Talk:Abu Dharr al-Ghifari

Untitled
I agree to the merger (unsigned, was User:FreeAmeli)


 * I completely rewrote the article. Both articles (this one and Abu-Dharr) were extremely badly-written and Shi'a POV. I don't think that there is anything in the other article that even deserves to be merged. Also, Jundub ibn Junadah is not a good name for the article. The man is known as Abu Dharr in all the websites and hadith I consulted. I think THIS article should be moved to Abu Dharr. I don't think we even need a redirect, as it is extremely unlikely that any user will be looking for this man under the name Jundub. Zora 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a small merge. Also I moved "Jundub ibn Junadah" to "Abu-Dharr" because that is the name that he is known by as mentioned by Zora. Now we just have to find a way to merge or delete the "Abu Dhar" article. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to be consensus to merge to Abu Dharr. Will go ahead and merge. Kerowyn 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Completed the merge, but it may still need some NPOV editing and copyediting. Specifically, in the "Exile" section the town of "Madina" is mentioned. Should that be "Medina"? Kerowyn 11:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed probably ALL of the merged material. It read like a copyvio from a religious site. There were no references at all, and the language was extremely pious. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia, in my POV at least. Pious traditions can be restored if referenced. At least everything is under Abu Dharr now, where users would expect to find it. Zora 03:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

lord, this is complete shia POV. i wont edit it, zora...here read a sunni source about abu dharr and make the appropriate changes: http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/reference/companions/English/abudhar.html --Blingpling 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's Shi'a-POV, because I'm not Shi'a. The version that I replaced WAS extremely Shi'a-POV.


 * The site you wanted me to read is a later fable, with no references. It glosses over some of the things that Madelung clearly documents -- Abu Dharr DID criticize Uthman and Muawiyya, not just "people" in general, as the fable has it. For that article, I used Watt, Madelung, and hadith from the MSA site. Neither Watt nor Madelung is a Muslim; they are reputable secular scholars. They read Arabic (which I don't) and used all the earliest sources, which they carefully cite. BP, do consider the possibility that you have been taught sanitized pious fables and that when you start looking at things more closely, history is going to seem raw, gritty, and ugly. Zora 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rafidis
Make sure you remove rafidis. Rafidi is not in any way an early term. The early term is Shi'a. Rafidah and rafidi is a slur by people who hate shi'a. It first came into existence at the Time of Zayd bin Ali bin al-Hussein. Although early shi'a refused at the beginning to pledge allegiance to caliphs, they never referred to themsleves as Rafidis. they always refer to themselves as Shi'a and they are named so by the prophet according to their sources. Shi'a unlike rafidi is a qura'n-ic term and they surely are not the same. you can look for the history of the term rafidi and you will surely never find it in shi'a sources to refer to themselves.User talk:TPW TPW 01:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Shi'a is just an abbreviation for Shi'at Ali, party of Ali. Shi'a today believe that any use of the word "shi'a", party, in the Qur'an refers to them, but no non-Shi'a experts believe that. It's as if I decided that any reference to the verb "quake" in the Torah was a reference to the Quakers, who arose thousands of years after the Torah/Old Testament was written. I found a text in the Ahlul Bayt Digital Library which discusses the early use of the words Shi'a and Rafd; see . Note that Shafi'i is said to have been somewhat "rafd" -- and this was in the early Abbasid period. Rafd is not a late invention, it is an EARLY name for the Shi'at Ali. You might accept that source because it is Shi'a.


 * Moojan Momen's book Shi'i Islam is more representative of academic opinion. He believes that all the early Shi'a were political followers of Ali, that they did not hold any religiously distinctive opinions, and that most of them did not believe in an imamate descending from the sons of Fatima. They just wanted a ruler from the Banu Hashim. Many so-called Shi'a supported Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, who was a son of Ali by one of his other wives (not Fatima), even though al-Hanafiyya was not directly descended from the prophet.


 * I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that the early Shi'at Ali did not called themselves Rafida, that it was a term used by their opponents, and that contemporary Shi'a hear it as a derogatory term. I still think that it's important to mention the term, in case anyone studying early Islamic history encounters it. They might, as I did, start using it without knowing that it was offensive. I found it in history books. I don't read Wahhabi anti-Shi'a rants, so I wouldn't have found it there.


 * Consider the importance of learning all the dirty words when you're learning a foreign language. Even if you're too cultured to ever use them, it is good to know when other people are doing so.


 * I should perhaps add that Quakers and Mormons don't have conniption fits when people use those terms, even though they were originally derogatory terms used by their opponents. Quakers call themselves Friends, or Society of Friends, among themselves, but they don't mind when people use Quaker. I don't see why Shi'a have such a horror of being Refusers, given that they are proud of refusing to follow Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Zora 03:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, it is good to have you on board with this intensity of going out of your way to represent what you think is true. But you have few miconceptions and maybe you need some clarifications. Please do not attack Shi'a because of the fact that I think that the word rafidi is not feasible in this article. Did I mention anywhere that I am shi'a? I agree with you that some early "anti-shia" historians used the term rafidi for shi'a and therefore and for an objective encyclopedia you can not use those slur terms to describe an insignificant name calling to shia' unless you are explaining them. Zayd bin Ali, I am talking about is before the Abbasid's time. His revolution was at the time of the Umayyd. Shi'a say the prophet Mohammad and his cmpnions used to refer to Ali friends as Shi'at Ali or Ali and his Shi'a. The word shi'a as such is not mentioned in the Qura'n but is mentioned in many hadiths. You can find one on Al-Sistani website[] that says in arabic the prophet said to Ali: "You and your shi'a are in Heaven" and it is referenced to Alm'ojam AlAwsat lil-Tabarani. The word "Shi'a" by itself means "group that follows" and not really party in some of its contexts. Party in arabic is 'Hizb'. Shiya'e pl. of Shi'a means groups and is mentioned frequently in the Qur'an. Also when guests leave a house in the Islamic world the host will go out with him and in arabic they say Shaya'ahu. Also when poeple walk in a funeral after a dead person they call it Tashiyy'e. The Qur'an uses the word shi'a to describe the followers of Moses and to decribe that Ibrahim is a follower of Noah and so on. No shi'a would say the word shi'a in the Qur'an means Shi'a of today. But surely shi'a is a qura'nic terminology, say classy terminology for Muslims. As to the term Shi'a without the mention of Ali was used is pointed in the reference you mentioned and that was right after the death of Imam Hasan bin Ali. And this Shi'a webiste sometimes have sunni articles under the twhid magazine. But the question is which is earlier Shi'a or Rafidah? Imam Sadeq despised the Rafidah as he hated what they did to his uncle Zayd and as he has learned from the prophet through his ancestors. The shia' are proud to refuse to follow abu Bakr, Umar and Uthamn while Caliphs but they do acknowledge their good deeds as compnions of the Prophet. Their main believe is to be Shi'at Ali and AhlulBayt and not to refuse those caliphs. Rafidah for shi'a and some early and late sunni historians are known who they are and they are different from Shi'a. Imam Shafi'i did use the word rafd at the time when anyone who dares to mention good things about Imam Ali would be called Rafidi rather than shi'i or even sunni. And in that way any shi'a would be proud to recite the poetry Shafi'i recited but at the same time denying that they are Rafidi as Shafi'i did. It is all rethoric. Here is an Arabic article on Sistani website that tells you the exact difference between the Shi'a and Rafida.  Have a happy learning experience and please remove the Rafidi from this article. People can click on shi'a and I am sure the term rafidi is discussed there. The Peace WorshipperTalk 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and give me one source that class Abu Dhar Rafidi. So even with your clarification this word should not be in this article The Peace WorshipperTalk 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't read Arabic. It's going to take me years to learn!


 * As for Abu Dharr being a supporter of Ali -- Madelung (a well-respected Oxford scholar) really does a good job of pulling out the references to Abu Dharr and showing that he opposed Uthman and Muawiya, and that Ali showed him respect when everyone else abandoned him. I'm not sure that Abu Dharr would have described himself as being Shi'at Ali (Shi'a sources to the contrary) but he and Ali were definitely on the same side as being unhappy with the way things were going in the ummah.


 * But you're right, there isn't any support outside Shi'a scholarship for claiming that he refused to support the first two caliphs. It was just the third that he criticized! So I'll remove the Rafidi.


 * As for "no Shi'a today would say that the word Shi'a in the Qur'an refers to the Shi'at Ali" ... they do. Right here, on Wikipedia. I've had several furiously angry Shi'a claim that any instance of the word "shi'a" in the Qur'an referred to them, and how dare I say otherwise! Ditto your claim that Shi'a accept the good deeds of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman -- they don't. There is a party of Shi'a on WP who are determined to blacken their names in any way possible. Striver and his friends seem to regard it practically as the ESSENCE of Shi'a Islam to hate the first three caliphs. I don't think this is just contemporary Shi'a either -- Burton's account of his mid-19th-century pilgrimage to Mecca, disguised as an Afghan Sufi, mentions Shi'a pilgrims visiting the tombs of Abu Bakr and Umar in the mosque at Medina and cursing out those caliphs, and trying to spit on their tombs.


 * I would rather believe that there ARE Shi'a who are purely positive, trying to follow the Qur'an, perfect their characters, and love their fellow humans (Shi'a, Sunni, or kufr), but they don't seem to be evident on WP. Zora 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari VS Abu Dharr al-Ghifari
I have so much to mess to get out of and it’s just because of our friend Grenavitar. Grenavitar prefers Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari instead of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari. I believe Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is the write way to state the name of Hazrat Abu Zar. Since Abu means father of and if he wants to use Abu-Dharr al-Ghifari just because it is going to be easy for westerners to read, then let me tell him that we should tell/show/explain westerners the right way of pronouncing Arabic names. Thank You Salman

Info
This old version might have some info that is now lost. --Striver 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sunni Views
I have edited and expanded the sunni section. It was way to heavily biased on the Shia sid with alot of POV misleading for any looking for a balanced look on things.

Greensleaves112Greensleaves112 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Title change
Zabranos (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) I am moving the article to Abu Dhar al-Ghifari because it is the most commonly used spelling in English sources/books.

Western Sources

 * "At Mu'awiya's request Uthman ordered him to be sent back to Medina. As He continuted his aligation, he was exlied to al-Rabadha in the desert, where he died in 31 AH (652)." "Abu Dharr was exiled by Uthman against his will" The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Wilferd Madelung) pg.84
 * al-Baladhuri "Abu Dharr confronted Uthman for giving exorbitant amounts of money to his friend and family and cited a Quranic Verse warning of the punishment that awaits those who horde gold and silver. Uthman told him to cease and desist, but Abu dharr defended his right to recite the Quran. Uthman sent Abu Dharr into exlie and was reprimaneded for punishing anyone who criticized him." Medieval Islamic Historiography: Remembering Rebellion, By Heather N. Keaney
 * "On outspoken critic of 'Uthman's regime was Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, a personality often invoked by left-wing movements in Islam. When 'Uthman sent Abu Dharr into exile, 'Ali insisted on publicly escorting him out of Madina, despite an explicit prohibition from the caliph."Islam in the World By Malise Ruthven Pg.176
 * "Abu Dharr's troublemaking was unbearable to Mu'awiya, who asked his uncle, Uthman, to recall him to Medina. Thus, Uthman summoned Abu Dharr to Medina and from there sent him to exile to al-Rabadha, where he died in 652 or 653" Islam and the Everyday World: Public Policy Dilemmas edited by Sohrab Behdad, Farhad Nomani Pg.6
 * "Abu Dharr, who had upheld egalitarian values after Muhammad's death, supported the Imam Ali, and, as a result, had been exiled to the desert by the third caliph." Iranian Politics and Religious Modernism: The Liberation Movement of Iran, By Houchang E. Chehabi, Pg.188
 * "According to al-Ya'qubi (Sunni source), one of 'Ali's ardent supporters, Abu Dharr al- Ghiffari began to protest violently against 'Uthman's regime, delivering speeches in…. There are clear indications that Uthman's attitude towards Abu Dharr was hostile which, if such speeches were indeed made, is hardly suprising. All sources agree that Uthman sent him away to Syria where he continued his campaing until Mu'awiya complained about this dangerous activiies. UThman then ordered him to be bound to a wooden camel saddle and sent to Medina under escort. He was eventually exiled to al-Rabadha, his birth place, where he died."Early Shi'i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, By Arzina R. Lalani, pg. 26

Sunnis Sources

 * "When Uthman exiled Abu Dharr he came down to al-Rabadhah where hw died and there was no one with him except his wife and slave."- Tabari pg. 56 Bakri, Mu'jam, II, 633-637, Yaqut, Mu'jam III, 24
 * "Abu Dharr was exiled by Uthman against his will" Baladhuri Ansab V, 53
 * "According to al-Ya'qubi (Sunni source), one of 'All's ardent supporters, Abu Dharr al- Ghiffari began to protest violently against 'Uthman's regime, delivering speeches in…. There are clear indications that Uthman's attitude towards Abu Dharr was hostile which, if such speeches were indeed made, is hardly suprising. All sources agree that Uthman sent him away to Syria where he continued his campaing until Mu'awiya complained about this dangerous activiies. UThman then ordered him to be bound to a wooden camel saddle and sent to Medina under escort. He was eventually exiled to al-Rabadha, his birth place, where he died."Early Shi'i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, By Arzina R. Lalani, pg. 26

Shia Sources
Abi Sukheila states "I went to Hajj with Salman al-Faresi, and on the way we stopped in Rabatha where Abu Dhar al-Ghefaari was in exile (by the order of Uthman ibn Affan)."Glad Tidings of Mustafa for the Shia of Murtaza, By Shaykh Al-Tabari Pg.180
 * Shiite al-Murtada qouted "Abu Dharr was exiled by Uthman against his will." (Ibn abi al-Hadid, Sharh, III, 55-58 and al-Waqidi, VIII, 359-561)
 * Hadith Number 90
 * "Uthman exiled Abu Dharr to Rabza" Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims 570 to 661 CE A. A. Razwy

Western Sources

 * "According to al-Ya'qubi (Sunni source), one of 'Ali's ardent supporters, Abu Dharr al- Ghiffari began to protest violently against 'Uthman's regime, delivering speeches in…. There are clear indications that Uthman's attitude towards Abu Dharr was hostile which, if such speeches were indeed made, is hardly suprising. All sources agree that Uthman sent him away to Syria where he continued his campaing until Mu'awiya complained about this dangerous activiies. UThman then ordered him to be bound to a wooden camel saddle and sent to Medina under escort. He was eventually exiled to al-Rabadha, his birth place, where he died."Early Shi'i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, By Arzina R. Lalani, pg. 26
 * "The Arabic word Shia literally means: followers, party, partisans or supporters. It occurs a number of times in the quran with these meanings. Later, it came to mean the followers of Ali and the people of his House, as contradistinct from the Sunnis, who consider themselves the "orthodox" Muslim denominatio, and regard the Shia the "heretical" denomination. Sunni historians and jurists trace the advent of Shiism as a religous movement to the war between Ali and Mu'awiya over leadership of the Islmaic community which led to the establishement of the Mu'awiya Ummayad dynasty in power. The Shias themselves trace their origins back still further to the controversy over the succession of the Prophet, in what is called the al-Saqifa affair, when allegiance was paid to Abu Bakr as the first Patriarchal Caliph. Some companions of the Prophet Maintained that Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law, was the most suitable successor, relying on various arguments which included, inter alia, that Ali was appointed by the Prophet as the standard bearer at wars, and that he was the Prophet's deputy at Medina during the expedition to Tabuk when Muhammad said to Ali "You are to me what Aaron was to Moses except that there will be no Prophet after me." Then, in his last public adress to the largest gathering before his death three months later, Muhammad too Ali by the hand and declared "He of whom I am the Mawla (patron), of him Ali is also the Mawla. O God, be the friend of him who is his frien, and be the enemey of him who is his enemy." Ali's partisans, in order to preserve the unity of the community, reluctantly swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. The most distinguished among them were the so-called four pillars of the first Shia, namely Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, one of the earliest followers of Muhammad, an extremely pious ascetic; Ammar ibn Yasir, an early convert to Islam; Al Miqdad ibn Amr, one of the seven early converts to Islam; and Salman al-Farsi, a persian whom the prophet sansomed from slavery and adopted as his mawla and member of his family." The Islamic Law of Personal Status, edited by Jamal J. Nasir, Pg. 11-12
 * "Abu Dharr was a partisan of Ali"-The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem, By Kanan Makiya
 * "Abu Dharr was instrumental in spreading the Shi'a Faith"-- Rodger Shanahan
 * Thus making him a Shia since he spread it


 * "Abu Dharr, a companion of the prophet and one of the first supporters of the claims of Ali to be his successor"- by Houchang Chehabi, Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Centre for Lebanese Studies (Great Britain)

Zabranos (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the above quotes explicitly state what's in the article, thus a revert is necessary. Also, your categorization is not accurate. You repeatedly claim that al-Ya'qubi is a "Sunni source" even though reliable sources consider him Shia: . Wiqi( 55 ) 06:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarikh al-Yaqubi is a sunni book. Why dont you look for yourself click here it clearly says Tarikh al-Yaqubi is sunni. Your just trying your hardest to remove the information that obviously states that Uthman exiled Abu Dhar. Encyclopedia Britannica calls Tarikh al-Yaqubi a Sunni book with "Shia leenings", this however does not mean it is a "Shia Book" or that Yaqoubi is a Shia''. It means it contradicts your interpretation or spectrum of what a Sunni book should look like: Staunchly in support of the Caliphs, and violently opposed to Shiism. Just because he is critical of fallible human beings, which can make mistakes and errors, does not mean he is automatically a Shia Muslim. Al-Islam.org, a shia organization, similarly does not recognize al-Yaqoubi as a Shia scholar or a Shia but as a Sunni book. Stop being bias, even western sources say that Uthman exiled Abu Dhar. And I like how you say "reliable sources" but you dont even list the source to prove your point, therefore your argument is flawed and has not credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs)
 * I already listed a source that proves my point, here . Also a textfile on Al-Islam.org is not a reliable source per WP:RS (you can ask others at WP:RSN). You should also link to the Britannica article that makes the claim that al-Ya'qubi was Sunni. The only Britannica article accessible to me is this one, which clearly states "The author’s Shīʿite bias pervades the work." That said, whether he was exiled or not is irrelevant. You claim that this was the cause of his death and that he was a Shia, but you failed to cite any reliable or neutral sources that support these two claims. Wiqi( 55 ) 11:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Abu Dhar and Starvation
"Rabadha, a burning wilderness without water or cultivation, along the way of pilgrims; which, other than at the time of the hajj, becomes empty and silent. There he set up his torn tent and he met his needs with the few goats he had. Months passed. Poverty was increasing and hunger, more brazen. One by one, his goats died and he and his family faced death in the loneliness of the wilderness. His daughter died. He bore it patiently and considered it to have been upon the Way of God. A little later, the wolf of hunger attacked his son. He sensed responsibility. He went to Madinah and sought his wages, which had been cut off, from 'Uthman. 'Uthman did not answer him. He returned empty handed. His son's corpse was cold. He buried him with his own hands. Abu Dhar and Umm Dhar remained alone. Poverty, hunger and decrepitude had greatly weakened Abu Dhar's body. One day he felt he had come to the end of his strength. Hunger bothered him. He said to Umm Dhar, "Arise. Perhaps in this wilderness we will find some blades of grass to quiet our hunger a bit. Woman and man, for a great distance, from the parameters of the tent, searched and found nothing. Upon their return, Abu Dhar lost his strength. The sign of death showed itself in his face. Umm Dhar understood and, anxiously, asked, "What is happening to you, Abu Dhar?" "Separation is near! Leave my corpse on the way and ask wayfarers to help you bury me." - Dr. Ali Shariati

"In al-Rabadhah, Abu Dhar had to put up with a very hard life. It was here that his son Dhar and his wife died and the sheep and goats that he was keeping for his livelihood also died. Of his children only one daughter remained, who equally shared his starvation and troubles. When the means of subsistence were fully exhausted and day after day passed without food she said to Abu Dhar: "Father, how long shall we go on like this. We should go somewhere in search of livelihood." Abu Dhar took her with him and set off for the wilderness. He could not find even any foliage. At last he was tired and sat down at a certain place. Then he collected some sand and, putting his head on it, lay down. Soon he began gasping, his eyes rolled up and pangs of death gripped him. When the daughter saw this condition she was perplexed and said, "Father, if you die in this vast wilderness, how shall I manage for your burial quite alone." He replied, "Do not get upset. The Prophet told me that I shall die in helplessness and some Iraqis would arrange for my burial. After my death you put a sheet over me and then sit by the roadway and when some caravan passes that way tell them that the Prophet's companion Abu Dhar has died." "It was here that his son Dharr and his wife died and the sheep and goats that he was keeping for his livelihood also died. Of his children only one daughter remained, who equally shared his starvation and troubles. When the means of subsistence were fully exhausted and day after day passed without food she said to Abu Dharr "Father, how long shall we go on like this. We should go somewhere in search of livelihood." Abu Dharr took her with him and set off for the wilderness. He could not find any foliage. At last he was tired and sat down at acertain place. Then collected some sand and, putting his head on it, lay down. Soos he began grasping his eyes rolled up and pangs of death gripped him."- Peak of Eloquence pg. 129-130
 * Both are Shi'a sources (one is a primary source, and the other is by a non-specialist). Such sources are only useful for citing statements about Shi'a beliefs, as their claims are usually unknown or disputed by most modern non-shia scholarship. Wiqi( 55 ) 11:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The first source is from a person who hold a phd in islamic studies, thats why its DR. ALI SHARIATI. And "the peak of eloquence" is both a sunni as well as shia source since both sects use it. And the info comes from the commentary of the Peak of Eloquence not the acctual primary source which are the sermons and letters. There for it is cleared to used. And once again you are claiming a point "Such sources are only useful for citing statements about Shi'a beliefs, as their claims are usually unknown or disputed by most modern non-shia scholarship." without proving it with sources, just like your inaccurate statement made earlier. And what makes you think that Sunni sources are more accurate? Oh wait I forgot your biased. -Zabranos
 * Please sign your posts. Most reliable sources do not mention "starvation". There are also other accounts, like this one, which suggests that he had plenty of food and guests to feed shortly before his death. Wiqi( 55 ) 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who wrote this commentary? Wiqi( 55 ) 03:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CONGRATULATIONS YOU FINALLY FOUND ONE SOURCE (AND ITS A SUNNI PRIMARY SOURCE) BUT CLAIM IT TO REPRESENT MOST RELIABLE SOURCES. AND JUST AS YOU POINTED OUT "SHIA SOURCES ARE NOT RELIABLE" NEITHER ARE SUNNI SOURCES! Wiki Policy does not allow the uses of primary sources. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY, point 3. -Zabranos There for this one source does not count as a reliable source.- Zabranos
 * It is disputed (and fringe too), and thus can't go into the infobox. We should avoid presenting disputed/biased information as truth, regardless of whether a source is sectarian or not. Wiqi( 55 ) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are so freakin biased, it unbelievable. Your so concerned about maintaining a high (holy) image about Uthman, who was flawed. You haven't used a shia source or a wester source that points out the flaws of Uthman. On the other hand, I provided Western, Nonwestern, Sunni, and Shia sources. However, if I am mistaken and you are more hurt over the fact that it says Shia in Abu Dharr's info box then why dont you delete Sunni from Salman the Persian's info box. Oh wait your biased and let me guess Salman is a Sunni even though he never gave Bay'ah to Abu Bakr, fought against Aisha in the battle of Jamal, and supported Ali throughout his entire life time. He is obviously not Shia even though it is document that Salman was a Shia of Ali. It burns you that saying Abu Dharr and Bilal were Shia because it "presents biased unreliable information/sources as truth" but you dont argue or question that Salman being a Sunni (as the info box suggests) because clearly to you Salman being a Sunni does not "present biased unreliable information/sources as truth". AND I BET YOU, NOW THAT I EXPOSED YOU, THAT YOUR GOING TO DELETE SUNNI OFF OF SALMAN'S ARTICLE. In order to protect your image and false view points.


 * P.S. Don't worry I have a lot of neutral sources that expose Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, Marwan, Uthman, and other Sunni figures as being tyrants, hypocrites, oppressors, and so on. I never added them out of respect for other but just wait and see what about to come. -Zabranos
 * I obviously wasn't aware of Salman the Persian's infobox, and I've already stated here that we should be consistent across all articles (so much for "exposing" me, huh). According to your source (J. J. Nasir, 1990), "The term Shia was first used in the document of arbitration at Siffin" (years after the death of Abu Dharr) and even then it was a political term used to denote the partisan followers of Ali, Uthman, and Mu'awiya (i.e., Shiat Ali, Shiat Muawiya, etc). Nasir also used so-called to describe Abu Dharr, so he wasn't endorsing such designation. You're misrepresenting that source. Wiqi( 55 ) 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some companions of the Prophet Maintained that Ali, the Prophet's son-in-law, was the most suitable successor, relying on various arguments which included, inter alia, that Ali was appointed by the Prophet as the standard bearer at wars, and that he was the Prophet's deputy at Medina during the expedition to Tabuk when Muhammad said to Ali "You are to me what Aaron was to Moses except that there will be no Prophet after me." Then, in his last public adress to the largest gathering before his death three months later, Muhammad too Ali by the hand and declared "He of whom I am the Mawla (patron), of him Ali is also the Mawla. O God, be the friend of him who is his friend, and be the enemey of him who is his enemy." Ali's partisans, in order to preserve the unity of the community, reluctantly swore allegiance to Abu Bakr.
 * Yes it might be true that the term Shia of Ali was first documented in the time of Siffin but the term was also used during and after the time of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Even J. J. Nasir states Ali's partisans, in order to preserve the unity of the community, reluctantly swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. That was, al-saqifa, way before Siffin ever happened.


 * “Shait Ali consisted of Ali’s small personal followings who always considered him the most worth person to lead the Community after the death of the prophet together”
 * “Those who supported Ali came to be called Shiat Ali (“Partisans of Ali”) or Shia for short. Those who supported Abu Bakr came to be called Sunni (from sunna, which means tradition). The broader and deeper disagreement concerned how the Islmaic community was to be led. The Sunni invested social and political authority in a series of chaliphs, reserving all-important religious authority for the broader community. The shia invested social, political, and religious authority in their leader”- Stephen Prothero
 * Abu Dharr supported Ali making him a Shia. He is documented in to have refused to give bay'ah to Abu Bakr (until he was finally forced to give bay'ah) thus not making him a sunni.
 * Calling him "Shia" would be inconsistent as the term was invented after his death. Also just supporting Ali politically does not make him a Shia (in the theological and doctrinal sense of today). Moreover, "Shia" being a term used to describe a "Denomination" during this period is also disputed. Here is how a reliable source describes it: "Back in the seventh century, however, the Shiites were merely a political group that backed the caliph Ali in his war with Mu'awiya. During this period, those who were among the supporters of Ali could not be distinguished from those who later would define themselves as Sunnis." Wiqi( 55 ) 22:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. Hilam Rane is Sunni biased eventhough he has a phd just as you claimed Dr. Ali Shariati is Shia biased who also had a phd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs)
 * This is not just about Halim Rane, because many sources make the same point as Rane, and consider the early Shiites to be just a political group during and shortly after the time of Abu Dharr. For example:
 * "After Karbala, Shi'ism ceased to be merely a political movement and became a politico-religious movement which rapidly developed its distinctive theological doctrines and system of religious law." Roger Savory in
 * "Much of the scholarship on the earliest development of Shi'ism in the first and second Islamic centuries argues that Shi'ism began as a primarily political movement and only later emerged as a religious or sectarian group."
 * "At this point, Shi'ism was still mainly a relatively minor political movement. Subsequent developments led to the emergence of Shi'ism as an alternate form of Islamic religion."
 * As these quotes indicate, the existence of a Shia "denomination" in this early stage of Islamic history is disputed, and thus should not be stated as a fact in the infobox. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 03:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Hadiths
WP:NOTREPOSITORY, point 3. Wikipedia does not allow primary sources to be used since it is a encyclopedia. Please remove all hadiths from this article. Zabranos (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the wrong policy. See WP:PRIMARY which does allow for careful and factual handling of primary sources. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 03:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion it is the opinion of Qwyrxian who pointed that out to me when I was adding primary sources in the past. Qwyrxian was the one that pointed that hadiths cannot be used because of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, point 3. But thank you for clarifying the policy. But I still think that we should remove the hadith since no one knows how accurate/authentic they are. Hadiths should only be used if a scholar states that they are historically accurate. And in terms of this article the hadiths are not used properly since they are not stated by historical scholars. Personally, I think that primary sources that are historically accurate can be used for scholarly work. Sorry for being misled.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Abu Dhar al-Ghifari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720142403/http://www.usc.edu:80/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.359
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220194628/http://www.sahaba.net:80/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=113 to http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=113
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050222180811/http://www.sahaba.net:80/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=124 to http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abu Dhar al-Ghifari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913151901/http://www.financeinislam.com/article/1_37/1/309 to http://www.financeinislam.com/article/1_37/1/309
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=113
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have made changes and someone is trying to remove them, may i know why? I see that this article is heavily Shia biased and I want a more neutral point of view. As for the banishment to Al Rabadha, I see this is only found in contemporary works like that of Madelung's. However, These works were made hundreds of years later and thus only early sources can be used as proof. The early sources do not support this notion and therefore I conclude that this banishment cannot be firmly established from the primary sources Islamdefence (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Any changes that anyone wants to make should be discussed here first. Islamdefence (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)