I reject utterly. As for the subdivision of the article, I have been mulling that myself lately, but I came the the conclusion that the article was too short to display the change gracefully. --A. S. A. 03:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you also substituted my reference to the "state" founded by The Prophet to a "system". You don't think the community he headed was a nation-state? It had a leader, an army&mdash;it even had a written constitution, fercryingoutloud! &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion, and removed "(Believers in freedom of religion may have a different view of these wars.)" so that the paragraph in question is basically what appears to be agreed upon above. Perhaps someone still believes that the last sentence is too charged, but I'm pretty sure that was not the correct way to fix it. Cheers. Fool 16:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In political science the term "nation state" is reserved for a much later innovation. Nation states are based on ethnic/linguistic criteria. See the articles on nationalism and Ernest Gellner. I'm not sure I've seen this used in the literature, but in the era in which Islam was founded, many of the states were "confessional states". That is, it was assumed that it was necessary to the good order of the state that everyone under the control of the state share a religion. Islam was somewhat of an innovation in that it allowed dhimmi status (hence, I think, its success at the time).

As for your insistence that "idolatry" is appropriate: it's inherently pejorative. It is not used in current academic works. It is only used by Christians or Muslims to denigrate other religions. It's as if I insisted on writing an article about Islam and calling it Mohammedanism. If you object, I tell you that you're PC and absurdly sensitive. Zora 06:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I will not belabor our disagreement on the word "idolatry." I believe we have stated our peace on that score. Nevertheless, the recent collaborative revision continues to evolve, and I believe is reaching a consensus. As for nation-state, I did not change that in the spirit of disallowing that status to the early Caliphate, but simply as a redundancy rewording, since "community" and "sate" were used in the preceding sentence. I like the paragraph explaining the different versions regarding the first male convert, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it under a separate heading. Perhaps eventually the article will grow sufficiently to facilitate the subdivision of the entire essay. In any case, see what you make of the changes I just made.--A. S. A. 07:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like the capitalization of "state". Since contemporary English usually capitalizes only proper nouns, the capitalizaton looks capricious, or even pompous. I'll change it. I am glad that you left my compromise wording, with idolatry included as a "Muslim classification". Zora 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In my experience "State" in that context is often capitalized, and in this case helps to delineate the emerging Islamic nation, the religious term called umma in Arabic. Nevertheless, de-capitalizing it is not a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned; the meaning survives. As for idolatry, it is essential that it is mentioned by name, because obliterating all reference to the word left a gaping hole that would have made the reader ask..."well, what faith was it that they return to?" Fretting over the perceived pejorative nature of idolatry is understandable, but since idolatry, paganism, and worship of idols were all rejected in turn, I persisted in my attachment to that description until "classified as" evolved as a compromise. It's certainly better than having no description at all of pre-Islamic Arabia, no? At any rate, good work all round.--A. S. A. 09:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Tribal religion" or "traditional religion" would be academically acceptable and do not constitute "no description". It's true that they don't describe the religion in any detail but then, neither does "idolatry" -- and they lack the pejorative overtones. Zora 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I entirely disagree. Readers reading "returned to traditional religion" would still wonder what on earth those traditional religions were. Easpecially since they apostatized a major Abrahamic faith to return to them. I hope you can recognize your own bias here in resisting any description of the worship of idols. It's an apt academic description. "Traditional" and "tribal" mean diddley by themselves.--A. S. A. 03:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't an academic description. It is NEVER used in academia. An academic description of pre-Islamic tribal religion would be something like "polytheism, a creator god (Allah) and subordinate deities, divine forces believed to inhere in certain stones". If you want to say that the tribes reverted to polytheism, that would be academically acceptable. It's not at all clear that the tribes worshipped actual physical, carved idols -- I've never seen pictures of any. The stones part is documented. The strange thing, IMHO, is that Islam carries on the worship of a stone.

After all of this, it would seem like a good idea to write an article about Religion in Arabia before Islam. Zora 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There comes a point where discussion dead-ends into utter disagreement. I've heard your viewpoint, you've heard mine. I shan't tax your forbearance by repeating myself.--A. S. A. 11:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Zereshk's addition
Zereshk, I'm sorry to have to be difficult, but I deleted your section of references "proving" that Ali was the first. First of all, it unbalances the section. If we're to have those, then we need a section of Sunni references too. Second, it would seem that those are Arabic sources, and inaccessible to non-Arabic speakers. Not only that, we have no way of knowing when they were written and exactly what scholarly weight to attach to them. At least with the Sirat Rasulallah, we know it's the earliest work to survive and we have an English translation to consult. Anyone who wants can get a copy of Guillaume's translation from a library, or order one on the net, and check the article's accuracy. Zora 22:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not
The quran does not call Abu Bakr the "friend" of Muhammad (as).

Refer to vers 18:34 where a mushrik (18:42) ia refered to with the exact same titel.

an why not to this:

4:38 Sher Ali And as for those who spend their wealth in order to be seen of men, and believe not in ALLAH, nor the Last Day, they are the companions of Satan, an whoso has Satan for a companion, and evil companion is he.

being a companion is no merit in it self

Open this and search for "Sahib is not a merit at all."

Abuse
Some unlogged in user added stuf like Abu Bakr was a dog/pig& illiterate, i deleted it, but people need to stop messing up the articles.

Spelling of Mecca/Makkah?
I'm just wondering, which spelling should be used, Mecca or Makkah(the official spelling)? I'd like a consensus before I change anything, or has this been discussed elsewhere? -- GNU 4 Eva 2 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)


 * Mecca has been the English form for centuries. I don't see any reason for changing it. It would be like going to the French Academy and insisting that the French stop calling London Londres, and use the English form instead.


 * If people start saying Makkah instead of Mecca, then the Wikipedia usage should change too -- just as we're now using Mumbai instead of Bombay. But until there's a more general shift ... Zora 2 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
 * fair enough, the only reason I brought it up is because Mecca is no longer recognized as the "official" spelling of the city...
 * If it's going to start showing up on maps as Makkah, we should probably give both names at least once in each article where it's used, so that readers will be able to understand BOTH the maps and the older English literature. Zora 3 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

reverting (previous update was more fitting in talk page)
This is what was last posted:

I wont point out that most ahlul-sunnah scholar agree that Ali(ra) was the first convert but because he was not baligh(he was underage) at that time his conversion is not considert importent because nothing is wajib(compulsory) on child in islam. Abu bakr was the first mature man to convert to islam he was close friend of the prophet and one year younger. His conversion had importance, he started to spread the message and defend the religion it was he who liberated Bilal. As Ali grow older he started to have very impotent place among the people. He literally grew up with the islam which started when he was young boy. Ayubi1187 mahad9@hotmail.com

-- GNU 4 Eva 6 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

List of freed slaves, speech
If you want to say, "Abu Bakr, once a wealthy man, impoverished himself freeing Muslim slaves to save them from persecution by non-Muslim masters," that would be OK -- if not strictly necessary to the article. Just pasting in a list of free slaves is boring, pointless, and unreadable. Abu Bakr's speech is also an interruption. This is the sort of thing that should be referenced either as external links or as published sources. Striver, please STOP acting like a magpie dragging shiny bits back to its nest. Zora 8 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)


 * Ok, i see you point there, you are correct regarding the interruption.


 * Maybe it can be put in a separate article, and link to it?


 * "Abu Bakr, once a wealthy man..." sounds fine, how about this:


 * "Abu Bakr, once a wealthy man, impoverished himself freeing eight Muslim slaves to save them from persecution by non-Muslim masters [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" ?


 * Thanks for the personal remark, allways nice when people are factual instead of attaking persons.


 * And by the way, delet the prayer episode unless you want a shia rebutal to it. And i know that you have already said that you dont whant controveries in biographies.


 * --Striver 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Sunni pov
Feel invited to add sunni pov in the sunni view, but not in the main article. There are lots of events in bukhari that are not in the main article, rather in the shia view, only since sunnis feel the events are embarasing. I have never heard a shia mentione the salary issue. Im not claiming it to be false, just that it must be reported in the sunni view, unless you want less flatering events from bukhari to be included in the main article. --Striver 01:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent reverts regarding election and the caliphal title
Aladdin, you are reverting to much older text that is Sunni POV. It is NOT true that the first four caliphs are respected by all Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a. It is NOT true that Saqifah was a meeting of all the Medinan Muslims which after careful deliberation picked Abu Bakr as leader. Now that we have the Succession to Muhammad article -- which needs work, but it's there -- we don't need to go into Sunni-Shi'a controversy in this article.

When I first started working on this article, I didn't know much about the Shi'a position. After several months of arguing with Striver, and much more reading (Madelung and Reza Aslan), I think I have a better grasp of the history and issues now. Material that I previously believed was OK is now clearly seen as Sunni POV. I strongly urge you to read the Madelung and Aslan books, both of which are extremely well researched. It is possible to use the material there to argue for the Sunni position, but in a much more nuanced way (as I think I said on this very talk page, some ways above). One could argue that if Abu Bakr hadn't seized the moment, irregularly but forcefully, the Medinans would have elected their own leader and the community would have fallen apart into Meccans and Medinans. Zora 22:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're trying to say, but once again, for the sake of not offending anyone, are we risking diluting the article? Abu Bakr succeeded Mohammed, plain and simple.  Whether it was legitimate, or respected by all communities,is not a point to be argued, especially here.  That's like saying George Bush shouldn't be listed as president from 2000-2004 because some viewed his victory as illegitimate.  Abu Bakr led the Muslim community, had the final word in all matters, etc.  If you treat the Muslim empire as any other empire of that time, the Byzantines, Persian or whatever, this discussion would not even be taking place.  I'm not saying the Shi'ite POV should not be discussed, but it shouldn't be used to override or dilute what for most Muslims and 3rd party observers would be common knowledge.  I have not seen any other issue on WP treated in this matter.  -- GNU 4 Eva  03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with having Abu Bakr described as the first caliph -- that is descriptive, after all. But I'm not OK with saying that he was freely chosen by the Muslims of Medina. While Muhammad's body was still being prepared for burial, while Ali was busy with this last duty, someone told Abu Bakr and Umar that the Ansar were meeting to choose a leader. They rushed over to the meeting place (Saqifah) and tried to convince the Ansar that they shouldn't split the community that way. Umar proposed Abu Bakr as leader instead, offered his allegiance immediately, and then the rest of the men followed.


 * This was not an announced representative meeting; one of the main contenders for the leadership was not even THERE. Certainly very few of the muhajairun were there. The rest of the community was presented with a fait accompli. They either had to submit, or split the community.


 * It is probable that many of the "shuras" choosing tribal leaders were just as hurried, ad hoc, and undemocratic by present-day standards. Many of the men who gave their "allegiance" to tribal leaders may have done so grudgingly, or out of fear. Dunno. It's hard to know how things were done when we have so little material. But I think it's wrong to describe the "shura" as if it were a full-on modern election, thereby casting the Shi'a as anti-democratic and sore losers. Zora 04:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora, if you accept what the rest of the established historical world accepts, that Abu Bakr was the first caliph, the actual ruler of Islam, after Muhammad's death, one that was served by Ali who explicitly acknowledged his authority, then why have you been insisting on this bewildering refusal to even acknowledge that he rose to the caliphate? You have been replacing it with the comical "assumes leadership of the Muslim community." It's just absurd. In your passionate but misguided zeal to ensure so-called neutrality, the article has degenerated into a series of shia polemics that discards accepted world history in favor of mystical legends (I love the one in the Ali article about him being born in the Kaaba) which leave any traces of an authentic encyclopedia behind. I will look at rewording the Saqifah reference and some other points, but this perversion of history, this nonsensical attempt to cast doubt on the actual caliphate of the first 3 caliphs, this will not stand. The controversy and the shia view of the lack of the need for an election, and their subsequent invalidity, is noted and explained.

We are not claiming that the shura principle is a pure Greek-style democratic election. I specifically preserved your elaborations about how "elders" and "leading Muslims" performed the actual ratification. Also, regardless of duress, grudges, ad-hoc nature, tribal allegiances, claims of absent "electors" etc, kindly remember that this was the wild Arabian desert in the seventh century. As mentioned above, even the 2000 U.S. presidential election is highly controversal and there are still claims of an illegitimate president. Nevertheless, George W. Bush is president, and will be listed as such in historical records from now until the end of time. This nit-pciking is just plain ridiculous.

Finally, you may NOT use talk section titles to attack other editors. Kindly refrain from using my name in section titles in an offensive attempt to portray yourself as the governess trying to control an unruly child. Stick to the details of the edit disputes, and do not presume to issue instructions to me or any other editor via the wording of Talk section titles. I have altered the title accordingly. --AladdinSE 06:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladdin, you keep restoring matters that are just plain WRONG. It is not true that all four of the first caliphs were elected by shura. Abu Bakr was eventually accepted even by the Rafidi, but it was a long and contentious process. He designated Umar as his successor. No shura there, just a perfunctory approval after the choice had already been made. Uthman was indeed elected by shura. Ali was elevated by the acclamation of some residents of Medina, plus mutinous soldiers, and none of the Muslims outside Medina were ever consulted. It is not true, I find, that Ali willingly submitted to Abu Bakr. He refused to give his allegiance, which is why Ali and his party were called the Rafidi, the refusers. It took a long period of pressure (how long is unclear) before the Rafidi submitted. Please do read Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad. This is an extremely learned book by an Oxford professor who is not a Muslim and has no Sunni or Shi'a axe to grind. Zora 07:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that the Madelung book is not the definitive and accepted gospel truth as far as this topic goes. It is highly controversial, and while by no means a trifling publication, is nevertheless in the minority of scholarly opinion. As for your recent changes, there are some encouraging avenues of compromise evolving, but I cannot accept the wholesale abandonment of accepted historical consensus of a shura election of the Rashidun. Please reword to mention summarized reservations brought up by Madelung and the like. Also, shura consultation, while certainly having some roots in Arabian tribal traditions, is specifically a sunnah (not "sunni") commandment issued by the prophet, making it an Islamic precept more than a tribal tradition. Also, please reconsider your attitude towards the sentence crediting Abu Bakr with laying foundations for the Islamic Empire and preserving the unity of the emerging Islamic State. The Emperor Caesar Augustus, and many other historical figures, are credited with much the same kind of influence, though their actions in today's world would be considered completely unacceptable. We should not be inserting 21st century political correctness into this article. Giving Abu Bakr this internationally agreed upon credit is in no way a modern endorsement of imperialism, despotism or an attack against freedom of religion. --AladdinSE 08:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * In my view, Abu Bakr being elected is a Sunni myth, in no way can it be called election while Banu Hashim was not informed, and manny of the prominent of Banu Hashim refused to give him aligance before Fatimah (as) died. And no, he did not succed Muhammad (as), he grabed power, in my view. --Striver 09:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, you keep referring to "historical consensus", but you never cite any names. I've been doing a lot of reading, and I can't think of a single contemporary academic historian who would agree that the first four caliphs were elected by shura or that Abu Bakr's election was anything but a tense affair featuring a lot of threat and coercion. Please name names. Zora 10:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. also some cites for the Madelung book being "controversial". Every Western scholar I've read has praised it. Some of them think that he tilts too far towards the Shi'a position, but none of them doubt his scholarship or his version of the main outline of events. I find his book in every scholarly bibliography of every book on early Islamic history published since his book came out. I agree that it shouldn't be the only source. That's why I read Donner, Berkey, Crone, and Shaban, and why I'm plowing through al-Tabari, ibn Ishaq, and ibn Sa'd. Zora 10:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes Striver, we know your views, and they are not surprising considering how you boasted about your grandfather being an influential Shia Ayotollah. We know you think everyone other than Ali was an illegitimate caliph, etc etc etc. This, however, is not the Al Ansar website or any other such shia-centric propaganda site, it is the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I have learnt much and compromised much from Zora's and others' contributions, I suggest you forget who your grandfather is for a moment, and think of how a modern neutral encyclopedia would sound like, and you will find that this unremitting glorification of Ali at the expense of others, and to the exclusion of others, is so far removed form neutral that much of the time your edits are indistinguishable from the kind of language to be found in extremist websites like Al Ansar. And as for "sunni myths," when some 80% of Muslims in the world subscribe to these ideas, dismissing them as myths in favor of your fervent shia beliefs is not exactly unbiased. Zora: Again, that there was considerable agitation, controversy and acrimony during some of the early successions in Islam is not in dispute. Indeed, it would be singularly mind-bogling if they passed off without a hitch in such a time and place. It is well known that Ali sought the succession every time it became vacant. It is well known he was sorely disappointed by the succession of Abu Bakr. So was Muhammad's uncle Abbass, and some other factions. Ali withheld allegiance for some 6 months while these contentious issues were resolved. But when the chief claimant concedes, swears allegiance, and serves the proclaimed winner, that's the ball game. We have a modern-day repetition of this scenario in the contested American election of 2000; therefore I find your astonishment and what I perceive to be resentment that the early Islamic shura elections were less than perfect to be very unreasonable. The election is over and valid. All prevarication after that is academic. Abu Bakr was elected, albeit through a contentious process. One of the most respected historical texts, The Age of Faith by the Durants (part of the Story of Civilization series) explicitly states "Muhammad had appointed no successor to his power, but he had chosen Abu Bakr to conduct the prayers in the Medina mosque, and after some turmoil and rivalry this mark of preference persuaded the Muslim leaders to elect Abu Bakr the first Caliph of Islam." This summarizes the established historical consensus of the event. --AladdinSE 12:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladdin, the Durants are NOT well-regarded in academia. They wrote a long time ago, and they wrote popularized history for the masses. Contemporary academics do not accept the Sunni view without caveats. It's not just Madelung -- it's Donner, Berkey, Crone, Hinds, etc. You are insisting that there is a scholarly consensus and all you can cite is the Durants? You are advancing a sectarian view and insisting that it is the scholarly view, and that is just not so. If you want to elaborate on your views, go to the Succession to Muhammad article and work on the Sunni section. Zora 12:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "It is well known that Ali sought the succession every time it became vacant." Not entirely true if you accept Shi'ite sources, such as Nahjul Balagha: "By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. "  -- GNU 4 Eva  16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sunni view

 * I have never heard a shia mentione the salary issue. Im not claiming it to be false, but unless you want me to add a embarasing Bukhari event to balance it, move it to Sunni view of Abu Bakr.


 * ''"During the prophet's last illness, Muhammad allowed Abu Bakr to lead prayers in his absence: many took this as an indication that Abu Bakr would succeed Muhammad. "

That whole issue is sunni pov, shia have a far less plesent acount of that event. Move it to Sunni view of Abu Bakr.


 * ''After the latter's death (8 June 632), Abu Bakr became the first caliph.

Sunni pov, shia belive he did not succed him, just made a blatant coup de eta, including mortaly wounding Fatimah and giving her a misscarige, usurping Muhamamds (as) inheritacne, confiscating Fadak and using gangs to dissarm "Ali, Zubair and whoever was with them" (Bukhari)


 * ''"Ali served under them"

He did not "serve", he just pointed out their obvious misstakes. Ali did not lift a finger to "serve" Abu Bakr.


 * ''"Some tribes claimed that they had submitted to Muhammad and that with Muhammad's death, they were again free. Abu Bakr insisted that they had not just submitted to a leader but joined the Muslim religious community, of which he was the new head. Apostasy is a capital offense under Islamic law, and Abu Bakr declared war on the rebels."

Unless you are going to also add that some refused to give zakat to Abu Bakr since he was a illegitimate leader, that motivation is giving a incorrect impresion, that it was the only motivation. To only report that some apostated, but ommit that some opposed Abu Bakr is missleading.


 * ''"Leading Muslims later ratified this choice"

Whom is "leading"? Doubt aby Banu Hashim supported that.


 * "One of the earlier sources we have for Islamic history is a work called the Sirat Rasulallah, by Ibn Ishaq, known only from excerpts quoted by Ibn Hisham and Tabari. Ibn Ishaq tells two'' stories about Abu Bakr's and Ali's conversion. One story puts Abu Bakr first in time, another puts Ali. "

Does this version make a boy/man distinction?


 * ''"Since the Sunni/Shi'a schism was hardening just at the time Ibn Ishaq wrote, it seems predictable that two stories would be current: one, Shi'a, putting Ali first, and one, Sunni, putting Abu Bakr first. Without any further evidence, it is impossible to say which story is correct."

specualtions, original research.

Alading, add the sunni view in Sunni view of Abu Bakr, and well have the shia view in Shia view of Abu Bakr. Unless you want both in the main article. You do remeber what Ali and ibn Abbas thought of Abu Bakr according to Sahi Muslim, dont you? Are you sure you want that in the main article?

--Striver 02:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You very much mistake the purpose and spirit of an encyclopedia by imagining that the final content must be a result of bartering concessions and using outrageous threats to insert "embarrassing events" to get your way. 1. The salary point was a referenced addition from a neutral non-Muslim source. 2. The leading of the prayers comes form the same source, and in fact is widespread among western scholars and not a Sunni POV at all. What's more, it is clearly described as "many took this as an indication" and not "this was clearly an indication." That is the very definition of NPOV. 3. Abu Bakr is described throughout the world, in overwhelming scholarly and historic opinion, as the first caliph of Islam. Ali himself swore allegiance to him. Allegations of usurpation are extreme unrealistic POVs that belong on extremist propaganda websites, not Wikipedia. 4. Ali did serve in high offices under his predecessors. 5. There is no objection at all to making the distinction that some rebels withheld the zakat but accepted Muhammad's prophecy, I have reworded to that effect. 6. "Leading Muslims" are the majority of the sahaba and the elders of the community. 7. The Ibn Ishaq reference was Zora's I believe, and can best be explained by her/him. 8. Your sentence "You do remeber what Ali and ibn Abbas thought of Abu Bakr according to Sahi Muslim" is, in congruence with your general style of writing, unintelligible and needs clarification. Do not ask me if I'm sure I want this or that in the article, by way of threatening to insert what you deem to be embarrassing anti-Abu Bakr content. Try to assume the bare semblance of a neutral scholar, and enter whatever you think to be proper and neutral. You may be assured that it will be thoroughly vetted by the rest of us.

What's more, you can't just compartmentalize the whole article into "sunni views" and "shia views". This is an article not a list of bulletin points. The art of encyclopedic narrative entirely escapes you, Striver. If you want to add any points then they will be considered on a case by case basis and not determined as the result of some grotesque barter and threat process. --AladdinSE 14:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to have a "barter and threat process", i just want to point out that it serves the article to have the disputed issues on the "view of" articles, otherwise the main article will boggle down to a "q&a".

As for your points:


 * 1) I have not seen any Shia mention that, but since i have neither seen them dispute it, i wont persist.
 * 2) It does not matter if some non-Muslim belives the prayer insident to be accurate, its still disputed by Shias and can therefore not be presented as fact. Shia have a rediacaly difrent view of how that event happened, they belive it to have been instigated by Aisha, and Muhammad (as) becoming angry at his plot and went to him and pushed him asside while he was leading the prayer, although he was very ill. Abu Bakr should not have been there since he was dissmised to Usamas dispatchment, he abondoned to dispatchment in direct violation to Muhammads (as) explicit orders. The Sunni version can not be presented as a undisputed fact.


 * 3) As for Abu Bakr being described as Muhammads (as) succesor (god forbid), it is simply since the persecution of the Shia have been so sucesfull that its only in recent years that people are realision that Shia have a stronlgly opposite view of the facts. Non the less, majority does not make right. As for Ali havin given alligance, its Sunni pov.


 * 4) non-sence, Accoding to Shahih Muslim, Both Ali and Ibn Abbas viewed Abu Bakr and Umar to be "liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" . He never served under them, he opposed Abu Bakr according to Sahi Bukhari and did nothing more that point out Umars dumb misstakes . Try reading some Nahj al balagha  if you want to see what he realy thought of Abu Bakr:


 * ''Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.


 * ''Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

Ali giving alligance and serving Abu bakr and Umar is a Banu Ummayad lie that unfortunaly stuck as history.


 * 5) Your rewording claims that they witheld Zakat, implieng that they refused to pay it altogether. Such was not the case, they simply did not want to pay it to Abu Bakr.


 * 6) Non-sense. The only one of the Muhajerin present was Abu Bakr, Umar and some other lesser known people, nobody from Banu Hashim was present. NO ONE! Zubair was not present, and he also opposed Umar, ackording to Umar himself in Bukhari. The reason that there was none from Banu Hashim is simple: If one of them found out of their plot, Ali would have been warned and the Coup d'état would have died in its infancy.


 * 8) That Umar and Abu Bakr where according to Ali and Ibn Abbas "liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" . Sure, add the prayer incident and ill add what Ali and Ibn Abbas thought of him.

My conclusion is to extend the consencus reached at the Umar article to this one: keep out the controversies of the main article and raise the in the "view of" article. Ill give you time to answer instead of reverting right now.

--Striver 15:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Ma salam!


 * First, thank you for reassuring us that you did not mean to favor a barter and threat process, such a perception is very poisonous to the atmosphere and I would be relieved to shed it. And thank you for the gesture of allowing some time here in Talk before reverting, I will try and finish my reply as soon as possible. Also, as in my custom for articles undergoing controversial edits, I am limiting out-and-out reverts to once daily, which is a cool-down measure advised by Wikipedia.

Points:
 * 2. I have no objection to rewording to include a brief caviat that some shia sources dispute this version of events. The "radically different view of events" belongs in the Succession to Muhammad article, not here. When the prayer incident is reported as history my neutral western scholars, it is perfectly sound and encyclopedic to present it as fact while stipulating shia objections and reservations.
 * 3. Chalking up near universal historical consensus regarding the fact that Abu Bakr was the first Caliph of Islam to "persecution of shias" is irresponsible and not sufficient cause to alter a history article. Some 80% of Muslims take it for accepted fact and practically 100% of international scholarly consensus depict in the same way. Notice we are not saying "Abu Bakr was and should have been the first Caliph," only that he was. Shia views of the invalidity of elections and the prophetic-dynastic nature of the caliphate are fully explained in the articles. Allegations of usurpation simply do not stand up against international neutral (non-Muslim) consensus.
 * 4. For heaven's sakes, look at your sources! Pure shia-centric bias permeates them all. Thank you for quoting them and citing them, they are clear virulent diatribes that can by no stretch of the imagination be considered neutral and reliable sources. To dispute this point you have to cite respected neutral scholars.
 * 5. They did not want to pay the zakaat tax, and used Abu Bakr as an excuse. They made no show of allegiance to a rival claimant. Anyway this part was the contribution of Zora (if I remember correctly) and I support it because it makes the distinction between apostasy and tax evasion. A minor rewording to inform that some tribes may have professed an objection to Abu Bakr himself as an excuse to withhold the money may not be out of order.
 * 6. Again with Bukhari! That it was controversial and incomplete is stipulated. Despite it's shortcomings, it was more support than Ali received at the time.
 * 8. Even your own citation reads: "So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth." And here you are threatening again to insert additions on a tit-for-tat basis. THIS IS NOT HOW WE COMPOSE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you think something is worthy of inclusion then include it on it's own merits, not as a reaction to an unrelated positive statement. Notice also, that my source was a neutral non-Muslim and extremely well known historical work, whereas as yours is a clearly biased shia polemic (like Nahj al-Balaghah). --AladdinSE 16:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for det delayed answer.


 * 2) in that case you can write that some citet western scholar and Sunnis belive the prayer incident to be in one way, and the Shias belive it to be in some other way. None of us wittnesed it, so we cant say it was in either way, only state what we belived happend based on the evidence we prefer


 * 3) Shia have a problem with sayin he succeded Muhammad (as), since it implies he succeded his walyat, his guardianship. Now, sunni belive that Abu Bakr did continue with Muhamamds (as) waliyat, Western dont care, since the dont belive there was any divine waliyat and Shia reject that. As for Abu Bakr succeding Muhamamd (as) in power, there is a consensus that he did, but not in general succesion. Abu Bakr gained power is NPOV, Abu Bakr Succeded Muhamamad (as) is Sunni POV. Westerns dont care for the distiction, since they dont belive in Islam.


 * 4) Nahj Al-Balagha is not a reliable sources? Whadever. I dont care for trying to establish what happened, You can claim that sunnis belive that, and Shias belive the opposite. While we are at it, exatly HOW did Ali serve Abu Bakr? He did not lift a finger to help Abu Bakr kill the ones that didnt whant to give him zakat, nor did he give him his aligance for mont, after wich some Sunni sources (not all) claim that he did so.

And btw, if Ali did not think his inheritace was violetade, why did he go to Umar to again claim it?


 * 5) that is non-sense, Ali enjoyed great support, The whole Banu Hashim refused to give their oath to Abu Bakr till he supposedly did so, and there is no evidence that Banu Hashim was the only ones to reject Abu Bakr.


 * 6) The whole Banu Hashim Supported Ali, not Abu Bakr. That is a CLEAR indicatino that something was VERY wrong.


 * 7) That part about God aproving Abu Bakr is Umar pov, the part about Ali and Ibn Abbas rejecting Abu Bakr is Umars admision. And it certanly deserves to be included in this article that Umar and Abu Bakr where according to Ali and Ibn Abbas "liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" 5.

--Striver 12:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt
I've revised the article, yet again, to try to state Sunni AND Shi'a claims as claims, and not as facts. The article should not lean one way or another. It shouldn't go into detail at all, in my opinion, as that should be covered in the separate article, Succession to Muhammad -- which I really really need to work on. Zora 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like to appear to hinder your genuine efforts at NPOV, I just honestly completely disagree with your approach. Claims were stated as claims in the previous version, this revision cuts too much out and damages style and flow. I will make 1 edit which you have pushed for, in the spirit of compromise. And yes, the Succession to Muhammad article most certainly needs urgent attention. --AladdinSE 05:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, you keep restoring your Sunni version, in which you state as fact matters which the Shi'a dispute. You give NO sources for your claims, you are just very very sure that you are right. This is not scholarship, this is prejudice. If there's a dispute, you have to learn to STEP BACK and include both sides, rather than pushing to have your view enshrined as fact. Zora 06:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Recently you have been reverting a huge amount of material that you and I and other editors had agreed upon months and months ago, until this article and others was recently ravaged by shia-centric POVs. Now all of a sudden you favor this watered down unencyclopedic hodgepodge of weak and ambiguous statements masquerading as an article. This version is by far the scholarly consensus as you yourself point out in the Succession to Muhammad article. And stop referring to it as "my Sunni version". Unlike other editors, I do not wear my religion (if I even subscribe to one) on my sleeve nor do I consider myself as here representing any of my affiliations. We have gone through a great deal of discussion about many of the salient points in dispute, but if you insist that there are still POVs then please list them again in bullet form and we will digest them one at a time.--AladdinSE 06:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

We had no "agreement", I just didn't push back for a while. Weak and ambiguous statements is fine, if the alternative is presenting one side of a dispute as true. And you ARE presenting a Sunni version, a tidied up for the mosque version of events, that bears little relationship to the complexities of the actual event. You give no references and you don't seem to have read any of the primary sources or the academic literature. This article is NOT the place to argue about the succession, or to advance the Sunni position at the expense of the Shi'a; that's what the Succession article is for. Put your attention THERE. Zora 06:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My comments: I am sure of one thing. Putting "The Prophet" at the bottom will bring Babojobu screaming and that should be removed. I also think it would bring Striver screaming since he's still supportive of Shia ranking of the Sahaba my current pet peeve and a VfD I think you should visit ~_~. In any case, I don't think I feel as strongly about all of this as Zora... but, when you say her edits ruin the flow... it's only because it becomes less like a narrative... and, neutrally... it's not a narrative because it's not agreed upon. In all honesty Aladdin, you just make the traditional Sunni version seem as if it's correct... and the Shia version as if scholars just don't agree with it. Zora asked for references... I'm not sure how much they'll help since they'll either be Shia or Sunni... I think it's a matter of judgment... and that is not to aggrandize anyone. When you say "Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come" you must also show that while keeping most of the Islamic state together it did cause problems... and I've read that he has been blamed for earlier sectarianism... if you want a full blown discussion of succession here then maybe... but it must be neutral... otherwise you should export succession talks to the succession article. gren グレン 14:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know who or what Babojobu is, but like I said in my last edit summary, there is no objection to changing the succession box in that manner, if you really think that is aggrandizement. As Zorra points out in several places, the majority Sunni view happens to be significantly more accepted internationally then the other view. Even so, Shia views and reservations are everywhere noted, just as the Sunni ones are. One of the most fantastically absurd edits being perpetrated in the name of political correctness masquerading as neutrality is the edit where any reference to the caliph's election is being systematically obliterated and substituted with "assumes leadership" and whatnot. It's ridiculous! You can't overrule centuries of scholarly consensus because a minority religious opinion disputed the validity of the election. My edits clearly state that the elections were controversial and not complete. What you do in such circumstances is your clearly state that such minority opinion exists and what it is. Imagine the uproar if I were to go into the George W. Bush, Al Gore and the U.S. presidential election, 2000 articles and remove any trace or reference to the fact that Bush was in fact elected, all because of the Florida voting controversy and a minority opinion that to this day insist that Bush was never genuinely elected. It's utterly absurd and I would be booted out of Wikipedia for vandalism! Now Zora, again, please list those points you believe are unsourced Sunni POVs that are stated as fact when they ought not to be, and we will go through them one by one. Gren, if you've read that Abu Bakr's actions in keeping the early state together has also "been blamed for earlier sectarianism" then yes that sounds perfectly legitimate, why don't you put it in, and expand it a little.--AladdinSE 22:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladdin, I've finally completely rewritten Saqifah and if you'll read it, you'll see why saying that Abu Bakr was "elected" is a a misleading usage. It smacks of modern elections -- announced in advance, clear who can vote and who can't, majority rule, etc. None of those were present at Saqifah. This is NOT to say that this therefore means that Abu Bakr was not a legitimate leader. I'm now reading Fred Donner's book, The Early Islamic Conquests, and he goes into great detail on the pre-Islamic political organization and political culture of Arabia. Most of the "elections" of chiefs would have been somewhat like Saqifah -- ad hoc, limited to a few powerful people, and objectors possibly summarily "jumped on". Shura would perhaps be better translated as "consultation by the elders and powerful men" rather than "election". By insisting on using "election", you're insisting on an anachronism.


 * Your scorn for the Shi'a as a minority, whose opinion doesn't count for much compared to that of the majority Sunni, is not helpful in dealing with these issues. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily include ALL opinions -- frex, there's some guy who keeps trying to insert his theory that the Kaaba was a Hindu shrine into Kaaba. He's a lone wingnut and doesn't count. But there are millions of Shi'a, there have been Shi'a for many centuries, and they can't just be wished away as insignificant. They're significant enough that their opinion deserves to be mentioned, and not just as an afterthought to the "true" Sunni version. They could be right -- being in the minority doesn't preclude being right. (Copernicus was right even if very few people believed him.) Once a dispute is significant, Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. That's what NPOV means. Please don't take sides. Zora 03:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I scorn no one, and your incendiary portrayal is attitude that we can do without right now. The main point which escapes you is that recent research which has given more credence to Shia positions of late do not overcome, they do not even balance, the sheer volume of centuries of international consensus which still represents research orthodoxy. The Saqifah article is very important, and I have made some changes in deference to it and linked it directly in the Rise to the Caliphate section, among some other changes. Still, there are several instances there where Shia's say this and Sunnis say that that are unsourced and need further work. I wish you'd stop basing your recent spurt of changes so exclusively on relatively recent, often controversial works that while very scholarly and interesting, still represent a minority opinion.--AladdinSE 17:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue of neutrality is not portraying the majority opinion as truth (because truth in this is about as well known as truth with Jesus), but to discuss it in a way that can portray multiple viewpoints... and yes, Shia are surely notable enough. It would be wise in my opinion to be more vague and if you want to go into specific factional views then do so.  You can even preface them by Sunnis have 90% (about?) of the Muslim population, etc. or something to show that that it is viewed as truth by many more Muslims.  But, you cannot portray the story as truth and then show minorities as crackpots... or, at least make the reader feel loathe to believe them.  I understand that you don't want to give Shia and Sunni equal footing, but, scholarly concensus especially when done through faith based scholarly ways based on the acceptance of certain hadith, etc. is not truth and we should not be portraying the majority as correct just because they are the majority.


 * Zora, I found ths amusing... you might want to show Striver this... since he'll likely think you're anti-Shia (as he did me ~_~) for your vote here. gren グレン 18:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gren, i apologize if i gave the impresion that i think you are anti-Shia. I did not mean that, i only concluded that most of the Shia editions and articles that i add must go through a fvd or some other controversy to get accepted. I dont know why, but its so i perceive it. Again, i do not view you as anti-shia. --Striver 12:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Major revision
I made a major revsion, puting claims as calims and facts as facts. Comments?

--Striver 19:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely unacceptable. Besides it being littered with grammatical errors, it has no style and flow whatsoever. You have several subsections with barely a line or two in them. For every Sunni view, you have put in several [fantastic sounding] Shia claims that make thia article sound like the Al Ansar website, not Wikipedia. A totally disastrous and highly POVed revision. --AladdinSE 21:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, could i ask of you to fix my grama and comment on the povnes of my version?--Striver 21:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I don't want to spend the time trying to fix your version, since I have to agree that it's just as Shi'a-POV as Aladdin's is Sunni-POV. BOTH of you guys need to step back. Zora 22:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, you do have a propensity to write as if what you know is definitive Shia doctrine, if this is the case then you would not have a problem citing a lot for what you do. Style is completely ruined when you go Sunni say, Shia say... and it's not informative and it doesn't make the distinction that more believe Sunni... in fact, Aladdin, it was the opposite of what you were doing. You were saying Sunni are more numerous so we must merely show their views as Abu Bakr's history... neither of these ways is how to do this. I personally think Zora is being pretty level-headed about this not neglecting Shia nor aggrandizing them. gren グレン 02:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly, and I hope you guys have noticed several edits in the last couple of days where I have tried to move closer towards what Zora was talking about, though of course not as far. And again, I am not saying that because Sunni are more numerous we ought to present their version as Abu Bakr's history, merely that the Sunni version happens to have centuries of Western scholarly agreement behind that is not equaled, or even close to being balanced by, some of the relatively recent research and publications Zora has been reading. --AladdinSE 05:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that Western scholars followed the Sunni line is that they tended to have studied Arabic in Sunni countries and that they were still learning about Islam. They hadn't gone very deeply into it! A lot of Western scholars made their names just as translators of major Sunni documents. I think Madelung has something of a Shi'a bias -- he's spent his life studying Shi'a and Ismaili texts -- but that's good, because it forces all the scholars to go more deeply into the matter. Patricia Crone and her students have also taken an extremely sceptical line.

Aladdin, I appreciate it that you're being willing to budge -- a little -- but I'd like to you to be willing to move a bit further. Frex, saying that the Ibn Ishaq material I present in Saqifah is new -- it's not new, it's from one the oldest texts we have on Islamic history. Zora 07:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you saw fit to revert to the older version and disregarded my compromises regarding elections and shura. I'm afraid at this time I cannot go any further than I have, so I had to revert. I believe the 2000 American presidential elections is a perfect analogy. You cannot go into WP articles and reword to remove mention of Abu Bakr having been elected anymore than you can use the 2000 controversies to remove mention that Bush was in fact elected. In 2000 we had a presidential elections held in the most modern state in the world featuring full democratic participation reflective of the times, and still there was an enormous amount of controversy, yet the election is still an election. And because there was controversy in the middle of the Arabian desert more than 1400 years ago in a primitive society, you want to call into question that Abu Bakr was actually elected? Absurd. We have to maintain a sense of proportion. I cannot allow references to "election" from being watered down to "assumes leadership." Nor can I countenance the deletion of references to his actions unifying the state and laying the foundations for empires to come any more than I can agree to stripping the emperor Augustus of the credit for establishing the Pax Romana which was achieved, after all, at the point of a sword by putting down rebellions. --AladdinSE 21:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aladin, Shia do NOT belive that (A) Abu Bakr was elected and Shia do NOT belive that (B) Ali gave his oath of aligance. Abu Bakr draged him though the streets after Fatimah died, whent behind his back, took his hand and CLAIMED that he got Alis aligance. Ali didnt coment on it, since he said himself in Nahj al-Balagha that he contenplated on wheter to attack or endura, and he found endurance to be wiser. He did NOT "serve" them, rather he pointed out their obvious misstakes, as they did them, since it was his duty to be a Imam, even if his political and economical resources had been usurped. That is the Shia view. Sunni do not get to portray their versio as facts, they get to point that they are the majority and that they belive as they do. WP is not to take side where there is opposed views. --Striver 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And for your information, according to Sunni and Shia, there was only Abu Bakr left as candidate after the Saqifa meeting, a meeting were only the Ansar, Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidullah participiated, in other words almost NONE of the Muhajerin participiated in the meeting that removed all candidates from the "election". Of course did Muhajerin not aprove of this, According to tabari did Zubair drew his sword and demanded that Ali was to be given the oath, and the whole of Banu Hashim rejected the "election". That does not meet the definition of a national election, that is a election made by the Ansars only, and violently opposed by the Muhajerin. The olny reason that oppen warfare did not erupt is that Ali refused Abu Sufyans help and did not start a civil war against Abu Bakrs shia. --Striver 12:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, the vast bulk of international scholarly research rejects most of your impassioned revisionist POVs. I'm done arguing these fantasy points with you (dragging him through the streets and faking the allegiance is especially out there). I will let your above rhetoric and the unadulterated biased polemics you use to justify them as the perfect reason why not to allow these edits. --AladdinSE 03:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Whats wrong with you Aladdin? Im simply stating that Shia belive in that version, something that is true and NPOV. Why cant you take that? --Striver 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For brevity, simply present both perspectives
Explaining any type of fact carries with it many problems. A witness to a car accident, who has absolutely no interest in the outcome of the accident, is more likely to give a more accurate account of the events than the “participants/victims” in the accident. When an incident occurs in present-day times, it is clear that problems arise in explaining the incident from a neutral point of view; not to mention the more controversial types of incidents where politics and/or religion are concerned. To add the element of time only adds to the problem. Therefore, attempting to explain the history of Islam from a neutral point of view is probably a lot more difficult than most subjects. Almost every aspect turns on the differing acceptance of reporters, texts and scholars.

The question is therefore, are reporters accepted because of their beliefs, or because of their trustworthiness? Essentially, that is what it comes down to. How much do you trust a particular reporter? It is more likely that Shias will accept Shia reporters and Sunnis will accept Sunni reporters. As for the non-Muslim, he/she may wish to search for a non-Muslim reporter. However, due to the rapid expanse of Islam during that time, such reporters are probably rare, because I am fairly certain that the majority of the population had become Muslim. It may well be that for the purposes of Wikipedia, which is probably the first to deal with such differences in such detail, it would be better to simply identify all the contentious subjects, and split each article into two: “The Sunni account” and “The Shia account”. As a Shia Muslim, I hate to have to resort to such division, but the truth has to be found. Oh and Zora I apologise for not replying to your message in the proper fashion. I'm still trying to learn the ins and outs of this site. User:Adamcaliph 21:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Should the Sunni and Shia versions be considered equivalent?
It seems that there is an assumption being held by some of the participants here that the Shia and Sunni POVs on Abu Bakr are essentially equivalent. While this is perhaps true to some extent, I think it is also fair to say the Sunni POV is at least somewhat more disinterested here. As I understand it, the validity of Sunni Islam does not particularly depend on whether or not Abu Bakr is viewed as the legitimate successor of Muhammad - certainly not the extent that the Shia point of view is dependent on viewing Ali as the legitimate succesor. The entire basis of Shia Islam, as I understand it, is the claim that Ali and his descendants were the legitimate successors of the Prophet. As such, it is necessary for the Shia to denigrate Abu Bakr (and Umar and Uthman) and insist on Ali as the proper successor. On the other hand, Sunni Muslims today are not particularly concerned with the validity or virtue of the Orthodox Caliphs who actually did succeed Muhammad - they are perfectly willing to admit the venality of many of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs, for instance. As such, I am not sure what the value of treating Sunni and Shia versions as though they are both equivalently POV. john k 18:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Bravo! Good observation. Zora 22:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit on my view, it appears that the views of secular historians on Abu Bakr (and Umar, and Uthman, and Ali) are closer to the traditional Sunni view than they are to the traditional Shiite view. I am trying to argue that this should not be interpreted as being a result of secular historians being biased in favor of the Sunnis. Rather, that the historical interpretations of Sunnis are closer simply because the Sunni perspective on this subject is closer to a secular historical one than the Shia one. Shia accounts of this time period were largely written explicitly in order to defend Shia religious claims. Sunni accounts, on the other hand, are not terribly concerned with Shia religious claims, because to most early Sunnis, the Shias were not a terribly significant threat. The Shia historical tradition seems to be explicitly polemical, and all figures become either good guys or bad guys. Ali and his sons are good guys; The first three caliphs and the Umayyads or evil villains. The Sunni account, on the other hand, speaks against interest. It portrays Ali favorably, and does not show Muawiya I or Yazid I in an especially good light. It is no wonder that most historians generally accept the Sunni account as more reliable, because, from the perspective of a non-believer, it shows all the traits of being more reliable. john k 22:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not true. Sunni base their whole religious doctrine from that era, and beliving in Abu Bakr not being a legitimit leader would totaly destroy the whole basis of the Sunni foundation. For example, sunni still practice triple talaq only since they belive that Umar tought it to be ok, even though they admit that Muhammmad (as) treated it as one talaq. Their adhan is different only since Umar changed it. The reason is that they admit Yazid to be a open sinner is that it is impossible to deny it, not because they are so non-biased. Try to make a sunni admit that Ali refused to give aligance to Abu Bakr for as long as Fatimah lived, that she refused to talk to Abu Bakr and was buried in secret, without Abu Bakr or Umar present. --Striver 03:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this stuff about talaq and adhan is nitpicking. Evidence that Abu Bakr was a bad guy is irrelevant. Abu Bakr's legitimacy derives not from his being somehow the chosen successor of Muhammad, but from the idea that Muhammad didn't choose a successor, and that it was up to the community of the faithful to determine who should be the next leader. I don't see how, given these premises, it could possibly be demonstrated that Abu Bakr was not a "legitimate" leader, because Sunnis, so far as I can tell, believe that the legitimacy is essentially derived from Abu Bakr's status as the de facto successor. It is a happy coincidence that he was also a good man, and very close to Muhammad (at least in the Sunni tradition). But that doesn't matter in terms of his legitimacy. Muawiya I and Yazid I and numerous others of poor moral fiber are acknowledged as legitimate Caliphs because the principal concern of Sunni Islam has never been determining that some particular line constitutes the "rightful" successors to Muhammad. The Sunni claim, at its base, is that religious authority derives from some sort of general will of the faithful, as expressed in their acceptance of a particular caliph (or not, as the case may be), and not from some sort of hereditary claim deriving from the Prophet. Abu Bakr cannot be demonstrated to be an illegitimate caliph, because his legitimacy derives not from his virtue, or his closeness to Muhammad, but from the fact that he was recognized as Caliph by the community as a whole. This last is a historical fact. So I stand by my original point - the Sunni view of the early history of Islam simply can't be viewed as equivalent to the Shiite view.

Beyond this, I'd note that many of the arguments you are making are circular. "The reason is that they admit Yazid was a open sinner is that its impossible to deny it, not because they are so non-biased." I did not say that Sunnis were "so unbiased" (this is obviously nonsense), but on what basis do you claim that it is "impossible to deny" that Yazid was a sinner? Presumably because the Sunnis do not deny it. But that's meaningless - you haven't established anything. My basic point was that the Sunni argument does not depend on their leaders being sinless, or their opponents being demons, but that the Shiite argument does seem to depend on this, at least in part (I'm not sure how fair I am being to Shiite claims in general by taking your arguments as representative of them). Sunnis admit Ali as a rightly guided Caliph. Shiites denigrate Abu Bakr and Umar (apparently - again, I'm not certain of how representative your arguments are of Shiites in general). Sunnis also admit that many of the Caliphs whom they recognize as legitimate were flawed individuals. So far as I can gather, Shiites believe in the perfect virtue of all of the Imams. Obviously, in a matter of religious truth, one cannot say that one side is correct and the other is wrong (personally, I am an agnostic/atheist, and I don't believe in the truth of either version of Islam). But if one is trying to look at these figures from a historical perspective, the Sunni version just looks more like a traditional historical view than does the Shiite version. After the death of Muhammad, the Sunni tradition represents what is recognizably a historical account. The historical account is certainly biased in numerous ways, and can't be taken at face value. But it is of a different kind than the Shiite tradition, which is essentially a religious morality play. john k 05:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well put, John. --AladdinSE 21:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Response to John K

 * You are correct in your two points: First, that Abu Bakr's legitimacy depends on whether or not Muhammad (as) chose a succesor, and second that it depends upon the people acknowledging it.


 * As far as the first point is concerned, I refer to Muhammad (as) saying, "for whomever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla". Sunnis refuse to belive that that this quote means what it obviously means. Just Google Mawla and check the third hit. . Mawla has always had the dual meaning of master/servant. Muhammad clearly said that for whoever he (Muhammad) is master, Ali is master, and that whoever he (Muhammad) serves, Ali serves. This particular quote is from the event of Gadir Khumm, THE MOST WIDELY narrated event IN MUSLIM HISTORY. It is NOT some backwater hadith Shia cling to, IT IS THE MOST WIDELY NARRATED EVENT EVER IN MUSLIM, SHI'A AND SUNNI, HISTORY! I'm sorry for using caps, but it is to make that clear. Try to search for mawla. Nowhere will you find it meaning anything else other than master/servant, except for the Sunni interpretation of this event. And by the way, Muhammad preceded that sentence by asking whether God is not closer to the beliver than their jugular vein, whereupon people said 'yes'. And he then asked whether he is not the Master/mawla of all Muslims, whereupon people said 'yes'. And then he said "man kunto mawla, fahaza Alion Mawla!", while holding up Ali's hand. Does this sound like he just presented his newly found friend?

Furthermore, this was his last public speech, and in the same speech he said that death is approching him and he leaves his Ahl al-Bayt and Qur'an after him, as testified by Sahih Muslim ! Now, keep in mind that this is narrated by 120+ of the 100,000+ INDIVIDUAL first hand witneses, making this event the MOST authentic event in SUNNI AND SHIA history! Now, keep that in mind and ask yourself why Sunni STILL chant "Quran and Sunnah", when all hadith collections (Shia and Sunni) report "Qur'an and Ahl al-Bayt". Except for one collection, guess which? Yes, the "most" athentic Bukhari! What a coincidence!


 * As far as the second point, the whole of Banu Hashim did in fact oppose Abu Bakr; they all refused to give allegiance to him for as long as Fatimah was alive. She died some months after the event in which Umar and Khalid ibn Walid, on Abu Bakr's, order raided Ali's house, dragged Ali through the streets and fatally injured Fatimah while breaking the door. Although this event is widely reported, Sunni deny it. Why? So Ali was allowed to live and refuse (rafidi) allegiance. But to unpower him they confiscated Ali's and Fatimah's financial assets (Sunni agree to the fact, but not pov). Abu Bakr was the only one that conveniently "heard" Muhammad (as) say that prophets (plural) do not inherit, so Ali and Fatimah where supposed to get zilch. Ali pointed out that the Qur'an testifies that prophets did inherit, but in vain. It was all a farce. Then Abu Bakr confiscated the land of Fadak, wich was given as a gift to Fatimah while Muhammad was alive (Sunni history agrees). That land was then returend to Banu Hashim by Umar II, with the motivation that it belonged to them from the start. Fatimah refused to talk to Abu Bakr, and when she finaly died she was buried without Umar and Abu Bakr knowing or being allowed to pray over her grave - in other words, she was buried in secret. Umar tried to figure out in which grave she was buried, but Ali said he would kill anyone trying to do so, defending Fatimah's last wish. They did leave the grave alone since they believed Ali would keep his word. Later they took him by force and again tried to take the oath of allegiance. They knew that Ali was not going to be violent in that matter, since it could start a civil war. The burial issue was private and did not suffer the same threat, so Ali could defend it with violence if necesary. Until this day, no one knows in which grave she is buried. They dragged Ali though the streets and Abu Bakr demanded allegiance again. He took Ali's back bound hand and claimed to have gained it. Abu Bakr knew that he could not threat Ali with death, since he did not care and he could not kill him, so he just claimed to have gained it. Ali kept silence since he did not want to start a civil war.


 * Ali is quoted in Nahj al-Balagha as saying:


 * ''Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(read the whole sermon)


 * When Fatimah died, Ali demanded his inheriance on his own behalf, ignoring "Prophets..", but Abu Bakr denied. When Umar gained power, Ali a third time demanded his inheritance. This time acompanied by Ibn Abbas, Umar testifies in Sahih Muslim of what they both thought of Abu Bakr and Umar: "liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".


 * Abu Bakr proceeded with killing those who did not accept his rule, and hence refused to pay him taxes (why pay taxes to a illegitimate ruler?). Witnesing all this commotion did of course make some people loose faith in Islam, and Abu Bakr killed them to. The Sunni POV is that this was justified because they claim that these people were hypocrites in the first place:


 * '''Umar frightened the people, some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech. Bukhari

Even the violent Umar was first in disbelief regarding Abu Bakr's actions; that is killing monotheists with "witholding taxes" as the justifiacation:


 * ''Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it."

Bukhari


 * Now, you tell me, does this seem like a legitimate leadership? Or a Saddam style dictatorship? You could always say "well, that is not how it happened because Sunnis do not portray it in that way".


 * Well of course not, do you think that the Banu Ummayad historians would have included that in their historical accounts? History has always been, and will always be, written by those in power. For a less biased version, go read the history of Tabari. He shows how Umar burned Ali's and Fatima's house, how Zubair drew his sword but was overmanned, and so on! And this is from an accepted Sunni source.


 * Does that seem like a legitimal rule?


 * Now, of course Sunnis don't like all this to be included, so they are going to say "it's not authentic, since the narrator did not love Umar". As if someone loving Umar whould narrate that and risk getting killed by the Banu Ummayad, which ruled with an Iron Fist. Why do you think that Sunnis agree to the fact that Ali was cursed ritually at the beginning of every sermon for 80 years until abolished by Umar II ? A coincidence? Or a deliberate attempt of manipulating people's memory of history? Sunnis have through history killed Shias trying not only to extinguish those with an opposing view, but also the memory of there ever having been an opposing view. Those in power have made their best attempt to destroy all hadiths not supporting their views. For a long time, it was a death sentence to even own a Shia hadith. In the early Sunni narrator classification, one was classified as Shia only for liking Ali, and a "rafidi" for rejecting the Caliphs. On that classification they could reject a narrator for being "a Shia" even if the narrator in question accepted the caliphs! I have even heard "he is a little Shia", meaning a Sunni who did like Ali. Total censorship was governing Sunni historians. Anyone not in line with the official view was automaticly deemed "not reliable".


 * Oh, and by the way, Sunnis agree that Ali did get more merits from Muhamamd (as) than almost all the other companions together. Muaviya, for instance, did not get a single authentic merit, Sunnis agree.


 * "the Shias were not a terribly significant threat"? "explicitly polemical"? Are you kidding me? Could you then please explain the systematic killing of Shias throuhout history? Have a read about Karbala, where almost all male descendants of Muhammad were killed! Is that polemic, only empty talk? Was it just an accident that all male descendants of Muhamad were in one place, and another astonishing coincidence that they all died? They where all Shia of Ali! Take and read a bit about Al Hajjaj! Shias have been killed through history, from Abu Bakr taking power to present day. Saddam forbade the morning of Karbala. A coincidence, or did he perceive it as a threat? And what about Abu Bakr? Why go kill muslims unless they were a threat? Untill this very day, Shia believe that anyone who believes in Allah and Muhammad is a Muslim. However, Salafi follow Abu Bakr's example, and give death sentences to Shia, calling us apostates. Just like Abu Bakr did.


 * I say that it is impossible to deny Yazid was a sinner on his own merits. What else to say about someone that was an open drunk and in charge of the army that used catapults with flaming shoots at the Kaaba? A coincidence? They were not aiming at it, but the wind made them turn in mid-air and hit it? Now guess what. The Sunni give the blame to Ibn Zubair who was the aim of the shots, and not to Yazid! How amusing :)


 * When you say "the Sunni version just looks more like a traditional historical view than does the Shiite version", you only do so by judging history with facts that Sunnis are not embarassed to mention. How much do you really know of what happened between Ali, Abu Bakr and Fatimah according to Sunni sources? Sunnis dismiss their own sources with "they had some petty quabbling, but they got over it". But the truth Sunni books testify to is far from that, and the Shia Books give a totally opposite view.


 * ''"it appears that the views of secular historians on Abu Bakr (and Umar, and Uthman, and Ali) are closer to the traditional Sunni view than they are to the traditional Shiite view."


 * Now guess how many Shia books they have read? However, that is changing in resent days :D


 * --Striver 18:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I don't want to get into the details, which you obviously know much better than I do. But it is my very strong impression that for Sunnis, these kind of details simply don't matter as much as they do for Shiites. Shiites, who still, in one way or another, follow the heirs of Ali, must prove that the heirs of Ali were legitimate rulers. Sunnis, who no longer have any connection to the heirs of Abu Bakr or Muawiya, simply don't have the same need to polemicize about this. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the Sunni account may whitewash crimes of Abu Bakr, Umar, et al. I will admit that the interpretation of that Hadith you mention does seem strained. Admitting every factual claim, even the most obvious calumny, made by Shiites would make the early leaders of the Ummah look pretty bad, and make Ali look pretty good. But it wouldn't force all Sunnis to become Shiites, because ultimately Sunni identity isn't defined so closely around the issues of the succession in the early Ummah. It is as if, in an argument today about Protestantism vs. Catholicism, one were to make the argument for Protestantism entirely based on the supposed abuses of the Medieval Church and excesses of the Renaissance popes. john k 21:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A plea for impartiality and reason: Refuting John K’s claims
John K raises some interesting points. However, it seems that his arguments are based more on presumptions than on reason. In fact, some of his presumptions are astonishingly prejudicial against Shi’a historians, for example:

''“After the death of Muhammad, the Sunni tradition represents what is recognizably a historical account. The historical account is certainly biased in numerous ways, and can’t be taken at face value. But it is of a different kind than the Shiite tradition, which is essentially a religious morality play.”'' Please provide some reliable references for this attack on Shi’a sources.

However, this is nothing new. The emergence of a new perspective that has existed for as long as the Sunni perspective, and which challenges the Sunni perspective, is naturally going to appear foreign to the secular onlooker.

John K writes four well-written paragraphs, the contents of which, however, are prejudicial and repetitive. He fails to provide evidence for his criticisms of Shi’a sources. More importantly, he confuses issues that are relevant to the Abu Bakr article with issues that are unrelated to the article. I have therefore organised his arguments in order to prove that:

a)	his arguments are prejudicial and presumptuous; and b)	the Shi’a POV can be considered as reliable as the Sunni POV. Essentially, the 2 processes of logic that John K uses are the following:

John K's first process of logic
1)	“The entire basis of Shia Islam is the claim that Ali and his descendants were the legitimate successors of the Prophet.”

This is John K’s definition of Shi’a Islam. It is a fair assessment, but it is not completely accurate. It is not correct to state that this is the “entire basis” of Shi’a Islam. It is certainly one of the most important aspects of Shi’a Islam. The basis of Shi’a Islam is to obey God. It is a consequence of this Shi’a belief that Ali and his descendants were the legitimate successors. This is a very subtle yet significant distinction. Had (according to Shi'a belief) God wanted Abu Bakr to be the Leader, Shi’as would have had to follow Abu Bakr.


 * Fair enough, I guess. Two points in response: 1) I should have said "the entire basis for Shia Islam, as distinct from Sunni Islam," or something similar.  Sunnis also believe in their duty to obey God.  The distinction is that Shias believe that God wanted Ali and his descendants to be the leader after Muhammad, while Sunni do not believe this. john k 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

2)	“As such, it is necessary for the Shia to denigrate Abu Bakr (and Umar and Uthman) and insist on Ali as the proper successor.”

John K has made this statement as the result of a logical fallacy in his argument. The basis is that because Shi’as follow Ali and his descendents, it necessarily means that they must denigrate Abu Bakr. This is inaccurate, even though the result is incidentally true. However, John K must learn where to begin when discussing a particular subject so that no ground is left uncovered and that presumptions are dealt with. His approach is unstructured and naturally produces unfounded conclusions. Even if Abu Bakr had been the best person in the world, Shi’as would not have accepted him as the legitimate successor, if they didn't believe that God had chosen him. Shi’as follow what they believe were clear announcements of Ali’s leadership. Shi’a Islam does not teach that Abu Bakr should be denigrated merely because he is Abu Bakr. Rather, they denigrate him because of his character and actions, according to the evidence they have.
 * This is a completely circular argument. john k 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a completely circular argument, because... User:Adamcaliph 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

3)	“Shia accounts of this time period were largely written explicitly in order to defend Shia religious claims”. “The Shia historical tradition seems to be explicitly polemical, and all figures become either good guys or bad guys. Ali and his sons are good guys; the first three caliphs and the Umayyads are evil villains.”

Essentially, these statements suggest that Shi’a reporters wrote what they wanted rather than what actually occurred. This is a shocking claim, particularly with the immense numbers of comprehensive and rationally argued Shi’a texts available to John. If anything, had John K researched only slightly into this matter, he would have found how Shi’a books extensively challenge the Sunni tendency to restrict discussion on various issues, particularly regarding Abu Bakr. There are many Shi’a books that explain how important it is to judge on the basis of reliable evidence rather than to follow speculation. I request that John K provides some evidence to support his claim that “Shia accounts of this time period were largely written explicitly in order to defend Shia religious claims”. This is an incredible claim on John K’s part, particularly when he claims the importance of neutrality. Moreover, it seems that such a statement is actually unfalsifiable and points to an element of bias. For John to claim that Shi'a reporters and Shi'as in general choose to reject the truth and do not go out in search of reliable sources is a detestable claim.


 * My perspective is that both sides distort the story, and that neither side provides an accurate account of what happened. However, from the perspective of somebody who is not a believer, it appears that Shi'a have more motivation to distort the story, and thus that their version is more likely to be distorted.  This is not a statement of what is true or not, and who rejects the truth.    All I am saying is that, to a secular historical observer, the Shi'a version looks like a morality play, and the Sunni version looks like a biased and polemical historical narrative.  Neither is to be relied upon, and the Shi'a version can almost certainly provide some useful correctives to the biased account of the Sunnis.  But when it comes to determining which is, on the whole, more reliable, it seems pretty clear that the Sunni version more closely resembles the kind of thing that secular historians are looking for. I will admit that I may be being unfair to Shi'as here, and that I am ultimately working from a materialist standpoint which rejects both versions of Islam as false.  But the basic issue is that the Shi'a have every reason to distort history, and that their version gives no sense that they are trying to play fair with it.  As I noted before, Sunni are willing to admit to various statements against interest in their account.  They admire Ali, and don't particularly admire Muawiya.  They don't try to claim that Muhammad made Abu Bakr his successor, or, so far as I am aware, that anything in the Q'uran or reliable Hadiths necessitated the choice of Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor.  Shi'a will admit to no statements against interest.  What this all means in terms of religious truth, I can't say.  But in terms of determining the historical truth, the Sunni version seems more like a normal historical account than the Shi'a version. john k 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You have clarified your argument constructively. I shall now ask you 3 questions:


 * 1) I understand that you do not consider any Islamic perspective to be reliable; and your position is based upon the concept that an "interest" in the subject is likely to give rise to inaccuracy in reporting on the subject. However, regarding which particular subject(s) do you find that, to a secular historian, the Shi'a POV would be less reliable than the Sunni POV?


 * I would say that for most issues relating to the early Caliphate, the Sunni POV is somewhat more reliable, but that there are almost certainly exceptions to this. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too limited to be especially more specific.  For a relatively undisputed example, I would suggest that Sunni sources are probably more reliable on the character of Yazid I, because they have no particular interest in Yazid one way or the other.  john k 03:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) I still find some sweeping statements in your arguments, e.g. "Shi'a will admit to no statements against interest". This statement may seem harmless at a first glance but it is actually very disparaging. This implies that where a situation arises where a Shi'a is faced with admitting the truth or not, he or she will choose to not admitting the truth. And then for you to claim that Sunnis do admit to statements against their interest, leads me to ask what you have been reading and whether or not you truly do write as a neutral individual. How many Shi'as have you met? How many Sunnis have you met? I request that you provide me with something that Sunnis admit to that is against their interests. You cited Muawiya as an example. If Sunnis do not have an interest in Muawiya, then the example that you have cited is irrelevant. If Sunnis do have an interest in Muawiya, then your example is relevant, but it counters your previous argument that since Sunnis do not have interest in the Caliphs, their POV is more reliable than the Shi'as POV. Please cite another example. This leads to my third question.


 * Okay, perhaps I should be clearer. My basic point is that for Sunnis, the issue of the succession to Muhammad simply isn't as important as it is to Shi'ites.  As such,they feel less need to distort their account of the early history of Islam in order to make it support their POV.  But they still have a POV on the issue of the succession to Muhammad.  They believe that Abu Bakr was Muhammad's rightful successor, that Umar, Uthman, and Ali rightfully followed him, and that Muawiya I more or less rightfully followed Ali.  The issue of statements "against interest" is support for my contention that there seems to be less distortion in the Sunni account.  Shi'as believe that the Sunni account contains a lot of lies and distortions of the early history of Islam.  But if Sunnis really wanted to create a distorted version of history, why wouldn't they make Muawiya a rightly guided Caliph?  Why wouldn't they denigrate Ali?  The reason is that those issues just aren't that important to them.  Thus, the Sunni account is willing to admit to shades of gray to a much greater extent than the Shi'a version.  Now, it may be that there are no shades of gray here.  But from someone not already convinced of the Shi'a position, the Sunni account looks inherently more plausible.  So, again, the issue is not whether Muawiya is a subject in which Sunnis have an interest.  The issue is that the Sunni case vis a vis the Shi'ites would be stronger if they claimed that Muawiya was a righteous guy.  The fact that Muawiya is not a subject of especial interest to Sunnis, and that they are thus willing to admit that he wasn't a great Muslim, suggests that Sunnis are taking a somewhat more dispassionate view of this period than Shi'ites are. john k 03:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) Would your opinion change if you were to find that there are many subjects where Sunnis do not admit to "various statements against interest in their account"? User:Adamcaliph 00:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking me. Of course the Sunnis don't always admit to statements against interest.  I would imagine that nobody does this.  If you could demonstrate that their was a great deal of evidence against the traditional Sunni account of Abu Bakr, without resorting to discussion of Shi'ite traditions, that would be fine, and I'd be happy to entertain them.  There is already some discussion of this in the article, and it would be interesting to have more of it.  I am perfectly ready to believe that Sunni hagiography of Abu Bakr is not based in historical truth.  What I am not willing to do is to use traditional Shi'ite accounts as evidence against the Sunni traditions, because the Shi'a accounts are almost certain to be even less reliable than the Sunni ones.  So, present actual evidence by historians against Abu Bakr.  I am certainly not wedded to the Sunni account, which certainly appears extremely sunny.  But Striver's preferred "Sunni say [this thing with which most professional historians agree], while Shi'ites say [some horrific ad hominem calumny against the man]" is just unacceptable.  Which was my main point to start out with. john k 03:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clear and concise responses. You have clarified that, to a secular historian, the Shi'a POV regarding certain subjects, in this case, Abu Bakr, may consist of a possible degree of motivation to distort the factual accounts. I imagine that I would cite my father as being the person who would be able to offer the most accurate description of my character, merely because he knows me more than anyone. Although I accept that his testimony would not be accepted as being free of bias to a third party. However, this third party would then face a slight predicament. The testimony of whoever offers an accurate description of me is either a relative or a friend; both of which cannot avoid the "apparent" portrayal of bias. A work colleague may know my "at work" character; yet this would hardly be a complete or accurate account of my true character. The predicaments that secular historians face with regard to Islamic history are many. As a Shi'a Muslim, I have engaged in and witnessed many discussions with Sunnis and with non-Muslims regarding the transmission of events. To a secular historian, the apparent "motivation to bias" exists on both sides. Unfortunately, Sunni accounts have dominated the arena since the beginning and I do not believe that their admission to "undesirable" accounts, the evidences of which are usually undeniable in any event, should be necessarily taken as an indication of their neutrality. The secular historian may not necessarily have the time, energy or motivation to investigate the accounts. Although I will say this. In your investigation, should you choose to progress further, you will encounter many situations where you will notice the oppression of Shi'a texts, resources and people and the overwhelming need for certain Sunni scholars throughout the centuries, to distort the accounts. I also do not believe that the claim that the "Shi'a will admit to nothing that is against their interest" has been supported by evidence. In any event, I believe that the predicaments faced by Wikipedia, in particular Shi'a contributors, will not be solved until Sunni historians are investigated. Many of the argumentation is circular, time-consuming and usually counter-productive. However, I have enjoyed the discussion. I wish you luck in your future investigations and hope that we shall all eventually discover the truth of matters; and more importantly accept them. Adamcaliph 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

4)	Therefore, the Shi’a point of view (in relation to Abu Bakr) is more likely to be based on bias, rather than truth.

This statement, which I have constructed from a summary of his arguments, is a logical conclusion from statement 3). However, due to the unfounded claim of statement 3), statement 4) is also unfounded.


 * As I said above, I am not trying to prove that the Shi'a are wrong, because I cannot do that. Just that from a secular perspective, their account appears less convincing as a historical narrative. john k 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Herein lies the crux. From a secular perspective, their account appears less convincing as a historical narrative. I am not eloquent myself enough to explain better than that. --AladdinSE 06:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

John K's second process of logic
1)	“The validity of Sunni Islam does not particularly depend on whether or not Abu Bakr is viewed as the legitimate successor of Muhammad.”

This is accurate. Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is not primarily of particular importance to Sunni Islam. However, his character and opinions are; and thus the methods by which he became Caliph are of consequential importance.


 * They are of importance, certainly. But not of the same importance to Sunnism as the issue of the succession is to Shi'ites.  I have never tried to say that Sunnis are producing a reliable, disinterested account of the early history of Islam.  Just that their version is more reliable, and more disinterested, than the Shi'a version.

2)	“The Sunni POV is at least somewhat more disinterested (than the Shia POV in relation to Abu Bakr).”

This statement is incomplete. Does John K mean that the Sunni POV is more disinterested in relation to: a)	Abu Bakr’s legitimacy to Caliphate; or b)	Abu Bakr’s character and opinions?

If it were found that Sunnis are interested in Abu Bakr’s character, would the Sunni POV not be subject to the same criticism of bias as the Shi’a POV (as claimed by John K)?


 * Of course the Sunni POV is subject to some of the same criticisms of bias as the Shi'a opinion. Just not as much, because Abu Bakr, in whatever form, is not as important to Sunni Islam as Ali, and the whole succession issue, is to Shi'ism. john k 21:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

3)	Therefore, the Sunni point of view (in relation to Abu Bakr) is more likely to be based on truth, rather than bias.

Again, this, which is my construction based upon a summary of his arguments, is an unfounded claim based upon previous speculation rather than reason and evidence.

Legitimacy
John K repeats the concept of legitimacy. What legitimacy is he discussing here? i)	Was Abu Bakr the first Caliph after Muĥammad? Shi’as say yes. Sunnis say yes.


 * Actually, Striver for one repeatedly refuses to assign Abu Bakr the title of caliph, insisting he was a "usurper." --AladdinSE 21:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean ISLAMIC caliphat (succeding a prophet), not secular Caliphat (succeding power monopoly) --Striver 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The early caliphs, especially the Rashidoon, practiced a caliphate were temporal and spritual authority were virtually indistinguishable, very much like the papacy of Julius II, for example.--AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is your definition, not mine, it is you that say Abu Bakr succeded in poth secular and Islamic manner, i claim he did so in only secular manner. He blatantly dissregarded Ghadire Khumm, and everyone following him since that day is forced to interpret Mawla as friend! --Striver 07:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes yes, we all know what you think by now. It happens to be a minority opinion (which you in turn have taken to extremes) in both the Islamic world and the Western scholarly world, in case you haven't noticed. Also, regardless of whether or not the first three Caliphs should have been elected or not, they did in fact become the caliphs, and they did PRACTICE both temporal and spiritual authority which was accepted by the contemporary Islamic community at large. Deal with it.--AladdinSE 08:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * As Ali says in Sahih Muslim, "i will not leave the traditions of the Prophet on the saying of somebody", refering to Umars desicion to inovatily ban Mutah of hajj, and Uthman sticking to that desicion. Since Ali himseld is quoted as saying that, i see it beyond argumatation between us two the fact that Umar changed Muhammads Sunnah. Therefore, it is obvious debatable wheter they where succesors to Muhmmad in the Islamic sense.


 * 1. "argumatation " is not a word. 2. You are missing the point. Of course Shia believe he should not have succeeded, neither to the temporal nor spiritual power of the Caliphate. I was talking about PRACTICE. He practiced temporal power, in the "Islamic sense" as you put it, even if you think he should not have. Even if we were, for the sake of argument, to take your above interpretation at face value, the very fact that he did "changed Muhammad's Sunnah" is PROOF that he held full authority to do so in the Islamic state. --AladdinSE 11:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Im not talking about practicing Islam outwardly, rather about having Islamic legitimacy for the Caliphat. Abu Bakr did not have that in the shia pov, since we intreprit Mawla as what it means and not some ad-hominem meaning of "friend".

ii) Was Abu Bakr’s Caliphate legitimate in Islam? Shi’as say no. Sunnis say yes.

So, what is John's point? What relevance does it have to the present discussion? John also wrote:

“Abu Bakr cannot be demonstrated to be an illegitimate caliph because his legitimacy derives not from his virtue, or his closeness to Muhammad, but from the fact that he was recognized as Caliph by the community as a whole.”

This statement is incorrect.

1)	Again, what legitimacy is he referring to? Islamic? Democratic? Republic? On what basis is he claiming that “Abu Bakr cannot be demonstrated to be an illegitimate caliph”? I am sure that John is aware that “legitimacy” is a relative concept. If John is referring to Islamic legitimacy, let us discuss that. First identify the issue, and then progress.

2)	“He was recognised as Caliph by the community as a whole”. Please provide evidence for this claim. If this is not your actual claim, but rather you were stating that Sunnis believe this, then please provide a reason as to why you believe the Sunni perspective is more acceptable and/or reliable.

Adamcaliph 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here I perhaps did not express myself very well. My point is, that for Sunnis, Abu Bakr's status as legitimate caliph derives largely from his status as de facto caliph. That is, he was legitimate because he was generally accepted as Caliph. Since this is a historical fact which is unlikely to come under dispute, it is hard to see how Abu Bakr could be proved an illegitimate Caliph when one is working from the premises of Sunni Islam. john k 21:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read the above carefully. I think John's original statements and point by point replies are the very definition of impartiality and reason. These Caliph/Succession articles have suffered from circular polemics for long enough. --AladdinSE 21:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * And I have read the same, and think that John does not have more than a shallow impresion of what he is addressing, as he himself admitted. He is building his whole argument on the notion that it can NOT be proven that Abu Bakr's caliphate was illegitimate in Sunni pov, since he states that sunnis believe that was he was a caliph because he was the de facto ruler. Interestingly, he refuted himself a few lines above where he said that Abu Bakr's Caliphate was based on two other points, Muhammad (as) not choosing a Caliph and Abu Bakr being "widely" accepted. I proved both points to be false with the event of Ghadire Khumm and Banu Hashim's total rejection of Abu Bakr, not escalating to civil war due to Ali's desicion of taking a low profile, without submitting to the oppressors. John did not reply to my response and only maintained that he was not informed enough to answer them. Then he did a total turnabout and changed his first statment regarding the Sunni view of Abu Bakr's legitimacy as a Caliph depending on those two points, and changing it to depend on merely the fact that he was the de facto ruler, without detailing what form of legitimacy he is taliking about, Islamic, Democracy... -Striver


 * You have based your refutations on Shia non-facts and highly POV interpretations of events, which you always do. --AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is Mawla meaning "master/servant" pov? Is Muhammad leaving the Quran and Ahl al-Bayt non-Fact? EXACTLY WHAT PART of the refutation is non-fact?


 * What are you talking about?? There is so much fantastical verbiage you have inserted that it's difficult to keep track. --AladdinSE 08:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, lets do that, lets through in accusations and not be specific. --Striver 12:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stiver, your "specifics" are a collection of extreme interpretations and recitations of incidents that if you haven't noticed, no one else here is interested in, and no one assigns them one-one hundredth the fanatical significance that you deem indispensable.--AladdinSE 11:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to note, on the issue of whether Muhammad nominated a successor, neither side is particularly to be trusted, since both are clearly biased. That said, it is for Shi'ites to prove that Muhammad did nominate a successor, not for Sunnis to prove the converse, which would be impossible.  But beyond this particular issue, I stand by my point.  Although Abu Bakr and his successors are viewed as righteous leaders by Sunnis, there is no particular reason to assume that this is entirely apologetical, because Sunnis are willing to admit that other leaders - such as Muawiya - were not terribly virtuous.  If Abu Bakr were awful, couldn't Sunnis admit that as well?  Why would Sunnis admit that Muawiya was pretty bad, but have to make excuses for Abu Bakr, et al?  Obviously, the Sunni account is not wholly reliable, and there are some reasons to lie.  But not nearly as many reasons to distort the story as Shi'ites have.  All I am saying is that NPOV doesn't mean that we have to present these two versions as equal, and that the fact that secular historians tend to be closer to the Sunni account is not especially because historians have a Sunni bias, so much as because, on the face of it, the Sunni version appears more plausible.  I am certainly not arguing for presenting the Sunni version as fact, just not for treating the two versions as equivalent. john k 01:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you missed the part where i extensivly told you that THE MOST WIDELY narrated event in the WHOLE muslim history, in BOTH Shia AND Sunni sources is the event in Ghadire Khumm where Muhammad said he was going to (A) die soon (B) leave the Quran AND the Ahl al-Bayt after him (C) and proclaimed Ali as the Mawla of every beliver? Maybe its easier to not address that and keep chanting "non-biased western dont belive shia non-sense"?--Striver 01:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But, according to you, Sunnis admit the truth of this story, but merely dispute the interpretation. I don't see what your point is.  If anything, it supports my point - Sunnis are willing to admit to (apparent) facts that do not particularly support their case, while Shiites do not do the same.  Sunnis admit to this speech.  They admit to Ali being a virtuous man and a rightly guided caliph.  They admit to Muawiya and Yazid being crap.  If you are a good example of what Shiites believe, Shiites are unwilling to admit to virtually anything that tends to undermine the Shiite version of history. john k 02:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So where did Shia not admit to apparant facts, could you give a example? Of cource they need to addmit that, how could they deny something wittnesed by 100 000 and havin 100+ SURVIVING first hand narrations about? The fact is, the MOST trusted Sunni collection,Sahih Bukhari, of all does just that, it TOTALY ommits to mention those speeches! However, his student in his collection, Sahih Muslim, did not have the nerve to ommit it, so he included the most sunni spinned version he could find. Again, what fact do shia refuse to admit? You really like to repeat that, but give no examples of it! So, now that i did give a speech that clearly says Ali was desinged as succesor, what are your comments about it? What does "whosoever im mawla of, Ali is mawla" mean to you? Speacialy in conectino that he is sayin he is going to die and he is leaving the Quran and his Ahl al-Bayt? And that he did that in the MOST well recorded even EVER in muslim history? Is there a more clear and unambigous way to designe a succesor than to say he has the SAME athority as you, WHILE you are alive? --Striver 07:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As for you, AladdinSE, you keep portraying the election of one of the three people that happened to be in the Saqifa as something positive, although they did not have the authority of representing anyone except themselves; even though Umar did NOT inform anyone in Muhammad's house as to why he was leaving or where he was going. Doesn't that bring his motives into question, when he failed to tell where he was going to Banu Hashim, but he told Abu Bakr, when everyone were in the same house?


 * And furthermore AladdinSE, could you tell me WHY Fatimah refused to talk to Abu Bakr? In your oppinion, why did she became so ANGRY, that she refused to even talk to him? --Striver 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, Striver, you are basing all this on non-facts, disputed facts, and highly POV interpretations of events. And by the way you are describing all this as if you saw it all in a filmed documentary and not sketchy accounts that came from a primitive society over 1400 years ago. No one knows for sure the real reasons why tempers were inflamed and factions formed and men and women took stands (allegedly) against each other. There is no REAL explanation why the prophet's widow opposed Ali, or how far this opposition really extended. The same goes for Fatima. The events are not known as gospel truth, and interpretations of what little we do know is highly inflamed and emotional. This, I think, is especially true for the minority Shia perspective, where in the most extreme of cases (like Grand Ayatollahs and their grandchildren), EVERYTHING was and continues to be a huge conspiracy. --AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "non-facts, disputed facts, and highly POV interpretations of events"? what are you talking about? Wich of the following is disputed? (A) "election of one of the three people that happened to be in the Saqifa", (B) "they did not have the authority of representing anyone except themselves" (C) "Umar did NOT inform anyone in Muhammad's house as to why he was leaving" (D) "he failed to tell where he was going to Banu Hashim, but he told Abu Bakr, when everyone were in the same house" ? Exactly WHAT of those parts are diputed!? --Striver 07:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "The same goes for Fatima." Are you sure? Are you REALLY telling me the SUNNI AUTHORATIVE sourced do NOT tell WHY Fatimah got angry and stoped talking with Abu Bakr? Or are you denynig that SUNNI AUTHORATIVE sources tell that she (f)actualy got angry and stopped talking with Abu Bakr for THE REST OF HER LIFE, since you say "women took stands (allegedly) against each other"? --Striver 07:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm REALLY telling you. As John said before, most of these events (and they are not nearly as you portray them yourself) are not considered to be of major import to the Sunnis or to most scholars. Try to calm your exclamations. FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE was a mere six months after all (just as an example). --AladdinSE 08:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me this hadith from Bukhari:


 * ''Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah's Apostle used to do." So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.


 * Is that unabigous enough for you? Does it explain to your satisfaction WHY she was so angry that she did not talk to him for the rest of her life? Or are you going to question Sahih Bukharis authenticity? Do you like the man that made Fatimah so angry? --Striver 12:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Even to take these centuries old accounts at face value: She didn't get an inheritance and she was furious and did not speak to him for six months and then she died. SO WHAT??? Has it escaped your attention that these minor points are of no interest to me or anyone else and that they have no import in the article?? --AladdinSE 11:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that how you refer to the most authentic Hadith collectinon? "So what"? You know the hadith where Muhammad says that whoever angers Fatimah angres him? Where does that place Abu Bakr? That is very relevant to this article.--Striver 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What about the numerous relevent hadiths concerning how Aisha was the most loved of Muhammads wives, that she was like "Tharid" wheras the rest of womankind was "other food".. and yet the Ali, the Son-In-law of Muhammad Shia seem to revere more than Muhammad, in his short caliphate, while he had done nothing to track down the assasins of the Uthman the son-in-law of Muhammad that Shia hate more than the Dajjal, still managed to go to war with her? --Irishpunktom\talk 21:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The hadith about Aisha being the prophets favorite wive are only authentic with Sunni authentication method, Shia authentication method dissmis them as an-authentic. For example was the tharid hadith only narrated by one narrator first hand narrator (unless im misstaken). There are plenty of other hadith wher she is portrayed the opposite, including one famous one found in the sunni collections where she complains about Muhammad not loving her and her father in the same regard as Ali and Fatimah. I did not understand the second part of your message, please refrase. And about Ali "had done nothing to track down the assasins of the Uthman", that a non-sense argument presented by the instigators of the murder of Uthman. It was Aisha and Amr ibn al-Aas that instigated the murder, not a very hard thing to do since Uthamn was corrupt and people hated him. And by the way, it was Ali that sent his sons to protect him from the angry mob of people, not Aisha nor anyone else. In fact, Aisha left Uthman to the mob when he needed suport as the most. In Tabari it is stated that she said "kill the old fool, he has become a unbeliver" and whent for a timely hajj, and when intercepted by Ibn Abbas asking her to back up Uthamn, she replied that she wished Uthman was in her bag, so she could through him in the sea. I think that was in tabari. In other sources it is stated that she became angry since Uthamn refused to give her her inheritance from Muhammad, saying that way it is a  bit lait to claim it, and also asked if it wasnt her own father that denied Fatimah (whom Aisha was jelous of) her inheritance. When Talha did not become the fourth Caliph as Aisha wanted, they joined forces to get the Caliphat, under the banner of avenging Uthman, whom they where not even related to. In the mean time, Muawiya did not lift a finger even though Uthamns widow sent a letter to him asking him to avengen Uthman, his Banu Umayyad relative. Muawiya still did not lift a finger. After Ali convinced Talha and Zubair to abandon Aisha battlefield, did Ali address Muawiya telling him he was relived of hís duties and that he was to give upp his governorship of egypt. Then, all of the sudden, did Muawiya remebered that he must avenge Uthman... And by the way, if Uthamn was Muhammads (sa) son in law - then it would mean that the 40 year old Khadija, twice widowed, gave birth to all her five-six children during her short (five year?) marriage with Muhammad. --Striver 22:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as you say, Shias dismiss them as unauthentic. That leaves more than 80% of the Islamic world that takes them to be authentic. Deal with it. Notice that I still would not take this collection of nit-picking detail, even the sunni version, and dump it into a Wikipedia article. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's an article not a book. --AladdinSE 08:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is already clearified that being 10-20% does makes your oppinion notable. And its not "nit-picking detail", its issues Shia belive to be of crucial importance to showing the relationship betwen Ahl al-Bayt and the Shia of Umar. You try to minimize its relevance since you cant deny it. --Striver 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Striver, don't you see how absurdly one-sided you are being in your argument? Any time a Sunni tradition buttresses a Shi'a claim, you argue "look, even the Sunnis admit that we are right." Then, when the Sunni tradition disputes the Shi'a tradition, you try to say "Well, that's only the Sunni saying that, we Shi'a don't agree." Beyond the fact that this seems to prove my original point - the Sunni are willing to admit to inconvenient facts that don't necessarily support their broader case, while the Shi'a are not - this is trying to have your cake and eat it too. john k 08:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is basicly to claim that Shia are doing something wrong when not accepting the Sunni criteria of authetications. Why dont you do it the other way around, claim that Sunni should accept Shia authentications? Sunni take hadith from forgerers like Abu Hurraira only since he is narrating in Sunni intrest, why dont you take a look at that? It is standard argumantation proces to use your argumantation partners books against himself, you dont go to a christian with the Qura, you go with proof from the bible. If he tries to counter with the Bible, it wont have any effect on the Muslim, since he dosnt belive in the full authenticity of it. The christian needs to use proof from the Quran. Same with Shia-Sunni, Shia use sunn hadith when talking to Sunnis, and Sunnis need to show Shia hadith to make their point.


 * As for things Shia admit against their intrest, i coul point out that shia agree that:


 * Abu Bakr was the first adult Muslim
 * Aisha was Muhammads only young virgin wife. (disputed by some to be Khadija, but not established)
 * He entrusted two of Khadijas children to Uthman
 * Abu Bakr saved manny slaves from being tortured, costing him much money
 * Uthman became dipite his clan being at war with them
 * Ibn Abbas took the Baya to Yazid (although we argue it was using taqiya)
 * Abu Bakr joined the first and third migration, the third one was he the only one accompanieng Muhammad
 * Muawiya was employed by Muhammad
 * Umar did became a Muslim, on his own mind, although he had great support from the enenies of Islam
 * Muhmmad was linked though marriage with all of the five first caliphs (Abu Sufyans daghter)


 * i feel you questioning to be like asking a crime victime if he admits against intrest, since all Muslims agree that Abu Bakr had a huge qurall with both Ali and Fatimah, both regarding inheritage and Ali not giving aligance to Abu Bakr, and he not being informed or represented in the consultatoin, even though he was publicly declared to be everyones Mawla some two month ago. Anyhow, we have no problem addmiting that the usurpers had close family relations with Muhammad, and that they abandoned their own family for the sake of Islam and that they did that on the own. Is this a answer to your question? I mean, i find it odd that you deem Shia to be less trustworthy only since they dont belive those who was in conflict with Ali to be trustworthy. I mean, do you take your families enemies for theire word?


 * Truth and fact is that Fatimah and Abu Bakr where in GREAT opposition to another, however the Sunni dont whant to mention it, even if its undisputed fact, while the Shia have no problem with it and actualy do want to mention it when Abu Bakr is mentioned, on the simple fact that Muhammad said that whoever makes Fatimah angry makes Muhammad angry, summing it up to Abu Bakr making Muhammad angry. That is being true to documented history, the position of not wanting to talk about it is not being true to documented history --Striver 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Further, if you look at it, they only comply to the WIDEDLY reported events, and discredit any minor event that talks against them, for example Aisha sayng regarding Uthman "kill that old fool, since he has become a unbeliver" in The History of Tabari, just prior to leaving him to the mobb. Tabari also reports that Umar lead the siege and assaulted of Alis house and burned his door, but Sunni dont aknowledge that, even tought it is in Tabari! --Striver 12:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I would like to ask you whether or not you find the following statements to be impartial:
 * "After the death of Muhammad, the Sunni tradition represents what is recognizably a historical account. The historical account is certainly biased in numerous ways, and can’t be taken at face value. But it is of a different kind than the Shiite tradition, which is essentially a religious morality play."


 * No. To be impartial I would say The historical account may be biased in numerous ways, and not all of it can be taken at face value. --AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Shi'as will admit to no statements against interest".


 * I'm ambivalent about this one. --AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Shia accounts of this time period were largely written explicitly in order to defend Shia religious claims". User:Adamcaliph 01:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. --AladdinSE 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Preceded by
I quote this talk page:


 * ''Since Caliph apparently meens "sucessor" shouldn't Muhammad be listed as the preceeding ruler of Abu Bakr? User: Dimadick


 * ''No, Caliph means successor of the prophet. Muhammad was not a "successor" and Abu Bakr was not a prophet. Abu Bakr was the first Caliph. Search "first Caliph" on the internet and you will find Abu Bakr. How can there be a predecessor of the first? OneGuy 03:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further, Shia dipute that fact that he succeded Muhamamd, and only agree that he usurped power. According to WP rules, WP is not to take a stance in diputed facts! --Striver 07:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Election
Aladdin, our conflicts could be eased a notch if you would just back off on your insistence on translating "shura" as "election". As I have said before, the shura, as practiced in 7th century Arabia, was not an election. There were NO RULES about who could attend, how it had to be announced, how votes were counted, etc. Most scholars translate shura as "consultation", which is much closer to the real thing. The powerful men of the community would gather, perhaps in ad hoc fashion as they did at Saqifah, and argue about who should be the next chief. Canny calculation of just how many men each of the powerful men could command certainly figured in the process. If X had 200 men backing him and Y had 30 men, X's voice had a lot more weight. However -- in the context of an Arabian tribe, where people knew each other and knew how eloquent, brave, cunning, generous, etc. each candidate might be, the powerful men were certainly capable of throwing their weight behind an outstanding candidate from a smaller group if the only alternative was a stingy coward from a larger group, who might just lead the whole tribe into disaster. So matters were decided by a complex interplay of existing relations of power and genealogy, flavored by personal characteristics and possibly swayed one way or another by great oratory.

(And as we see from the story of Saqifah, the meeting of the powerful men was just the start of the process -- each man had to give his bay'ah, his personal allegiance. Which is what Muhammad asked of his followers, of the Meccans when he conquered Mecca, and which Muslims still give when they repeat the Shahada. If the shura made a stupid choice, the tribe could split.)

Shura is not just an Arabian custom, it's fairly widespread throughout the world. As an anthropologist who studied Polynesia, I'm familiar with it as a fono. I'm not sure that there's any abstract term for the phenomenon; it would be nice if there were, so that we could use it. Failing such a term (hmmm, I should really check the literature to make sure I haven't overlooked something), it would be better to use "consultation" rather than "election", just because "election" calls up images of modern electoral processes. It's misleading. Zora 08:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't like the idea that we can only use the word "election" to suggest modern electoral processes (pre-1832 English parliamentary elections were hardly similar to "modern electoral processes," but are still called elections), I think that in this case this is fully appropriate. john k 08:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

History distorted for religious reasons
Thinking it over ... if the Shi'a tend to turn early Islamic history into a brightly colored morality play -- a taziyah -- the Sunnis have their own distortions. Patricia Crone has been extremely canny in sussing these out and discussing them. She sees the Sunni versions of history as shaped by the interests of the Sunni clergy, the ulema, who were the ones who controlled the writing and teaching of history.

Crone argues that very early Muslims, in the first hundred years or so, tended to see caliphs as wielding the same kind of spiritual authority that Muhammad did. They believed that their spiritual welfare depended on implicit obedience to the caliph, and trusted the caliph to be wise and just. Caliphs were believed to be able to make law, just as Muhammad had. This trust and faith eroded over time, as the caliphs seemed ever more like corrupt, avaricious, brutal secular rulers.

The Shi'a reacted by clinging ever harder to the ideal of the wise imam, who was wise and just as the caliph should have been. In that way, Crone says, the Shi'a have preserved something that the Sunni haven't.

The Sunni ulema reacted by defining the shari'a as something that even the caliphs couldn't touch. The only way to provide a religious core that the caliphs couldn't rebut was to go back to Muhammad -- his words or deeds were believed to trump anything a later caliph might devise. Hence the insistence on the letter of the Qur'an and the packaging of history into ulema-approved hadith, which were chosen for their utility as justifications for Muslim life and law. Hence the concern to push the isnads all the way back to Muhammad, the only sure basis. Hence the collision between the Mutazili caliph and the Islamic jurist -- Ibn Hanbal, I think it was -- who refused to capitulate to the caliph on matters of faith.

Crone would argue that the Sunni version of early Islamic history distorts matters by downplaying the role of the caliphs and treating them as mere secular rulers who were judged good or bad based on their attitudes towards the ulema and the shari'a. Hence the temptation to write history based on what is a suitable foundation for current policies (which must be justified by the past).

Crone would argue that the Sunni ulema have distorted the history in their favor just as much as the Shi'a have distorted it in theirs.

I keep meaning to write this up and stick it in Caliph, and getting sidetracked. Perhaps I'll do it now . Zora 15:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's really interesting, Zora. I'm glad there's someone involved here who is conversant in the scholarly discourse on early Islamic history - I will admit that my own command of this is fairly limited, and that I am mostly attempting to sift out the truth based on textual analysis of contributions to wikipedia, as much as anything. I think this kind of argument should definitely be represented on wikipedia. But this assessment of the Sunni view of history I think tends to support my argument, at least to an extent. While Sunni and Shi'a are certainly equally unreliable on some subjects, especially stuff relating to the life of Muhammad himself, it still seems to me that the Sunni POV, as represented by Crone, would have less reason to distort the issues revolving around the succession to the early Caliphate, and the characters of the early Caliphs, than the Shi'a would. The Ulema POV is being written as an attack on later Sunni Caliphs. Any concern with slapping down Shi'a is only secondary. There is not any particular need to lie about the way the Caliphs are chosen, because the important issue to the Sunni Ulema is not who is Caliph, but how much power the Caliph has. Obviously, this only goes so far, and, once again, I am not advocating giving the Sunni POV as fact. john k 16:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And to add - it's not a matter of who is more biased. Both are biased, obviously. But two biased sources can have differing historical value. The Old Testament, for instance vs. Thomas Babington Macaulay. I don't think anyone would accuse either source of giving an unbiased presentation of history. And I don't think anyone would accuse either source of being worthless as history. But the Deuteronomic Historian clearly has a different sense of what his story is meant to accomplish than the Whig historians do. This is not to say that we should accept the Whig view of history, just that the Whig view of history's bias is on a different level than that of the Deuteronomic historian. To a considerably lesser extent, this same kind of distinction appears to be present as between Sunni and Shi'ite accounts of the early history of Islam. john k 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note for Zora
Zora, you have previously expressed your interest in Reza Aslan's work. I read a few pages from his book, "No God but God". It seems to have been written in an interesting style. I thought you might be interested in contacting him via his email address, which I have decided not to broadcast here, but can be found at his website Reza Aslan, writer. Adamcaliph 20:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. He's SOOOOO cute. A real Islamic scholar studmuffin. Too bad I'm thirty or more years older than he is . Yes, he writes well and he's obviously versed in all the academic literature. I'm using his bibliography as a guide to further reading. Zora 00:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Note for John K
John, I feel that now that the foundation of the discussion has been clarified, you should provide evidence for your claim that the Shi'a do not admit to facts that are against their interest. Adamcaliph 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have admitted before, my knowledge is limited, so I don't think I can comply. In my readings of the two versions, I have failed to see any part of the Shi'a account which is an admission contrary to interest, save perhaps some barely disputable things (e.g. Abu Bakr was one of Muhammad's earliest followers). Can you point me to any instances where Shi'a admit to things which would seem to be contrary to their interests? john k 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the general argument is odd. On the one hand, you claim that Sunnis are not too bothered about defending Abu Bakr's character; whereas on the other hand, you claim that they do admit to things that may compromise their interest in defending Abu Bakr's character. Let us be precise:


 * 1) Shi'as claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib is infallible.
 * 2) Sunnis claim that Abu Bakr is fallible but pious.


 * These are the interests. Your argument would have been valid had Sunnis claimed that Abu Bakr is infallible. You would bring forth evidence that disputed Abu Bakr's infallibility, and they would admit to this evidence against their interest. However, infallibility is not the water-mark with regards to Sunnis. Their interest is not Abu Bakr's infallibility; rather it is his general piety and closeness to Muhammad. If you were to bring forth evidence that Muhammad hated Abu Bakr, they most certainly would not admit it.


 * Similarly, if evidence were brought by you to a Shi'a scholar that challenges the claim of Ali's infallibility, the Shi'a scholar would certainly not admit it. But we have to clarify what we mean by non-admission. Are we talking about ignorant non-admission? Stubbornness? Irrational bias? Unwillingness for debate? In reality, there exists two types of non-admission.


 * i) Non-admission with argument; and
 * ii) Non-admission without argument.


 * The Shi'a scholar would admit to evidence of Ali's fallibility no more than a Sunni scholar would admit to evidence of Abu Bakr's iniquity, and no more than an atheist would admit to evidence of God's existence. In all cases, the evidence would be challenged. Adamcaliph 15:41, 4 September 2005

I don't see how any of this conflicts with my argument. What Shi'as claim for Ali is something which secular historians simply cannot admit. What Sunnis claim for Abu Bakr is not only possible, it is plausible. Again, we go back to what I started with - the Sunni account is biased and probably distorted, but is a recognizable historical account featuring figures that are recognizably historical. The Shi'a account is a black and white morality play. I will add that both sides' accounts of the life of Muhammad himself are black and white morality plays. But to put it simply, asserting that Abu Bakr was pious, and that he was close to Muhammad, is a claim which a historian can admit far more readily than he can admit that Ali was Muhammad's rightful successor and infallible. The latter is something which can only be admitted by a Shi'a Muslim. The former is a claim which, it is true, should be verified as well as possible from known historical sources and the like, but which is at least plausible. And, it should be added again, while Sunnis have an interest in showing Abu Bakr to be virtuous, this is not nearly as central a claim to Sunni Islam as the claim that Ali is infallible is to Shi'as. Shi'a Islam collapses without Ali being infallible. While there would be serious problems for Sunni Islam if Abu Bakr could be proved to be impious, this seems to be going at it ass-backwards. Given that Sunnis generally are not terribly concerned with the Caliphate, if Abu Bakr had not been virtuous, why would Sunnis insist that he was? Certainly one can think of reasons why they might. But it is not as immediately obvious as the answer to the question "if Ali had not been infallible, why would Shi'as insist that he was?" The answer to the latter question is obvious - this is the entire basis of the Shi'a belief system, and of their difference with Sunni Islam. But if Abu Bakr was, in fact, as iniquitous as Shi'a say he was, I don't see how a hypothetical Sunni tradition that admitted this would be impossible. After all, they admit the iniquity of Muawiya. john k 17:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

To come back more simply to the supposed contradiction in my argument, I am not claiming that the Sunni have no interest in defending Abu Bakr. I am merely claiming that their interest in defending Abu Bakr and other early caliphs is considerably more limited than the Shi'a interest in defending Ali. My evidence for this is that they admit to various things that would tend to undermine a black and white account of the early history of Islam. A Sunni account that resembled the Shi'a account would depict Ali as a black villain, and show Muawiya as a heroic defender of Islam. That Sunni do not do this shows that however biased their version may be, it is not a black and white morality play designed to destroy the claims of Shi'a Islam. As Zora points out above (perhaps trying to make a different point), the biases of the Sunni version are generally not directed against the Shi'a at all, but against the religious claims of the Sunni Caliphate. The Shi'a version clearly is a black and white morality play designed to destroy the claims of Sunni Islam. john k 17:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to reply to each point

 * 1) The points that I raised certainly conflict with your argument that Sunnis will admit to things that are against their interest. The reason is clear; you have not yet actually indentified what their "interests" are. You keep citing Muawiya as an example. This is clearly not valid because Sunnis do not have an interest in Muawiya. Once you have identified one of their "interests", I would very much enjoy reading a transcript of your challenge of the interest with a Sunni scholar.


 * You are not listening to me, Adam. The dispute between Ali and Muawiya was the proximate cause of the split between Shia and Sunni Islam.  Sunni Islam is the descendant of those who took Muawiya's side.  And yet Sunnis don't particularly care for Muawiya, and are willing to admit bad things about him.  This suggests that the willingness of the Sunni to distort history to present a Sunni-favorable version is limited, at least to a certain extent. The fact that Sunni have no interest in presenting Muawiya as a positive figure shows that, in the matter of the split between Sunni and Shia, the Sunnis are willing to leave fairly unflattering-to-Sunnis aspects in their final account. You keep saying "But Sunni do not have an interest in Muawiya," but that is precisely the point. john k 23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) Again, to claim that the Shi'a account is a black and white morality play "designed" to destroy the claims of Sunni Islam is not only insulting to Shi'a scholars but it also tarnishes your apparent neutrality. Your use of the word "designs" implies that Shi'a scholars have first been presented with facts; they then "designed" the reports in order to make Ali look good and Abu Bakr look bad. This claim is very disparaging, and yet again you provide not a single item of proof.


 * Looking at the Shia version of history, at least as it has been presented here on wikipedia, it is a morality play. This is not to attack any particular scholars, especially recent scholars working in established traditions.  But to pretend as though scholars who are already committed to a particular tradition (whether Shi'a or Sunni) are not using that tradition as a filter for their writing on historical subjects is ridiculous. The Shi'a claim that Ali is infallible is going to make for a much stronger distortion of the history of the early Caliphate than the Sunni belief that the first four caliphs were all virtuous. john k 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) You said that if Sunnis were to imitate the Shi'a account, they would portray Ali as a "black villain". But certainly Ali was also a Caliph, so why would Sunnis do this?


 * Are you really this dense? The split between Sunni and Shi'a arose out of the dispute between Muawiya and Ali.  Why would Sunni admit that it was Ali who was mostly in the right, and who was the virtuous one, and that Muawiya was wrong, and not especially virtuous?  Obviously, it is because their understanding of the split, and why Sunni Islam is correct, does not particularly depend on how they portray the characters of the early caliphs.  Which would mean that their portrayal of the early caliphs is not subject to the same extreme bias that the Shi'a version would be. john k 23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I just want to try and understand where you are coming from. So the Sunni-Shia split occurred due to the dispute between Ali and Muawiya; those who followed Ali became known as Shi'as. And those who followed Muawiya became known as Sunnis. Is this what you are saying? Adamcaliph 19:24, 5 September 2005


 * I know that it's more complicated than this, but I would say this is a more or less accurate description of the original conflict. Obviously the events of 680, with the death of Husayn, were also extremely important in the development of Shi'ism.  And I wouldn't say that "those who followed Ali became known as Shi'as and those who followed Muawiya became known as Sunnis."  I would rather say that Sunni Islam is a religious tradition which originated out of those who accepted Muawiya as Caliph, and that Shi'a Islam is a religious tradition which originated out of those who refused to accept Muawiya as legitimate caliph. john k 21:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 4) You said that "the biases of the Sunni version are generally not directed against the Shi'a at all". I do not really know where to begin with this statement. If you were to read the book at the following link Peshawar Nights, just as the uncountable numbers of former Sunnis have and who have now become Shi'as, you will certainly change your views of the innocent, "Shi'a-loving" Sunni scholars who hate prejudice and just want to report the truth.


 * Again, you are completely evading my point. I have not called any Sunni scholars "Shi'a loving," which would be ridiculous, nor have I called them innocent, or hating prejudice, or just wanting to report the truth.  I have very clearly stated that this is not what I believe at all.  I was referring to Zora's description of the Sunni account of early Islam, where she noted that the Sunni narrative is mostly shaped by the Ulemas' desire to glorify their own role as compared to that of the Caliphs.  Hits on the Shi'a, then, are a secondary aspect of the Sunni account, and only an indirect target.  That is all I was saying. john k 23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 5) The essence of it all is that you do not believe in Shi'a Islam, and I know that you don't believe in Sunni Islam either. But because, at the moment, Shi'a Islam does not seem plausible, then that must necessarily mean that the Shi'a scholars must have distorted the facts, "designed" the reports, exaggerated the characters in the "play" and fooled the nation. It again turns on your claim that the Shi'a scholars need to portray Ali as good because this is the entire basis of Shi'a Islam. I do not understand why you have asserted this. If this statement was not mistake, then you may need to begin researching Shi'a Islam. Shi'as do not follow Ali because he is Ali. They do not blindly love or hate anyone. You do not consider the other side of your argument. Why would people need to believe that Ali is infallible? Your statements draw the following picture,


 * Basically, I am not Muslim. I believe neither version.  The story of Muhammad's life and work as presented by both Sunni and Shi'a looks like it is mostly a mythological one.  But for Sunnis, the period immediately after Muhammad's death appears to revert to a more historical understanding.  A biased, polemical historical narrative, but a historical narrative nonetheless, because for modern Sunnis, the formative period of the Islamic religion ends with Muhammad.  For Shi'a, though, the mythological narrative continues for much longer, because the actions of Ali and his successors as Imam are also part of their core beliefs.  I am not saying that Shi'a core beliefs are wrong (I do not believe in them, but I don't believe that I have the right to say that other people's religious beliefs are wrong).  What I am saying is that they are not historical, and that they do not form a proper basis for creating an accurate, nonsectarian historical narrative.  As to the following dialogue, I have no idea what your point is.  john k 23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hakim: "Right, the entire basis of Shi'a Islam is that Ali is infallible."


 * Riza: "What's Shia Islam?"


 * Hakim: "It's believing that Ali is infallible."


 * Riza: "Who's Ali?"


 * Hakim: "Oh, he's the Prophet's cousin."


 * Riza: "Why is it the entire basis that Ali must be infallible?"


 * Hakim: "Look, it just is. Ok? There are no Qur'anic verses claiming it, so we have to make up some reports. We can't let people believe that Abu Bakr was correct in becoming the Caliph."


 * Riza: "Why not? What have you got against him?"


 * Hakim: "Nothing."


 * Riza: "But why did you want Ali to become Caliph?"


 * Hakim: "Because he's infallible."


 * Riza: "But how do you know that?"


 * Hakim: "Because it's the entire basis of Shia Islam."


 * Riza: "Who said so?"


 * Hakim: "I did."

Adamcaliph 15:41, 4 September 2005

Peshawar Nights
Various Shi'a keep bringing up the text "Peshawar Nights" as a refutation of Sunni views. But ... I did find this Sunni refutation of Peshawar Nights quite convincing:. Reza Aslan and Wilferd Madelung do a much better job of presenting Shi'a views for modern readers. Zora 21:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A sidelight on the Sunni-Shi'a debate
There's one aspect of Shi'a history that hasn't been brought out - and I'm not sure it's part of the Shi'a self image. Various academics have pointed out that until Iran was forcibly converted to Shi'a Islam, by one of its rulers, Shi'a tended to be drawn from the urban middle classes - the merchants, the artisans, some scholars. They turned to the Shi'a explanation of Islamic history because they were CLOSE enough to the centers of power (if just by living in the same city as the caliph or sultan or emir) to see that the rulers did not live up to the standards of justice and mercy set out in the Qur'an. These rulers attained power through intrigue and force, and kept it by the same low methods. Rather than listen to the Sunni ulema (submit, for it is Allah's will), the Shi'a dared to dream of an Islamic state led by rulers who did exemplify all the best traits of mankind. I don't think they had the right answer, myself, but I respect the longing for a better society that seems (at least to me) to have prompted it. Zora 00:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What are we doing here?
Taking a step back, what exactly are we arguing about. The purpose of this talk page is not for me and Adamcaliph to engage in long arguments about the historical traditions of Sunni and Shi'a Islam. It is for us to work on improving the article on Abu Bakr. I am going to say straight out that I think Striver's preferred version of the article is completely unacceptable. But I wonder if Adam would explain what problems he has, if any, with the current version of the article, which seems basically appropriate and NPOV to me. john k 21:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You’re right John. It is interesting. I do not imagine that there are discussions in Wikipedia about the historicity of other subjects such as Henry VIII or Abraham Lincoln to this extent. But I think that we have to accept that the long discussion is not going to be successful unless we begin from the beginning and it is just not possible or appropriate here. I do actually understand your perspective. I have had this type of discussion before; and it did take a long time to be resolved.


 * To answer your question, John, regarding the actual article, I have to accept that the majority of people will accept the Sunni accounts for the very reason that we have been discussing: the Sunni accounts have dominated secular texts throughout history because of the sheer volumes of Sunnis; whilst the Shi’a account is only just being understood; and will only be regarded as a “more-biased” perspective than the mainstream Sunni account, rather than as a possible true account of facts that caused people to become Shi'as rather than Shi'as wanting to believe something, and then writing reports. From this perspective, I cannot have many complaints; although I possibly will try to add a section entitled, “Criticisms of Abu Bakr”. Adamcaliph 00:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Criticisms of Abu Bakr" would seem problematic to me as a title for a section entirely about Shi'a criticisms of Abu Bakr. Wouldn't a "Shi'a views of Abu Bakr" title be more appropriate? john k 23:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Adam, I have problems with your insistence that every one of those accusations can be "proved" with Sunni documents. Madelung, who has spend his life studying Shi'a history and knows the material inside out, doesn't think that those accusations can be upheld -- and he's otherwise quite sympathetic to the Shi'a POV. If those accusations are to remain there, they need to be linked to the other, relevant articles and the claim that they are "proved" has to be removed. Zora 01:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we only using Madelung as a source? I can't speak on behalf of Madelung so I can't say whether or not he had access to these references. I oringinally included the Sunni references but then I remembered that you didn't particularly like "hadith dumps". But if you would like me to give Sunni references for these accusations, and many, many more, I shall be happy to do so. Adamcaliph 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When I get a round tuit, I will start an article on the Sunni-Shia debate, which will be home to hadith dumps and Peshawar Nights accusations. I don't think any of that is relevant here. The Shi'a story is told in Fatima Zahra, Al Muhsin, and Succession to Muhammad. I have cut out the highly-colored story from THIS article and replaced it with links to those three articles. We are not trying to hide or cover up anything, but it is simply not necessary to REPEAT the whole thing endlessly. That strikes me as POV and propagandistic, not encyclopedic -- particularly as none of the academic sources, even the Shi'a-sympathetic Madelung, give the story any credit. I don't rely on Madelung alone -- surely not -- but given that he is otherwise very sympathetic to the Shi'a case, I regard his doubt as telling.


 * Madelung credits the report from Tabari that Al-Zubayr took refuge in Ali's house, and that Umar threatened to burn down the house unless Al-Zubayr came out to swear allegiance. Al-Zubayr emerged with his sword drawn, but stumbled and was disarmed. No violence was done to him. Al-Tabari is the earliest source for the history of the Rafidi resistance, and any secular scholar would regard this account as more trustworthy than oral traditions recorded later. In the face of universal academic doubt, I don't see any reason to recount the Shi'a story over and over. Present, yes. Emphasize, no. Zora 20:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with your revised version. It makes sense. Adamcaliph 22:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have problems with this notion that neutral, secular writers are the most reliable writers. Let's be precise. They maybe reliable for impartiality; but they are not necessarily reliable for presenting an accurate account. I have read many biographies of Prophet Muhammad, and many of these "What is Islam?" books. It shocks me as to how many fundamental mistakes are made by "respected" authors, particularly with regards to Shi'a Islam. I know this will all change soon. Why Madelung ommitted it is probably more to do with his lack of knowledge regarding the matter or lack of interest in including it. Otherwise, it is a clearly significant incident, reported in both Shi'a and Sunni sources. In fact, most lectures that I have attended always use mostly Sunni sources to discuss Shi'a Islam. The evidence is so abundant for so many of these issues; it's painful to see skeptics running around confused, not admitting evidence if it challenges their beliefs. Adamcaliph 17:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because something is reported by both Sunni and Shi'a sources does not make it true. I will add that I am not sure how incidents in the early history of Islam can challenge the beliefs of people who are not Muslim. john k 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You have not understood my point. Do you really think that I meant that whatever is written in Shia and Sunni sources is true? Why do you distort what I have said John? I am telling you that when someone tells me that a secular writer did not include something in their work, it does not mean that it did not occur. When you are faced with abundant references from both Shia and Sunni sources, will you really be that foolish to not accept it or at least mention it as a perspective? And John, I'm sorry, but for you to think that incidents in early Islam are not likely to challenge non-Muslims' beliefs is irrational. Of course bias becomes greater when the subject is more relevant to the individual, but this idea that in matters of religion, secular individuals are free of "interest" or "beliefs" is utterly absurd. Adamcaliph 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

church and state
The Ridda Wars section talks about the church and state, yet in Islam there no institution such as a church. I find this wording very confusing. Also Ceasaropacy applies only to the Christian world, at that time the Roman empire, and can't be applied to the Persian Empire or other kingdoms at that time. The last two papargraphs are Eurocentric and innacurate. I'm not so sure they are even needed in an article about Abu Bakr. --Yodakii 03:39:36, 2005-09-06 (UTC)


 * Um, well, Ceasaropapism seemed to be the closest word I could find for the belief that the church and state are inextricably linked, but I agree that it points at the Byzantines and not especially at the Sassanids. Is there a better word? Let's use it.


 * As to why the paras are there -- AladdinSE was been insisting on retaining a sentence praising Abu Bakr for the Ridda Wars and insisting that the Islamic empire could not have existed without them. If he insists on inserting Muslim triumphalism then we also need a sentence or two suggesting that to some people (especially those killed, enslaved, etc.) the Muslim empire didn't seem like such a great idea, and religious imperialism is NOT something to be imitated. Which plays into the current debates re Islamism and jihad.


 * I'd be happy to leave out both paras, but you'd have to convince AladdinSE to let go of the triumphalism. Zora 03:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...couldn't we state that the Ridda Wars were probably a necessary prerequisite for the creation of the Islamic Empire without making a moral claim that this is a good thing? john k 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer removing the paragraphs completely. If a sentence about the importance of the Ridda wars is included, of course, it should be simple and neutral. Bringing a debate about religious imperialism into this is just too messy. --Yodakii 07:13:05, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

How about if we remove Zora's additions and change From a political point of view, Abu Bakr's actions were absolutely necessary if the new state was to cohere and survive. to something along the lines of "Abu Bakr's actions in the Ridda War were decisive in insuring the coherence of the nascent Islamic state." Or something like that? john k 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. Zora? AladdinSE? --Yodakii 07:41:21, 2005-09-06 (UTC)


 * Um, I've had an extremely busy day and I just got back. I prefer -- perhaps egotistically so -- my sentence starting "From a political point of view ..." because that makes it clear that we are talking only about political ends (keep the state together) and not about religious goals (jihad). If we don't keep the two things separate, then we're back to the debate in jihad. D'oh, I'm probably not making sense. Zora 08:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, Abu Bakr could just have resigned and returned the leadership to Ali, wich would have the 100 000 people through out Arabia that wittnesed Ghadire Khumm to come to rest. --Striver 12:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring Striver, I think it's POV to state specifically that this is only true from a political point of view. Many people would state that it's also true from a religious POV - your version, Zora, seems to imply that it is not true from a religious perspective. I'd prefer to sidestep this question, which is not really necessary to answer, anyway. The basic fact is that the Ridda War helped consolidate the nascent Islamic state. I think that my version (or some fine tuned version of it) implies that we are discussing the political situation specifically. I don't see how a sentence which is a piece of fairly basic analysis of a political reality needs to be weighed down with considerations about morality. If we said "Constantine's conversion led to the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire," do we need to have a further statement that some religious groups see this as a bad thing for Christianity, because it became entwined with the Roman state? This seems unnecessary, because it is basically irrelevant to what is essentially a pretty low level piece of analysis. I think the same applies here. All we are saying is that the word kept the Islamic state together. Whether this is good for Islam or bad for Islam is beyond the scope of the statement, and is not implied by what is just a basic statement of fact. john k 17:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would add that your version adds some POV the other way, as well. Calling Abu Bakr's actions "absolutely necessary" is completely POV. We simply can't know if some other course were available (Striver suggests a, to my eye implausible, alternative above, for instance). Saying merely that it was decisive in insuring the survival or coherence, or whatever, of the Islamic state is more NPOV, because it is a basic statement of fact, and doesn't leave the door open for counterfactual silliness like Striver's. john k 17:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora delets Shia pov
Here is your sources:

http://www.karbala-najaf.org/shiaism/058-079.htm

--Striver 22:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, that doesn't say what you think it does. That text ADMITS that Ali "paid homage" and "reconciled himself". That is giving bay'ah -- a pre-Islamic custom. Read Fred Donner on the subject (Early Islamic Conquests). The Shi'a text only argues that Ali did not give active support to Abu Bakr and Umar, which is not in question. I believe some Sunni apologists argue that Ali was an enthusiastic supporter, but I haven't read that in any of my academic texts. Zora 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Umar:


 * '' "This is a testament of Abu Bakr, the successor of the Prophet of God, to the believers and the Muslims... I have appointed as ruler over you 'Umar b. al-Khattab, so listen to him and obey him. I have not made him your ruler except for [your] good."

--Striver 22:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, so what? I don't think anyone, except perhaps AladdinSE, was arguing that Umar was "elected". Unless Aladdin has done some edits I missed, I don't think the article says it either. Zora 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, Striver believed that "asked" wasn't strident enough, and substituted "told". I changed that to "urged", and here's why: as long as most of your subjects are nomads, there is no easy way to enforce submission. If they don't willingly give allegiance to you, they can opt out of political arrangements just by migrating to different pastures. Muhammad's wars, the Ridda wars, the expeditions up north -- IMHO, that was all about seizing the whole desert/steppe area so that submission COULD be enforced. Such submission as existed didn't last very long either -- Uthman was killed, then Ali, and the Kharijites, who seem to have been primarily Arab nomads, went back to their flocks and herds. The caliphate moved to the Fertile Crescent, and abandoned Medina. Abu Bakr's will would have been a dead letter if there hadn't been a lot of support for the Abu Bakr-Umar faction of the ummah. It is clear from the surviving records/oral traditions that Abu Bakr's accession to power was controversial and divisive. That doesn't seem to have been so with Umar. Zora 00:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, i do agree, Umars rise to power whent whithout problems, most opponents (read "Shia") had been oppresed or killed by then. --Striver 00:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Abu Bakr
I want to know two things....was Abu Bakr well off financially and a 'powerful' person in the community before Mohamed converted him to Islam? And what year did Mohamed convert Abu Bakr to Islam?

One Request

I was wondering, why don't you have 2 pages, one for the Shia brothers point of view and another with the sunni point of view. Time and energy is simply wasted in claimed objective discourse. It is evident that faith and subjectivity is propelling this entry. That is fine, but let us tear down the veil of academic discourse and state the two different interpretations. 207.112.43.143 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) AP

Abu Bakr - intentions?
I am reading about the Spread of the Islamic faith after the death of Muhammed, and I have a question: what is the general opinion on Abu Bakr's intentions? did he intend to unify the Arabian peninsular from that start or was that just a consequence of the Ridda Wars? I am not sure whether I have asked the question correctly, but I would appreciate your thoughts. thanks.

I also agree that there should be two pages, one for sunni, one for shi'a, it seems more objective to have the two points of view set out clearly rather than amalgamating them into one account.


 * What are called POV forks are generally not accepted. However, it is the standard Wikipedia practice to incorporate all viewpoints in one article, presenting them in separate sections as separate POVs. Haven't we done that in this article? I'll check.


 * As for the spread of the Islamic empire ... it is really impossible to say much of anything about Abu Bakr's intentions. We simply have no data. See the article on Historiography of early Islam. Fred Donner, in his book Early Islamic Conquests, takes the view that the Islamic empire was at first merely an attempt to unify all the Arab-speaking tribes of the Syro-Arabian steppe. He argues that if you're trying to rule nomads, you have to control ALL of them, or you control none of them (since otherwise they can move out of your area of control). This put the Arabs on a collision course with the Byzantines and the Persians and ended up with the Arabs controlling huge swathes of non-Arab territory. Of course, Donner is taking a resolutely secular POV. Trying to explain or justify the conquests from a devout Muslim religious POV is harder. Islamic apologists usually claim that the Muslims were being oppressed and that they were just trying to defend themselves. Zora 19:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge of "Shia view on abu Bakr"

 * Comment: I've nominated "Shia view of Abu Bakr" for a merge into this article. It rightfully belongs as a subsection of this article and not as an article on its own. Please discuss and vote coherently. For the record, my vote is for Merge. Zunaid 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. There are now a whole series of "Shi'a view" articles, constituting a major POV fork in Wikipedia. They need to be merged back into the main articles. Zora 22:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Megre. Great, i made this page after Zora deleted the information in it from the main article. id love to have the information back in. But as soon as she start deleting, ill recreated this page. And no, this page does not violated WP policies.--Striver 04:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: From the Point of View page:"At Wikipedia, points of view are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' policy."In other words NPOV means including all points of view, not excluding all points of view. Just a thought. Zunaid 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - is what's going on here that Striver couldn't get his POV material on this page, so he created his own page where he could insert POV to his heart's content? If so, the other article ought to be merged, but I'd be very wary of allowing Striver's material back onto this page. john k 07:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- well, yes, that's what happened, but if you look at the page he created, there's really little of substance there. Most of it IS covered in the main article. Zora 08:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment POV_fork:


 * ''a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article, and it is substantially and fairly represented on the main article, linking prominently to the segment.

and that is what we have. So the page is legitimate, but have nothing against merging it. In the future, ill expand it to the size of Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab, if God wills... --Striver 10:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge I find that the shia view on Abu Bakr POV fork is unnecessary. It is very POV, and does not justify a seperate article. The salvageable content belongs in the main article. Gordon Bonnar 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not MergeOf course its pov, what did you think, a npov article about a pov? The point is that it attributes the pov to the Shi'a view, and that is correctly done. And of course does the views of 100 000 000 people deserve to be represented, it would dominate the main article so it haves its own article.--Striver 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of "the first male"
I reread my Ibn Ishaq and I was wrong in thinking that he gave two stories. I was confused by the translators addition of some material, in brackets, that gave the impression of a continuous narrative when juxtaposed to the preceding material. My ideas re priority were further jumbled about by reading Watt; he says that it's Al-Tabari who gave various versions. Watt also says that he thinks Zayd may have been the first male -- which makes sense to me, as Ali and Zayd were both members of Muhammad's household. Muhammad did not preach outside his household immediately, so it seems logical that FIRST all his household members should convert, and then others, outsiders, would follow.

I'm wondering if this section should be put into a separate article, and then linked to all three relevant articles (Ali, Abu Bakr, and Zayd). That way we would not have to repeat it three times.

I hope that this makes some impression on some of my severer critics. Zora 11:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I support having a articl about The first male Muslim, there we can go in depht with the issue. However, i do hope that you dont mean that we should remove the line in the Ali article about him being first. For all i know, Abu Bakr was second, but they like to honour him by saying he was the first adult, and i have nothing against having that in his article, ie "he was the second male and first adult Muslim". I have never heard of Zayd, that is news to me. And thanks for your sincere confesion, i appreciate it. Peace and have a good day! --Striver 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ali may or may not have been the first. Watt thinks it might have been Zayd. Hence it is wrong to make statements like "Ali was the first" or "Abu Bakr was the second". We don't KNOW. All we can do is say what other people think. Wikipedia can't take stands on notably disputed issues. Zora 14:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, lets just say the "big majority" belives that. --Striver 18:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But we don't know that. Have you taken a poll of all Muslims? All Muslims plus all students of Islamic history? You can't assert that without proof. Zora 22:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We dont need to take a pol (as if that was ever neceasry for any topic), just look at all the reference Zereshk gave you. You have one claiming that maybe Zayd was first, and a handfull claiming Abu Bakr maybe was first. But you a literal sea of claims that Ali was first, and a lot of non-musim and Sunnis sources agree to that. That is what matters. --Striver 07:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course if you're picking and choosing your references you can say that your references accept the point. As far as I'm concerned, EARLY Islamic references and Western historical scholarship trump any amount of later invention and mythologizing.

You can accumulate a huge heap of references supporting flying saucers and Holocaust denial theories too. Zora 07:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sister, that is a not how it is, dont missrepresnt the case. In the Ali article alone you have three western scholars claiming he was first. --Striver 09:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, who? Watt thinks Ali doesn't count, and plumps for Zayd. Who are the other two Western scholars? Zora 13:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge Shi'a view of Abu Bakr into article?
I'm OK with removing the POV fork. As long as the Shi'a section is short and doesn't overshadow the main article. If there are enough external links, readers who want more detail can go to those. Zora 04:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case i oppose the merge, no material is supposed to be deleted. --Striver 16:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting it in the passive conceals agency. What you mean is "I don't want any of MY anti-Abu Bakr material deleted". I don't think Wikipedia guarantees that every editor gets to insert as much material as he/she dang well pleases. Zora 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course is not my pov enoiugh, never has, never will. Not your either, ot anyone elses. Verifiable sources are what matter. --Striver 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Abu Bakr being poisoned?
What is this source for Abu Bakr being poisoned? I've never heard of it DigiBullet 05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari. Here's one site that says he was poisoned while he was protecting Muhammad during the Hijra, by a scorpion presumably, and that the effects of this poison eventually killed him. Sounds like an invention to make out that he REALLY died protecting Muhammad, and not of natural causes. Here's another site  that says poison (maybe). These websites don't give references. I can't find any refs by searching the online hadith (but that's not complete). Zora 06:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)