Talk:Companions of the Prophet/Archive 1

Angry :@
God dammit,why do sunnis keep sayin that the wives of the prophet are included in Ahl ul-Bayt when your maost authentic book CLEARLY and UNABIGULSY sais THEY ARE NOT?!?!?!

QUOTE from a SUNNI website that contains Sahi Muslim:

Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: NO, BY ALLAH, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

Source

And by the way, in not satisfied with having the Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali order, rather i could settle with alphabetic order. --Striver 15:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy
Why do Shias insist on butchering articles relating to Islam? Is this really how the Sahaba are going to be classified, by their position according to 14% of Muslims?


 * Sahaba that hold a positive status in Shias eyes:


 * Sahaba that are hold a Neutral status in Shia eyes:


 * Sahaba that hold a negative status in Shia eyes:


 * Sahabas that hold a strong negative status in Shia eyes:

If you take a look, there are two clasifications, one sunni version, one shia version. --Striver 18:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Both classifications were added after I objected but that's not what's troubling me. It still looks pretty disorganized and unprofessional.   I think it's a disservice for the Shia view to have them listed like this;  I think it'd be better to have an article on "The Shia view of the Sahaba" and then instead of listing postive/negative/neutral sahaba, you can go through each sahabi and describe why he's listed in that manner. -- GNU 4 Eva  28 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)


 * Good idea, ill think ill do that :)--Striver 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Sahaba's ancestors
Striver, that article just won't do. If I were doing it, I'd use the geneological tables in the front of Hawting's The First Dynasty of Islam and in front of Madelung's Succession to Muhammad. Recreated, of course, on the graphics tablet that I still haven't been able to get to work, to avoid copyright problems. The title is also wrong. It should be something with "Genealogical tables" in the title. Zora 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont get why you are so negative about ever single thing i do, I does not matter what i do or what i propose or what i give as evidence for my claim: Im always wrong and you are always right.

--Striver 05:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I sound snippy and unkind but ... the article is completely incomprehensible. Yes, I have high standards. I myself frequently fail to meet them. Zora 06:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, to be honest, you made one good catch with your web-trawling. The material on Rashid Khalifa's rape charges was very interesting. Dunno quite what happened, or how the case ended up, but just the fact that he was claiming to do a UN investigation of auras was ... well, it definitely established him as a kook. You've also pointed out a lot of stuff that was Sunni-biased -- it's just that your solutions leave something to be desired. Zora 09:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you :)


 * I highly appreciate that. Now, im going to comlain a bit ore. Please feel free to read it if you dont feel for complaints.


 * Sister, i try to remember that this is wikipedia, we are not expectet to make a perfect article right away. I reason that if whe make a link to a stub, it will raise that chanse some some other wikipedian will hept put. That why i made a link to a incomplete "sahaba's ancestors". It got deletet with a remark that i could come back in two years or so, if i was able to do anything with that list. I did, within a week, i made a complet family tree for Muhammad, Ali and Uthamn, done to a common ancestor. With a article for each one of them. What did i get? A coment stating that it whas more or less rubish. It made me angry. I feel as no matter what i do, its rubish. Now, when somebody makes a stub somewher, thats ok. When i start on a family tree, its rubish, because its not perfect, it dosent have the perfect templat. Not as if the one making the mark had the template or wanted to iprove on my work. i could go on an complain that it dosent event mater that i prove beyound a doubt that all Muslims belive ther whas over 100 000 shaba, and i added a line representing that muslim view . In a article that talks about Muslim view of the term Sahaba. And that a Sunni made ajustments to that line to "there is a broad agreement between muslim that there was over 100 000 shaba using that definition". It still got deleted. Why? Because ther is no arceological evidence that there was 100 000 people in Mecca and that Ali had could not have cloth for 100 000 soldiers, but he could have cloth for 50 (?) soldiers. On him. Wearing them. Not as if there was any soldiers to begin with, they where on their way back from the last Mecca hajj. Pree anounced as the last one through the whole penisula.


 * Dont take it as i disgaree with everything you do, manny of your edits are very good.


 * --Striver 13:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, Zora, do you remeber how you said i was so incredibly POV for saying Yazid was a bastard, implying that one cant say bastard in a encyclopedia? Look att this:


 * --Striver 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest
Zora, that is pov. and inaccurate:


 * 1) It says "some muslims". Its not "some", its all.
 * 2) Its says that the number comes from Ghadire Khumm. Wrong again. that number was equaly high or higher in Mecca.
 * 3) Then it starts talking about Ghadire Khum. Totaly irrelvant to this article
 * 4) Then it says "some" sunis accept the hadith. Wrong again. they all do, its in Sahih Muslim.
 * 5) Then it says that they accept the Shia crowd estimates. pov and innacurate. Pov since it implies they did not do their own homework, inaccurate since Sunnis have never accepted anything Shia, Shia and Sunnis dont have any dialog.

My God Zora, how do you manage to get every single line wrong? Fix it, or return it to the npov, accurate and non-ranting version i made. See you in the RFC in a few days. --Striver 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet another Sunni article that confirmes there where 100 000 sahaba [allaahuakbar.net/muharram/], only this time its from the most vile Shia haters the net have ever produced. Zora, get rid of the unsourcable non-sense on the article! --Striver 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what Muslim websites say. They're relying on hadith. Hadith are questionable. If no academic historians, even Madelung, accept the Gadir Khumm narrative, then it is controversial and not to be considered a "fact". Zora 05:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Why the NPOV? It clearly says "shia view", and it does just that, declares the shia view. How is that NPOV?

--Striver 30 June 2005 02:26 (UTC)


 * Because it's not well sourced. This isn't a matter of me believing you are out to demonize the Sunnis, this is a matter of I don't believe we should just accept you represent the Shias.  You need to cite sources for this.  Do all Shias give a strongly negative status to Muawiyas?  I don't think you're necessarily wrong but when you're saying a whole group of people has negative views towards them you must cite better sources.  Otherwise it looks like your rant.  gren 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)


 * Please dont take me wrong, dear brother in Islam, but could you show me one educated shia that does not thing strongly negative of muawiya?


 * Dont take me wrong, but to me that is as seld evident as .... (insert random self evident statement)


 * --Striver 30 June 2005 02:56 (UTC)


 * It may be, but you were presumably raised as a Shia and seemingly are one now. It surely is not common knowledge to most considering I don't think anything more in depth about Islam than the prophet's name is common knowledge.  Therefore you must cite the sources even if it seems very self evident to you.  So, even if you believe it's self evident to most people it is not and therefore you need to cite sources... and then you could help even up the article so it's not all about Shia and nothing about Sunni.  Thanks gren 30 June 2005 03:05 (UTC)


 * Alright, i changed the text to say "educated Shias". Better? Or you want me to prove that educated shias belive that?


 * Ok, does this proove it? : Was Mu'awiya a Momin or Munafiq?


 * Do you want me to link that to the Sahabi list as well? Should i find an equal link for each Sahaba? Heres one for Yazid, La'an: Cursing Yazeed. You want one for Aisha as well?


 * What do you like my additions to the Sunni view? Notice that im the main contributor to the Sunni side, and i have never seen a sunni contribute anything to the Shia side execpt copyediting, although it would be wellcomed, so i dont get why Sunnis expect me to help, although i to that anyway.


 * Please remove the NPOV tag, unless you expect me to slap a link to an shia article for each Sahabi, proving why whe hate Yazid, la'an, and why we despise Umar.


 * Its acuttaly quite simple: When one kills, rapes, murders, conspires and plots, he will be detested By Shias. When one helps, talks, argues, tries to negaotioate peace and order, or sacrifices his life and property, he will be liked by shias. Do both and he well get somewhere in bettwen... simple.


 * ma Salam!


 * --Striver 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)


 * No, saying educated Shias is far worse, because you are implying that other Shias have no right to like them. You are here to report what Shias believe, and you need sources for that.  Footnotes are a father good system and if you use 1 ( 1 ) or there are footnote templates too but I have never used them before.  By the way, I didn't correct you earlier.  I am not Muslim, so I am not a Sunni expecting you to help the Sunni side.  gren 30 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)


 * Better?


 * --Striver 1 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

Striver, this article is a mess
... both in terms of balance and stylistically.

BALANCE/NPOV

The fact that Sunni and Shia approach these issues differently has not been dealt with in any remotely neutral fashion:

Sunnis claim that all Sahaba were truthfull and reliable.

("Claim" is one of those loaded words we're trying to avoid -- its unspoken, but clear, subtext, is "erroneously.")

STYLISTIC PROBLEMS

Structurallly speaking, the current opening sentence is a train wreck, and the article is loaded with typographical errors ("truthfull," above) and grammar/word choice problems.

If you want to talk about what you'd like to see happen with revisions here, let's talk about it now. But you should know, and prepare yourself emotionally for the fact, that I'm going to start doing major edits on this article, and encouraging other editors to offer their contributions as well. It's an important article, and it is simply not up to WP standards. I'm going to put a tag on this now. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)


 * Dear brother in Islam. You have my full support in correcting my poor gramma, pleade copyedit me to correct the point you added. And, please do add more details to the "Sunni view". But do not delet anything from "shia view". And i would appreciate if the general structure of the pagecould be retained. But anyhow, feel welcome to make positiv contributions and be prepared for me doing the same as well as commenting your contribution.


 * Thanks for your warning :)


 * Ill try to fix the problems you mentioned, and feel free to fix what i miss :)


 * Ma salam!


 * --Striver 2 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice note back; look forward to working on this with you. I want to share my concern first off that the article is needlessly inviting (pointless) controversy by listing so many of the Sahaba, about whom, as you know, opinions vary. What I am planning to do -- just so you know ahead of time -- is pare the article down to its essentials, delete much if not all of the commentary about sectarian differences, and tactfully sidestep the entire discussion concerning hadith, which is distracting and totally off topic here.


 * Please compare Apostles, a similar (though certainly not identical) article with a much cleaner structure. This article (if it were poorly written) could go off on a huge tangent on the various roles of Peter and Paul, the schisms in the early Church, the competing Gospels, the struggles between Jews and Gentiles. But it doesn't. It states a few relevant facts and lets the reader click from there. This article should do the same, IMHO.


 * Other editors do please feel free to add your thoughts on this. BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

laugh of the day
after a hard day i came to read the article, this line managed to get a few chuckles out of me.. "The following ten where granted Paradise even as they lived, not implying that the rest are going elsewhere"

unsigned.


 * Yeah, aint it funny? the greatest merit that people have, the blessed ten... is going where all sahaba are going anyhow....


 * on the matter, the line is relevant, since otherwise it would imply that all sahaba dont go to heaven. And that would imply that some of them are not trusworthy. And that would mean that Bukhari is not Sahi. And that would be the colapse of Sunni Islam. And whe wouldent whant that, so whe need to explicitly say that it does not imply that the rest are going somewhere else.


 * --Striver 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)


 * With respect, Striver, this is precisely the kind of writing I am talking about. The status Muslims believe these people will hold in the afterlife is totally irrelevant to the average reader of this article, and inappropriate here, in my opinion.


 * If you feel like citing some source that suggests a particular individual is regarded as destined for Paradise, that fact might warrant properly sourced mention on an article about that person. You would have to advocate for it there, however, on the relevant talk page.


 * If you were reading a WP article about the Apostle Paul, would you want a devout Christian including his POV in that article that Paul certainly has been granted entrance to heaven by Allah(swt)? This is an encyclopedia for general users, Stiver, not Muslims.BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)


 * Is it that realy accurate? For example, Paul of Tarsus include the following:


 * "Many Christians view him as an important interpreter of the teachings of Jesus."


 * That is an important insertion of Christian POV. In an article about Sahaba, the Muslim, both Shia and Sunni POV are indipensable. And of course must the two major atributes of the Sahaba be included: Their absolut thruthfullness and their rank. specialy as the rank of being among "the ten blessed" are used as an argument to not critisize:


 * Hadrat Talha and Hadrat Zubayr ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ’ were among the greatest Sahâbîs. They are two of the ten fortunate people who were blessed with the Glad Tidings (that they would go to) Paradise. It is quite erroneous to malign or criticize those two beloved Sahâbîs. Any curse uttered against them or any aspersion cast on them will recoil on the source of the curse or the aspersion. (ref)


 * As long that ther is a list of how the shia view the rank of the sahaba, it is required that the Sunni view to be included as well. And including that ten of them excell is a must.


 * I would agree to "the christan belive that Paul certainly has been granted entrance to heaven by Allah(swt)" and would see it as much relevant to the articel.


 * No that you mention him, i should include the Muslim POV to that article :P


 * --Striver 2 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Sorry, you're missing the point
It is that the article must be objective, and this constant fixation on Sunni vs. Shia is distracting and irrelevant. These two contemporary ways of looking at the Sahaba may have some place in the article, but that cannot be the main focus. These people existed before either of these two schools did, and we need to make that clear.

Once again -- the approach I'm going to be taking, just so it doesn't come as a surprise to you, is to delete much of the current sectarian discussion, particularly the tangents concerning hadith and to reduce the number of sahaba the article discusses by name. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)


 * Salam!


 * I'm not sure if i agree, but ill wait till i have seen your contribution :)


 * ma salam, --Striver 3 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * Salam again!


 * I see no fixation on "Sunni vs. Shia". I see a list of sahabas.


 * There are already a list of sahabas in alphabetic order:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sahaba%27s_ancestors


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sahaba


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taba%27een


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taba_taba%27een


 * I assume that we both agree that their is an need of a list showing how Muslims rank the sahaba. And i assume that you agree that Shias and sunnis dont agree on the rank. And therefor both sects need to have a separat list. So i really don't see what "Sunni vs. Shia fixation" you are referring to. unless you mean that shia POV is by deafult "Sunni vs. Shia fixation", which i think to high of you to belive. Could you please explain to me where i can find thin "Sunni vs. Shia fixation"?


 * Regarding the hadith reference, it was not my idea, it is deeply part of the sahaba list, ie what sahaba to belive on and what sahaba to not belive. As you can see, it came early on and it was not me that included it, and nobody complained about its relevande


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=prev&oldid=10701545

(note the "wife are part of ahl ul-bayt" factual error)


 * A great example of sunnis beliving in all sahaba is to refer to the fact that in sunni ilm al rijal, sahabas credibility is totaly lacking since it is asumed that they are all "Uppright".:


 * ''"The Fiqh al-Akbar and `Aqida Tahawiyya show no exception and from the first moments of the discussion on whose riwaya is accepted and whose not, the category of potentially impugned1 narrators is precluded2 from the Compa-nions of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace." (ref)


 * I fail to see how that is not a great way to show the sunni view of the Sahaba.


 * Further, i assure you in the HIGHEST possible manner that it is impossible to grade the sahaba in the shia view without talking about what they, in our POV, relevantly accomplished. Brother, i know that you feel uneasy to see the shia view of the caliphs, you are entitled to not like it, however in this arena shias are for the first time in history allowed to share their pov to the world in a neutral and big medium, and what is even more unpreceded: we are welcomed and guaranteed (!) to express or view without being ethnicly cleansed by Yazid, la'an or al-Hajjaj, La'an or Saddam, La'an or some other la'anati. Im sure you dont mean to deny the shia do have a list of sahabas, define why they are ranked as they are and to explain how the list is built.


 * ma salam, you brother in Islam and humanity.  --Striver 3 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)


 * PS: Dont forget to show me wher i can find the "Sunni vs. Shia fixation". And while youre at it, explain to me why ther is a "POV" tag. I dont get it, since all materialls are inside "sunni pov" and "Shia pov". Im sure its not the shia pov in the "Shia view" section that that is the cause, so i dont get it...


 * --Striver 3 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

new version
Salam!

Thanks for your contribution brother BrandonYusufToropov. Unfurtunatly, I find it lacking in one big aspect: Firstly, in this article, you claim that those ten are prominent, however that is only true in your pov. This article did not have that problem in my edition, but it does have it now. In other words, any listing of sahabas whith any criteria other than random or alphabetic is inherently pov. There is no way around that. We must have a list for ranking sahaba.


 * Motivation 1) It does exist such a thing as ranking sahaba


 * Motivation 2) becuse there exist diffrent views on the rank


 * Motivation 3) Since it is the source of much debate.

Writing that the "blessed ten" are promínent without adding "in sunni view" is a factual error. And that is what the article does now. You have simply removed the shia pov to a diffrent article and claim that the sunni pov is the muslim pov. Further you expect the shia pov to be removed from the other article as well. That is unacceptable. The only way to have a npov list of sahabas in muslim view is to have them in random or alphabetic order, random version being useles and alphabetic version witholding information and futhermore, already existing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sahaba

Due to that i am reverting. Anyone can se the refered, unaceptebal version of the article in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&oldid=18061266

The hole issue is that you, my dear brother, do not want to see shia pov since it is heretic in your pov. You are entitled to that. But not to sensur wikipedia from a list of sahaba in shia pov. Furthermore, every time you make a non-random non-alphabetic list of sahaba amd still maintain that shias are not allowed to make a list, you will, unfortunatly and I am sure without intesion, contribute to the existing oppression of all the shias in the world.

Im sure you see that my argument is valid.

--Striver 3 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)

there needs to be some sort of plan
the last thing we need is a revert war, and what not. I think we need a definite plan before proceeding, there are lots of pages that need to be discussed (mostly relating Moslem history).

My personal belief is that articles should be as compact as possible. I'll use Abu Bakr's article as an example:

Start with the summary, continue to history (as accepted by most historians), and then spread out articles from there with opposing POVs.

The article would contain the following elements: Abu Bakr Family (brief: wife, children). History Timeline of events

Now since he's an individual that is held in positive esteem by Sunnis, have an article on the "Virtues of Abu Bakr" as viewed by Sunnis (as well as defence to the claims by Shias). Shias can have a "Shi'ite view of Abu Bakr" article. I think there is room for both, but not in the main articles, as it becomes too hard to follow, and too unprofessional. That again is my 2 cents ( Canadian ) -- GNU 4 Eva 3 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)


 * salam!


 * Dont take me wrong, but í dont get how that is relevant to this talk page... no offense though, your idea seems ok in general, i am working on somthing along that line for Umar...


 * --Striver 3 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Striver, stop reverting this article
It is not your private property. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Have i made such a claim?

In fact, everey time i sent something i get to read "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

I have no problem leting people co-contribute. Acctualy, i expect it, otherwise i would never be able to have evererything i wish to have in Wikipedia.

I wont revert back to my version for 6 near six houres, that should give the intreseted paries time to see your version.

--Striver 4 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Specifically



 * ''' Ill put my text in bold font so it becomes easier to distinguishe from your text, ie, easier to follow the dialog:


 * '''In case you see my work as flawed, then fix it, dont just delet it. im sure it took you more time write this than it would have taken you to fix the lines you deems as poorly writen.

So, specifically,


 * the majority of the scholars regarded it as enough to have been present in the radiant atmosphere of the Messenger long enough to have derived some benefit from it.


 * This is POV. It does not belong in the article. Don't put it in, Striver.


 * '''You are right, "in the radiant atmosphere of the Messenger" should be repleaced with "Muhammad". Why not just fix it instead of removing the whole thing?


 * === Sunni view === (etc.)
 * This Sunni/Shia thing you've shoehorned into the article as a main structural element is POV, and leaves out (for instance) all the Muslims, past and present, who did/do not fall into one of these two categories. This is POV. It does not belong in the article. Don't put it in, Striver.'


 * '''With respect, if you look around youll see that having a "shia view" and a "sunni view" is the basis for manny articles which have a deeply divided views, for example Succession to Muhammad. If you want to include some more list so other groups can express their POV, you are welcomed to do so, it would enrich the article. For example jesus. But it is not acceptable to remove the Shia POV. And if we are going to have a Shia POV, you are going to want to have a sunni POV as well. And that is what i have done, include both of them. And if you think about it, Allmost all Muslims are in a Shia or Sunni sect. Could you give me a Muslim group that is not Shia or Sunnni? Can you give me a group of people that care about sahaba enough to rank theme acording to anny list that are not Shia or Sunni?


 * All Sahaba were truthful, reliable and Upright. This can be illustrated in that (etc.)


 * This is POV. It does not belong in the article. Don't put it in, Striver.


 * '''Its POV. Its Sunni POV, it does belong to the article in the "sunni view" part, which is where you found it. The sunni view is ill represented if you remove that frase. maybe you want to rewrite it, go ahead, but the underlying meaning must be present.


 * All sahabas are great people and the best of earth's generations.
 * This is POV. It does not belong in the article. Don't put it in, Striver.


 * 'Same as above. In the jesus article you can find the simmilar "Jesus was one of God's highest ranked and most beloved prophets sent for the guidance of Children of Israel and who was born miraculously without any human biological father by the will of God.''". Its POV. Its Muslim POV. And it belongs ther.


 * The following ten where granted paradise even as they lived, not implying that the rest are going elsewhere...
 * This is POV. It does not belong in the article. Don't put it in, Striver.


 * Brother, i know that you know that it belongs to the article. You just dont like it on text. And you want to remove the Shia POV.

Etc., etc., etc. Those are just the first three examples. There are dozens. I could go on all night, but I'm tired. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for religious proselytizing. Please do not revert this article again. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)


 * '''In the samme way you reverted, im equally entitled to revert. Actually, you version is POV since it includes a list of sahaba that shia dont endorce. My version hade such a list, but only in the "Sunni view" category. And a simmilar under "shia view". Your dosent, it claims that the list is acceptet ny all muslims. That has POV problem.


 * '''Im sure whe both know why you reverted. And its no beacause my poor grama and stylistic problems. Its because you cant stand Shia having their POV of the sahaba

Request for Comments
Does Stiver's version of this article exhibit NPOV? BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

I Acknowledge that my version is not perfect, it needs of rewriting some lines. But it does not motivate to remove the shia section and the shia listing.

--Striver 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

I disagree, Striver
I disagree, Stiver, with your contention that "it does not motivate to remove the shia section and the shia listing." "It" does in fact "motivate" the removal of the Shia/Sunni dichotomy you have obsessively hijacked this article into focusing on. So we disagree.

I therefore ask you:


 * Of the two versions under discussion, which is closest to the ideal of NPOV?

No wriggling, no doubletalk, no accusations of bigotry, no talk about Shia or Sunni, no requests that I edit something for you, no distractions at all. Just focus on the question of NPOV, okay?

Please stick to the point. Please answer the question above directly. Thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)


 * ''' No wriggling, no doubletalk, no accusations of bigotry, no talk about Shia or Sunni, no requests that I edit something for you, no distractions at all. Just focus on the question of NPOV? Ok Her is a clear cutt answer:


 * '''Answer: Mine.


 * '''Her follows my motivation, just for enlighten you:


 * '  Motivation 1 + 2'':


 * '''Bro, im telling you NPOV pocies require that all partys to be equaly well presented, No Poit Of View means that the material presented is not presented in somebodyes point of view, that it just reports facts. Your version just brings forth the "blessed ten" and states that they are "prominent sahabas". No. Umar is not a prominent sahaba. He is the guy that questioned Muahmmads (as) authority at huaybiya. And then went on to kill somebody that questioned Muhammads (as) authority. That makes him a hypocrit in my POV. But not in your POV. In my pov, Ibn Abbas is a prominent Sahaba. or Abu Dharr. But not in you POV. You have taken the sahaba that you think are Prominent, all ten of them, and state that they are prominent, implying that they are prominent in muslim POV. That breaks the NPOV poloci, since you are reportion from yout own POV. The ONLY way to get aroud is to say it say "In Sunni view, this ten Sahaba are prominent". And then, the logical step is do include all other relevant views, for example the Shia view. That is what the Jesus article did, it reported under "Religious perspectives" the following:


 * '''Christianity
 * '''Unitarians
 * '''Hinduism
 * '''Islam
 * '''Judaism
 * '''Other perspectives


 * '''My version reported the views of two groups, and informed that it reports the views of two grous. your version reopprts only the version of one group, and does not even tell that it is a POV it is presenting, rather it states it as if it was indisputable facts that those ten are prominent!


 * ' Conclusion 1'': Since your version reports one pov, but does not inform that it does so, it does not have NPOV perspectiv, raher it is repoted in a POV. Mine does not do that, it does not report a POV and claims its NPOV. Mine has only claims that are generaly accepted. Yours is POV, mine is NPOV.


 * ' Conclusion 2'': Since your version only reflects one pov, and my version reflets two pov, mine is more informativ. Yours is LESS informativ and includess LESS factualy correct statements than mine


 * ' Motivation 3'': The only way you can have a list that has a diffrent setup than mine is to


 * ''' A) Have more reported POVs.


 * ''' B) Have less reported POVs.


 * '''A is fine with me. Of you want to add the christian POV as well, go ahead. For all i care you can toss in a list with the Atheist pov and the Hindu pov as well. I dont care about that. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH ME.


 * ''' With regards to B, its imposibble. You can not have a list showing only Shia or Sunni Pov that is totaly unacceptable and is a direct violation to NPOV ideal SPECIALY if you dont tell that its a pov. If you do take single pov and discard the other, and do tell that its only a pov that is reported, then for the sake of justice, the other POV must be included, if it exists. If you look att Succession_to_Muhammad you wil see that even if its predominently a article that reports Shia POV, 2 of the 3 separate Sunni pov parts are empty. non theless, they are ther, just to give them the chanse to have their pov reported as well.


 * ' Conclusion 3'': You can NOT have a list of sahaba in only one pov!


 * ' Motivation 4'': Ther is NO POINT in having a article with a sahaba list without pov, since it must have either random order or alphabetical order. random order is totaly useless and uninformativ and alphabetical already exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sahaba.


 * ' Conclusion 4'': This list CAN NOT have a single list of sahaba.


 * ' Rounding it upp'':


 * 'Due to Conclusion 1 to 4, the you version is present TOTALY UNACCEPTABLE''. We CAN NOT have a single list in a uninformed pov!


 * 'Due to Conclusion 3 and 4, ther is NO ALTERNATIVE other than having TWO OR MORE'' pov:s presented, just as in the jesus article.


 * ''' Logicly, this limmist the objections to my version to only two valid arguments:


 *  One: Ther is to few POVs presented. the solution is NOT to remove one of the 2 povs presented. 


 *  The factuality of one of the lists is not accurat: The solution is to ask me to motivate those entries that are not adecetly motivated. This is a fairly simple task since all shia ranking revolv aroung one issu: HOW MUCH DID YOU HELP THE AHL UL-BAYT. Its pretty simple: when you dedicate your entire life to serve Ali and then die in Alis army like Ammar ibn Yasir, THEN SHIAS WILL LOVE YOU. If you take Alis wifes inheritance, confiscate her land, kill her unborn, burn her house and make her so angry that she stops talking to you, promises by god to curse you in every prayer and demands a secret funeral, then THE SHIAS WILL HATE YOU. Betwen LOVE and HATE ther is LIKE and DISLIKE. and betwen those two is NEUTRAL. 


 *   ITS ALL COMMON SENSE, WEE DO NOT NEED A GREAT BOOK THAT TELLS YOU HOW TO RANK THEM 


 * ''' all you need to do is to Love ahl ul-bayt and immagen that it happens to yourself. And then decide if you love, like, fell neutral, dislike or hate somebody. Its no hocus pokus, its no brain surgery, its common sense and its the OFFICIAL SHIA POINT OF VIEW. You want me to prove that shia belive that bilal stoped doing the adhan only because Abu Bakr aid so? No Problem, i can do that. I dont insert my original research, cuz i dont do any, i only add things that i have seen other shia post on the internet, in other words: Shia pov


 * ' So, now that im done with "No wriggling, no doubletalk, no accusations of bigotry, no talk about Shia or Sunni, no requests that I edit something for you, no distractions at all. Just focus on the question of NPOV"'', you can have a complete share of my mind:


 * ' The only reson that i have been writing all this obvious text that everybody here knows alreday is that sunnis, like allways CAN NOT STAND THAT SHIAS LOVE ALI AND WANT TO DECLARE THAT TO THE WORLD''


 *  WORLD; HEAR ME; I HATE THOSE HOW HURT ALI AND I LOVE THOSE WHO LOVE ALI!!! 


 * ' That is Shias only pov, and we have the guaranteed right to express it to the world through wikipedia, it is MY RIGHT to do it! But Muawyas lovers cant stand it, it kills them that whe hate Ali open enemis, it kills them to see us uncover theri filthy lives, their filty unkown ancestors and their filty approach to Islam. It kills them to see that we have the right to expose that Ali himself in Sahi Muslim is reported to think of Umar and Abu Bakr as "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest"''!


 * ' THAT'' is the reson for making a all sort of excuses to blank out the shia pov.


 *   All i demand is this: To have a list where it is reported HOW and WHY shias rank sahabas the way we do. That is what any Shia have wanted any time in history. And that is why we got masscred by Yazid I, la'an, by Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef, la'an, and Saddam Hussain, la'an and my god curse alll there creatures for having massacred my people only for having whanted to tell the world why whe hate those who hurt Fatimah, may God bless her......         look at my tone att the begining of the talk page and compare it to now, then you might get a hint of what shias have been subjected to though the millenia by Muaviyas lovers. And keep in mind that im just a guy behind a screen behind internet, i don have animals like Yazid on my neck. 


 * Striver's version is seriously problematic both in English usage and in POV. Claims like  "Bilal ibn Ribah stoped singing the adhan after Muhammad as his protest of Ali's right being usurped" should be sourced, and their status as Shia beliefs not held by Sunnis (unlike, say "When Abu Bakr died, she married Ali") should be made clear.  And  I definitely want to see a source for such claims as "there were over 100,000 companions".  Providing information on who the Shias approve or disapprove of and why is certainly encyclopedic as far as that goes, at least in cases where there is a general Shia consensus, and should be mentioned here; but it should not be done in such a way as to totally overshadow everything else about them. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)


 * (A)''It is written in Kamil Baha'i that Bilal did not say adhan or iqamah for Abu Bakr,[81] and did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr as a caliph. Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Tusi has narrated in lkhtiyar al-Rijal a report that Bilal refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr; and 'Umar caught hold of his dress made of hide and said, "Is this the reward of Abu Bakr; he emancipated you and you are now refusing to pay allegiance to him?". Bilal said, "If Abu Bakr had emancipated me for the pleasure of Allah, then let him leave me alone for Allah; and if he had emancipated me for his service, then I am ready to render him the services required. But I am not going to pay allegiance to a person whom the Messenger of God had not appointed as his caliph." 'Umar then dealt harshly with him and said, "You should not remain here among us." That is why after the Prophet's death, Bilal could not remain in Medina; and migrated to Syria. (ref)


 * (B)Ther is no need to to tell "their status as Shia beliefs not held by Sunnis" since it already says in the beginning that its all Shia POV: "Shia view" "Shia introduction" "The list of Sahaba includes events that are relevant (in the Shia point of view) for establishing a view, ranked accordingly to their general perceived status."


 * (C) 100 000 companions: "This was first time that the Muslims with this magnitude gathered in one place in the presence of their leader, the Messenger of Allah [s]. On his way to Makkah, more than seventy thousand people followed Prophet [s]. On the fourth day of Dhu'l-Hijjah more than one hundred thousand Muslims had entered Makkah." (ref)


 * (D) how do you mean? What is ther about them that should be included, but is not done? Please, i invite you to contribute to this article by INCLUDING anything that you feel is necary, but i do not accept the removal of the Shia pov, nor the motivation for us having our pov.


 * Pity the editor attempting to address these points and bring the article into focus! The choice is to either a) excise such references entirely, as they are currently deeply problematic, or b) do the monumental amount of work necessary to bring them up to snuff, a task for which Striver has so far shown neither aptitude nor inclination. With respect, I think the near-term solution is to make it a much, much, shorter article-- from  which we can expand, with the input of multiple editors. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * '''A) is out of the question, see my long text for you above. B) I will do that, as you have seen, i have given referens to every single point that anyone has deemed neccesary to give referens to. Manny things are self evident, for example Abu Huraira being a irreligious lier, but if you whant ill bring referens for that to: an irreligious fabricator. just tell me if you whan referens for anything else. No need for a short article, i woll work 24/7 on bringing ref if that its required to expose the enemies of Ahl ul-Bayt.

In my opinion (and keep in mind that my knowledge of the topic is quite limited), this version seems closer to the ideal of NPOV and is certainly better-written, but omits information that this version includes. What I think the article ought to do is this:


 * Have an introduction that defines the term, gives the Arabic, and briefly summarizes attitudes towards the subject, including any major points of disagreement.
 * Explain the points that the various sects and schools hold in common, if any.
 * Explain the consensus Sunni view, if such a thing exists, noting the significant variations, ifany exist.
 * Explain the consensus Shiite view, if such a thing exists, noting the significant variations, if any exist.
 * Explain the views of the minor sects (e.g. Kharijites), if they are known.
 * If the five categories that Striver's version explains are accurate, then explain these five categories with one or two examples of each. If technical terminology for these categories exists, explain and use that. Spin out the exposition of why Shiites think what they think about each individual, and why they differ with the Sunnis (if at all), into the biographies of each individual.
 * Leave the lists out of this article; use List of companions of the prophet Muhammad and Category:Sahaba instead.

I, as someone with no stake in either view, could try to put together a draft based on the conflicting versions of the article and the discussion here, if anyone thinks that might be helpful. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)


 * '''1 already included in my version :"In the Islamic religion, the Sahaba (or Asahaaba,الصحابه; both forms ar"
 * '''2 already included in my version :"A Sahabi knew or saw the Prophet, believed in hi..."
 * '''3 already included in my version : "Acording to the general Sunni school of thougt, All Sa...", "also to be noted is that Imam Abu Hanifa said..."
 * '''4 already included in my version : "Shias look at each Sahaba as an individual...", "since Shias have few sects and most disagreements between the sects start afte"
 * '''5 To be included, since its not nither two versions.
 * '''6 already included in my version : "This can be defined as sahaba that in action aided Ahl ul-Bayt and are expected to go to the higher levels of heaven, althought God knows best. " If you expect me to explain why for example Abdullah ibn abbas is going to heavan, well thats there to: "Abdullah ibn Abbas was a staunch follower of Ali. Did not give alligance to Abu Bakr, until Ali supposedly did so. Accompanied Ali when he demanded his inheritance from Umar and sought very badly of Umar and Abu Bakr. Strongly argued against Umars prohibition of temporary marriage. Convinced 20'000 of 24'000 the Khawarij to return to Ali. Cried at the age of 70 when recalling Umar calling Muhammad "Delirius"."


 * '''7) no point in that. As i added above, a alphabetical list does not hold any information on what Shias think about a Sahaba. It could be included in detail in each article, wich it does, but that does not elimitante the need to have a list that gives a overiew. How is one that wants to find out which Sahaba shia like supposed to find that out? Go to random sahaba articles and try to figure it out? Further, i really do not see the wisdom in spliting the introduction of the list and the actual list to diffrent articles. I would like to hear some arguments for that.


 * '''Im open to and invite contributions, but refuse deletion.


 * I've just reverted to Zora's last edit. I have no competence in this area (and, like Mirv, no stake either way), but Striver's version introduced a number of stylistic and grammatical mistakes, and was somewhat messy.  My recommendation would be to take up Mirv's kind offer. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 4 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)


 * ''' Yes, i know, im a grammatic train wreck. no exuses, thats cold facts :)


 * Agreed. This is an excellent suggestion. Thank you for these insights Mirv (and Mel). BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)


 * Having spent some time comparing the versions, I have to agree with Charles' viewpoint. The Striver version is extremely poorly written and hardly NPOV in the details of the text; however, the other version fails to meet NPOV requirements because it presents only the Sunni viewpoint.  Both versions would benefit from better citation.  Assuming Charles can do a re-write in a reasonable amount of time, it would be best to leave the non-Striver version in there for now, as it is at least readable, and have someone who can write well in English work quickly towards including information from the Shia POV into it. If consensus can be reached for this approach on this page (and there certainly appears to be some), I'll work to make sure it can be implemented. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Striver, please stop editing other people's comments, you made them very difficult to read. I've removed your insertions, please do not put them back.  If you want to quote someone, copy their comments and quote it. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)


 * oh, sorry, did not think about that, ill refrain from it in the future.


 * You said that my version is poorly writen. Ok, very possible, since im worthless in english, its not my first language. The you said "hardly NPOV in the details of the text". care to give an example?`


 * --Striver 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)


 * Statements such as "Most Shias have the same frame of preference regarding the relevant issues, since Shias have few sects and most disagreements between the sects start after Husayn ibn Ali's era. This, and all sects being minority to the twelvers, explains why almost all Shia have a very similar frame of preference regarding the Sahaba, making this list relevant and accurate in the field of Social sciences rather then Hard science." are simply opinion unless they can be sourced somewhere. Your version of the article is filled with stuff like this. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

''"Most Shias have the same frame of preference regarding the relevant issues, since Shias have few sects and most disagreements between the sects start after Husayn ibn Ali's era.

'''"Practically all branches of Shi'i Islam agree that the 4 first imams, Ali, Hassan, Husayn, and Ali Zayn l'Abidin were correct leaders of Islam." (ref)

''This, and all sects being minority to the twelvers,

'''And 80 percent of Shi’ites are Twelvers (ref), perhaps eighty percent of the Shi'is are Twelvers

''explains why almost all Shia have a very similar frame of preference regarding the Sahaba, making this list relevant and accurate in the field of Social sciences rather then Hard science."

Do you need more sources?

--Striver 5 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)


 * Yes, I need sources which actually state what you have said in the paragraph; the sources you have provided say nothing of the sort. You've taken some basic facts, and written an entire original research paragraph based on them. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)


 * And 80 percent of Shi’ites are Twelvers, and from what I've read, 80% of Muslims are Sunni. The same argument you use to present the Shia POV, you can't use to nullify the non Twelver POV -- GNU 4 Eva  5 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

The "Sunni" version?
Jayg seems to be crediting me with writing a Sunni version of the article. I did revert to that version, which was a revision by BrandonYusufToropov. He is probably a Sunni, but I'm NOT. I'm a Buddhist, dang it, and I've been trying for months to de-Sunnify various Islamic articles. However, I'm also an academic, or at least academically-trained, and I've clashed repeatedly with Striver and Zereshk, another Shi'a involved in Wikipedia, over their uncritical use of hadith material. That doesn't make me anti-Shi'a, or Sunni, it just makes me a stickler for accuracy. From that standpoint, I had no problem with Brandon's version of Sahaba, which seemed to be fairly NPOV to me. I don't see what's Sunni about it. It's Striver who is claiming that anyone who opposes him must be Sunni.

When opposed, Striver and Zereshk go into "we are Shi'a, we are being oppressed" mode. They are not being criticized for being Shi'a, they are being criticized for their prose, their POV attitude, and their use of historical sources. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of Shi'a scholars who write impeccable English, understand something of Western academic historical methodology, and would be willing to try to be NPOV in presenting Sunni and Shi'a versions of Islamic history and doctrines. I just wish they were here.

The Ibadi, as the surviving Kharijites, are the third major Islamic group and we don't have a single Ibadi on board. Ibadi input would also be desirable. Zora 5 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)


 * Zora, I'm not sure why you think I'm crediting you with writing a version of this article. I don't think I even mentioned you in my comments. I am as unhappy with Striver's contributions as you are, but I think somewhere within them is a Shi'a POV that needs to be documented in some way. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, Zora, which I should have provided earlier. One of the things I was trying to do with that revision was remove the pervasive Sunni vs. Shia structure of the article, because such a structure fails to include (for instance) groups with ancient pedigrees like the Kharijites. P.S.: The sahaba predate all of these groups, so why fixate on sectarian interpretations at all?


 * I really don't see what was distinctively "Sunni" about what I wrote, but I am certainly eager for other editors to improve it.


 * Yes, I am a Sunni. That certainly does not mean I regard Striver as a heretic, which is what he tends to claim when someone tries to revise his material.


 * I really think this article will benefit from multiple editors making balanced contributions.  Many thanks to the editors who have made comments here. Thanks specifically to Jay for taking a look at this. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)


 * What is sunni about it is that it list the "ten blessed Sahaba" and claim that they are prominent in the muslim view. That is not true. That is POV. Most of the "Blessed ten" are not blessed att all, the are notorious in the shia pov. And non of Abu Hashim are included in the "blessed ten", exepet the one that made it to be Caliph. That is NOT the shia pov. Its the Sunni POV. It is NOT the muslim pov. Its like claiming that all religions belive that ther is one God, when in fact its no so.


 * Why, then, did you lead your version of the article with these ten people? Is there another (brief, as in less than twenty) list of people you would like to suggest? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)


 * How can some one expect to be objective when the person believe that 99.9% of sahaba become renegades and apostates. Please come to your sens this kid who for the list days turned every thing up and down is Iranian who believe that only 9 sahabi remained(out of 100 000) muslims after prophets death. Are we gone let next time slobodan milosevic to write about what happened in srebrenica. Lets us not forget for one moment that shia only make 9% of Islamic world and the other side makes 90%? Will this small iranian sect represent islam?


 * Nationality and religious beliefs of editors are completely immaterial.


 * Once again: If the current draft of the article bothers you (and I'm not sure how it could, since it currently identifies no sahaba), get a username and make some suggestions about the edits you'd like to see.


 * If your point is simply that we should insult, ignore, or humiliate certain people because they're Iranian, or because they're Shia, then you are, I'm afraid, missing the point of WP. (You are also, IMHO, missing the point of Islam, but that's beside the point here).


 * Focus on the article, not the person. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Recent revert
Given that Striver accepts that his or her English is execrable, could he or she copy the new version to something like User:Striver/Sahaba (temp), so that it can be worked on and discussed out of the public gaze? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 5 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. I also suggest his recent changes to articles about important Muslim historical figures (e.g. Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan  be placed elsewhere first for cleanup before being inserted. Jayjg (talk)  5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Striver's latest reversion
...reads as following in the edit summary.

(No, that version is still POV. You can NOT have only a sunni list and claim it to be a Muslim list. Umar is NOT a "prominent" sahaba, he is a hypocrit.)

I would like all the editors observing this article to to know that that the list of ten sahaba on the version of the article Striver is objecting to came, not from me, but from Striver. That list included Umar. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)


 * First of all, its in my version because its the Sunni pov. And unlike you, i report both pov:s, And unlike you, i report that i is A pov that im reporting instead of claiming it is the muslim pov, when in fact its a sectarian pov.


 * Second, i did not put that list, it came with the very first versio of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&oldid=2305917


 * Thirdly, anyone that knows anything about the sunni pov nows that thoose ten are the "ten blessed", and that its a sunni list, regarded as unauthentical by shias!


 * Fair enough. What brief. neutral list would you replace it with? Let's look at it together on the talk page and discuss it. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)


 * That is what i have been writing for over 10 houres: There is no neutral list! Whe could have a random list, but that is useless. Or whe could have a alphabetic list, but we already have that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sahaba.


 * We already have a alphabetical list. Wikipedia needs a list of Sahaba that ranks them according to Muslim POV. But ther is no Muslim POV. For example, shia and sunni rank them difrently. I dont know about the other sects, they can have a section that can be filled when inforamtion is given. Ther is no neutral list. Even if there was one, it would not matter, Shias still need to have their POV reported in Wikipedia. Ther is no way around it, Shias ranking of the sahaba must be reported in wikipedia, as well as the sunni ranking and any other variants of it.


 * --Striver 5 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with reproducing the alphabetic list in this article?


 * Then you could develop a separate article on Shia ranking of the sabaha and we could link to it from here. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

wikipedia
This site is out of control.

I don't know how wikipedia can consider the arguments from small cults like the shia. Its like letting Mormons write something about Catholicism or a Christan to write about Muhammad. Wikipedia should know shia are very small cult that have very different beliefs than the muslim. They don't have any significant number to clime representing islam. 90% of shia are Iranians who historically have hatred for Arabs and as such they cannot be neutral about islam which originated from arab land. If wikipedia persist on letting small sects who are like the Mormons to write about islam we the muslims will boycott wikipedia.


 * Rather than throw insults around, you might consider a) signing your name and b) making constructive suggestions about changes you'd like to see made on the article in question. We've actually made some headway in the last day or so, I think. Ma-salaam, BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "we the muslims" belive in Sahi Muslim? Lets see what Sahi Muslim says about Iranians:


 * ''Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If the din (Islam) were at the Pleiades (distant star), even then a person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would have surely found it.


 * (ref)


 * Now, what did u say? Lets see, was it "90% of shia are Iranians" ? Yes it was....


 * --Striver 5 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Its actually bad hadith to use because it show Iranian in bad light. It say "even" Iranian can take hold which gives the meaning that they are the ones who have most difficult to accept islam. Its like me saying to my friend who cannot play football that even girls can play football, do you see? The meaning is lost in translation go to arabic.

-unsigend


 * No, its like saying to you friend that he could grab the ball, even if it was in a distand solar system.


 * --Striver 5 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

No its not, read the hadith before you make fool out of yourself and uncover the true nature of iranians from this hadith.

100,000 or "tens of thousands"?
Striver's claim that there were 100,000 companions is based on the Shi'a account of a gathering at Gadir Khum (sp?), where Muhammad is alleged to have indicated that he wanted Ali to succeed him as the leader of the Muslim community. The Shi'a claim that there were 100,000 spectators to this declaration. Not only is this claim controversial, I would regard it as obviously IMPOSSIBLE. Just consider the logistics of assembling 100,000 people in the middle of the Arabian desert. In those times, without the enormous infrastructure devoted to the Hajj now.

In the course of rewriting to remove the 100,000 companions, I had another whack at the para. I hope it's clearer now why the Shi'a don't want to accept testimony from some people whom they regard as enemies of Ali.

I also believe that the section re "Ancestors of the Sahaba" should be deleted. It's a completely unworkable category. If someone wants to work on the genealogies of the Quraysh, and the various other tribes of Mecca, Medina, and the Arabian peninsula, be my guest. Report back in a few years . Zora 5 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
 * Good point, and good edit. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)


 * Very nice edit, Zora. Context in place now. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Zora my frien, im a bit disapointed. Im going to ciritzie you, so prepare:

How could you write that it was only tens of thousands sahaba? You got that from your own pocket. That is extreamly unprofesional and i hope you wont repeat that. I have realy higher expectations of you than to rewrite somthing just according to Zora POV. Thats even worse than a single sect POV.

''"Around Madinah tents were set up to accommodate the new visitors, numbering 100,000 or more, who rose up in response to the call of their Nabi ...He was followed by a great multitude, numbering 114,000. " (sunni site)

''"accompanied by 124,000 Sahaba (Companions)" (same sunni site)

''When all people, over one hundred thousand in number had assembled at the pond in the Khum valley

(another sunni site)

Dont get me wrong, im realy happy for all the time you contribute to the articles, but please, dont do a thing like that again, dont change editions or take a side without hard referens.

Your brother in humanity, striver.

Oh, by the way i want to keep the "sahabas ancestors". Ill add to the list as i continue my research, you can count on that i will expand the list as i go on.

best regards!

--Striver 5 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Striver, you're citing oral traditions recorded hundreds of years later. I'm using just plain common sense. I absolutely refuse to accept, or believe, anything that is impossible. No "pond" could supply the water needs of 100,000 people. The figure is obviously pious exaggeration and it does not belong in an encyclopedia as fact. Zora 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is Zora POV. Is that more encyclopedic? --Striver 6 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)


 * Sunni and Shi'a sources disagree on several points, but not on how many people were at Ghadir Khom. Furthermore, I don't think it's impossible for 100,000 people to have made the pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca in Muhammad's time.  Let me explain why.


 * A typical camel can easily carry a load of 150 kg. 1 L of water weighs 1 kg, so that's 150 L of water that can be carried per camel.  A person needs up to 5 L of water per day.  150/5 = 30 people whose water needs can be served by one camel per day.


 * The journey from Medina to Mecca along the coastal route is between 400 and 485 km .  We'll round that up to 500 km to make the math easier.  "A working camel will typically cover 40km/25 miles a day", so that's a 13-day trip.  A camel can go for up to a week without any food or water, so that means only one pit stop is absolutely necessary.  If you do the math, we're going to need one camel carrying water for every two people, so that's 50,000 camels.  Each camel is going to drink up to 150 L on that pit stop, so that's 7,500,000 L of water that this caravan is going to need.  In other words, 7.5 cubes of water, each 10 meters on a side.  Or, three Olympic size swimming pools (50m x 25m x 2m each).  That is a lot of water, but not more water than a pond might contain.  In reality, there are several oases between Medina and Mecca - at least three between Jeddah and Mecca (Wadi Fatima, Wadi Khulays , and Ghudir Khum) and maybe more nearer to Medina.  So to me, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that a caravan of this size could make the journey from Medina to Mecca without everyone dying of thirst.


 * So let us move on from this issue and go back to figuring out how to structure this article in a NPOV way. --Skoosh 6 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)


 * You can add to that Muhammad (as) made an unexpected stop att Ghadire Khumm, people where not counting on that. This is not about how manny they where in Ghadire Khumma, rahter how manny companions ther is. And lastly, there is not even on singel authorized source in the entire galaxy or universe that claim otherwise. And no, personal pov based on conjecture is not a valid source.


 * I see absolutly no motivation for this latest events, the delition of the true number of companions. Utterly unprofesional and equaly unacceptable.

Number of companions
I used the 10,000 figure because that was in the article already. I was assuming good faith/due diligence on the part of whoever originally contributed that figure, whether it was Striver or BrandonYusufToropov. It didn't seem out of line considering the size of Arab towns, armies, etc. Now Striver is attacking me for using this figure, saying that it's arbitrary, where his 100,000 figure is factual.

I went looking for lists of companions and biographical dictionaries of companions. The lists on the web all topped out at 50 or 60 companions. I looked in my academic texts and found references to Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, a very early Islamic historian who wrote a biographical dictionary. However, none of the sources I found said anything about how many companions he had listed.

Does anyone here have any access to lists of companions, Islamic biographical dictionaries, or Ibn Sa'd's Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir? Zora 6 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. My guess is that you made a inocent mistake, since the figure 10 000 can not be found befour you added it to the article. it has always read like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=next&oldid=9992797


 * --Striver 6 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)


 * Um, Striver, that diff doesn't show what you think it does. An anon added the number back in February, not me. OK, so I was wrong in trusting. Zora 6 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * I know you well enough to be assured that it was nothing more than a simple slip. For your information i can also add that no anon added such number in february. As i said, no problem, all is fine :)


 * Best regards, --Striver 6 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

its NOT 10 000!
(Note: Im not addresing Zora)

Whats wrong with you people? Wikipedia is not about your random guesses, why 10 000? Why not 7000 ? Or 64 ?

-*sight*... --Striver 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Jayjg
I dont get what his problem is, i have worked out my disagreement with Zora, something Jayjg hade nothing to do with, but still he keeps reverting my editions. Now he claims that i violated the 3 revert rule, although i did no such thing, i made 3 reverts and one ADDITION. Get a life. Or learn to read the talk page, so you can see how i and Zora worked out our disagreemnts. Or stop putting your nose in other peoples business. Of course, if you can dispute that all Muslims belive that there is more 100 000 companions, or even if you can find some obscure source that claims otherwise, muslim or non-muslim, i will take back all i said about you, make a public apology and not touch this article for 1 month.

--Striver 6 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)


 * There is no agreement on this page for the 100,000 inclusion from Zora; in fact, I see Zora continually opposing it. Can you point out the statement where Zora agrees with it?  Second, continually adding this information is reverting it.  Third, I was asked to come to this page, and Wikipedia is my business; no-one owns articles here, including you.  Finally, I again strongly recommend that you let 3rd party editors edit this page, including Zora and Mirv, rather than editing it yourself. Jayjg (talk)  6 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. The proprietary sense you sometimes display is a real liability to this article, Striver. Jay has as much "to do with" this article as anyone, and as an admin has more "to do with" it than you or I do, inasmuch as he has a responsibility to enforce 3RR and/or report violations.


 * Re: 3RR -- If yours is a borderline case, you will want to treat Jayjg politely and discuss this matter calmly, so as not to increase the likelihood of your motives being misinterpreted and you yourself being banned. BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)


 * Jayg: her it is: Um, Striver, that diff doesn't show what you think it does. An anon added the number back in February, not me. OK, so I was wrong in trusting. Zora 6 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * BrandonYusufToropov: I dont act diffrently to people depending on their status or might when i *KNOW* im right. As for me "owning" the page, that is not true. I stronli opposed the shia list being delet, and rightly so. A new acceptable sugestion was made and i accepted. This is the same, Zora was misstaken. i *KNEW* that. Zora addmited it, he saw something in february from a anon. He took for granted that it was true. Thing is, he didnt even saw that, he thought he saw it, since nobody has ever writen 10 000 befor Zora made his personal pov based on loos conjecture. He admited that he should have taken a better look on soures. Jayg, admin or no admin, still dosent get it.Jayg, admin or no admin, is bringing back a false statement with no source, with no evidence. He actualy has no motives for insisting on that number, since ther exist no source in the whole universe that claims it to be less than 100 000 sahaba. He is reverting back to a statement based on personal pov and conjedture, and what is totaly unaccaptable is that he claims that i should read the talk page, while he missed Zora addmiting his flawed sources. Not to say the other guy that posted a long matematical refutation to the "imposibility" of it. Jayg being a admin does not make thing better.


 * Jayg, this is to you: Get a source that supports your number or make a apology!


 * This is not about blocking 3rd parties, this is about a being right and *KNOWING* it!


 * Ther is more than 100 000 sahaba, period!


 * --Striver 7 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)


 * There you go, Striver. Zora never agreed to your 100,000 inclusion, just as I stated (see below). In the future please don't claim agreement where there is none. Jayjg (talk)  8 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)


 * Jayg, i never claimed that zora agreed with me on the numbers, just that she admited that she has no sources that dipute the number, and that its just her personal pov. And personal pov does not belong in a encyclopedia. But anyhow, just to please her i changed the statement from a factual claim of the number to a report of what muslims belve, something that i really shoul'nd need to have to to. Now the real strange thing is that she is opposing even that! Even thoug i gave her links to several sunni site that claims ther was more than 100 000 companions she still wants to remove the report that muslims belive there was more thatn 100 000!


 * That is below her normaly very high standard, and i hope she realizes that and returns to being more neutral than most. Muslim pov must be reported!


 * --Striver 8 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

You claimed (above) that "I dont get what his problem is, i have worked out my disagreement with Zora, something Jayjg hade nothing to do with, but still he keeps reverting my editions. Now he claims that i violated the 3 revert rule, although i did no such thing, i made 3 reverts and one ADDITION. Get a life. Or learn to read the talk page, so you can see how i and Zora worked out our disagreemnts." Clearly you had not "worked out your disagreement with Zora", and it was you did not accurately read the Talk: page, since she has reverted your addition of this sentence yet again. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Striver, I'm starting to feel cranky about being accused of being "responsible" for the 10,000 figure. It is true that it seems to arrive in February of this year, from an anon who made the claim BOTH of the 100,000 companions AND of the 10,000 biographies. When you rewrote the article, you carried both claims forward. When Brandon rewrote your article, he kept both claims. I'm the first one to question the 100,000 figure -- so you attacked the 10,000 figure and accused me of introducing it, not having any sources to support it, etc. So, I did some online research and found that the 10,000 claim couldn't be supported either.

Anyone who works with old historical texts has to learn to disregard the numbers given. Writers of the past tended to use numbers impressionistically. 1000 is lots, 10,000 is lots and lots, 100,000 is enormous numbers of people. That's all it means. Guesses re inhabitants of a city, number of men in an army, distances -- they're all given in big round numbers that are usually grotesquely larger than anything that was possible in real life. It's a trope -- just like princesses who are always beautiful, princes who are always handsome, palaces that are always filled with gold and jewels, etc. This isn't just Arab -- it's practically universal. Read old Chinese poetry and you'll come across the figure "10,000 li". "I'm 10,000 li from the capital, my tears fall ceaselessly." That doesn't mean that the poet measured each li with a GPS or a sextant, it means that he's far far away.

Speculations about 100,000 people on camels loaded with water and food aside, it seems extremely unlikely that any such crowd COULD have been assembled in the Arabia of that day. I've been spending a lot of time digging for material in Ibn Ishaq, who is primarily full of reminiscences of old battles, delivered by aged warriors. These battles are described in great detail, stroke by stroke, with lists of the fallen and wounded and their geneologies. The overall impression is of small parties fighting small-scale battles.

I've been digging hard for population estimates for Mecca and Medina. Here's the only one I've found, at. According to this population historian:

In the 7th century AD the Prophet Mohammed led his followers to Medina (in Saudia Arabia). After establishing a city-state, one of the first tasks was to conduct a written census of the entire Moslem population in the city. The return showed a total of 1500 persons.

Then there's Reza Aslan's history, No God But God; Aslan just says that there were hundreds of Muhajirun, at their first arrival, and thousands of Medinans.

I do think it's impossible to go from THAT to 100,000 people, unless the 100,000 just means "lots and lots".

We'd have a better idea from archaeology, but the Saudi government doesn't allow foreign archaeologists to dig, and doesn't publish results from Saudi archaeologists.

I should have been cleaning house instead of pillaging my books and the web. Zora 7 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

Hi Zora!

I was planing to dropp the "its Zora's fault" thing, but i hade to to it to get through some peoples head. I apologise to you for making you feel bad, but i could not see any other way to discredit the 10 000 number, exept for making it clear that it had one individual as a source.

As for the 10 000 biographies, it doesnt say anithing more that there was 10 000 biographies. its totaly plausible that every 10 tenth companion got a biography.

As for your claim that it is imposible for mideval people to count that high... well, i would whant to think that they wherent total idiots. If they can make a population count of rome, that hade 50 -150 000 people, i dont get why they couldent make a good estimate of the people that came to the last hajj. Actually, that would be a relevant number since it would give a good indication of the number of followers they had.

A poetry is a poetry and it obviously cant proove that people coud'nt count above 9 999 back then.

Its posible that manny people did count on "big", "bigger" and "bigges", both then and now, but to from that to conclude that they COULD NOT count, thats a total diffrent conclusion.

Here goes a heap of conjectures from my part:

In cia.org you can see that ther is  26,417,599  living in Saudi arabia today.

this site says Europe's 47 countries possessed 726 million people in 2003,

Europ total in 650 ce: 18 millions source

726 millions / 18 millions = Europ population was 40 times lower back then

26,4 millinon saudis of today / 40 = 0,66 millions of then.

Now, add that the today saudi arabia does not include manny coastal areas like yemen, and that coastal areas have manny people in them, its not imposible that ther was 1 million people in the whole penisula.Now, add that it was a dutie to go to hajj and that people wanted to see the prophet during the last hajj, why is it impossible that 0,1 million out the 1 million whent ther? That every ten people. Remeber that it was announced well in advanced, and that people from all over the penisula already came to pledge alligange to Islam and that Mecca was the trade center of the pennisula.

You said that Medina had 1500 people. Most say that 600 men (not women) where killed of the banu quraiza. that would make it two citys of more than 1 000 people. Counting that they where not the biggest citys, it dosent make 1 million total for the penisul imposible.

Think about Aishas armie, it had more than 10 000 people, and alis countered it with an equal amount.

Ther is no sources that state less than 100 000 companions, and no circumstans that make it impossible. Only conjecture that can be refuted with the same sort of conjecture.

Best regards, and sorry for making you kranky :) --Striver 7 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

I edited for style, but ...
... I have no position on the whole 100,000 vs. 10,000 thing. If people have problems with that number, please do feel free to change what I did. BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)


 * Im fine with this, lets hope jayg agrees to. Thanks for your contribution BrandonYusufToropov!


 * --Striver 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Striver is saying that I agreed to the 100,000 and 10,000 estimates? What? They're both indefensible. I never agreed to any such thing. I wrote a revision that backed off from any numerical claims -- it just said that most lists of prominent companions had 50-60 names, and that more people were listed in early Muslim biographical dictionaries. Unless someone gets a copy of Muhammad ibn Sa'd and does a count, no numbers can be supported.

Striver is pushing the 100,000 claim because as a Shi'a, he believes in the tradition that Muhammad appointed Ali his successor at Ghadir Khum (sp?) and that there 100,000 spectators. He won't accept that early historical writers were prone to "impressionistic" use of numbers and insists on the exact count as a matter of fact. If he wants to include this in the article on the Shi'a view of the companions, and it's stated as a Shi'a belief, not a fact, that's fine. But we can't let pious exaggerations and dubious oral tradition be enshrined as fact in the main article on sahaba.

Striver has been very busy on many Islamic articles lately, filling them with similar "facts" -- such as "he was a bastard and the son of a bastard" for someone the Shi'a dislike (Yazid I). The articles on Muawiya and Umar still need to cleaned up. The Muawiya article, now filled with invective, is a good sample of Striver's work.

Much as I value the Shi'a perspective on events, I'm not sure that our time is well spent cleaning up like this. Can we ask Striver to take a vacation from editing Islamic articles for a while while we finish tidying up? Zora 7 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)


 * Hi Zora. I cant remeber to have claimed that you agreed to the 100 000 companions, only that you agreed that you have no source claiming otherwise.


 * Regarding the actual number, WP does not endors original research, so unles you can come upp with a source for a alternative number, the consensus betwen Shias and Sunnis for the number 100 000 stands as fact. At the very list you should be able to find something at the answering-islam page, but you wont. And therefor its an undesputed fact. Its not a miracel or anything, its a number of people, its not like . And anyhow, as i writes now its not stadet as a fact, its only reporting that all Muslims agree on it.


 * And about my work beeing in need of tidying up, ill try to do a little better.


 * Best regards, --Striver 7 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)


 * If Sunni and Shi'a agree on something, that doesn't necessarily make it TRUE. They could both be wrong. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that the Sunni "agree". Striver is claiming that the Sunni "agree", but I haven't seen any Sunni authorities or websites talking about Gadir Khum.


 * The problem with relying on the hadith "evidence", as Striver does, is that proponents typically focus on what they see as the first link in the chain, the companion who is said to have testified to X. This is supposed to prove X. But is there any good evidence that the companion said X? We are given an isnad, and told, "Well, it was passed along this chain for 300 years and then written down, so it must be true". No one but the pious and determined would accept that sort of evidence. Evidence, as far as real historians are concerned, starts with a properly dated manuscript (or a dated archaeological artifact or inscription, etc.). The hadith is attested at the point at which it's first written down.


 * I don't have copies of Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari, or Ibn Sa'd. All I have is Ibn Ishaq. Something like the speech supposedly delivered at Gadir Khum is found in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq on pages 650-652. It says, "Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage and showed the men the rites and taught them the customs of their hajj. He made a speech in which he made things clear." The speech, as given in Ibn Ishaq, says, "I have left with you something which if you will hold fast to it you will never fall into error -- a plain indication, the book of God and the practice of his prophet, so give good heed to what I say." Nothing in there about Ali. Nothing about 100,000 people -- just, "the men", who seem from the context to have been an army led by Ali. This cannot have been a large "army" if the anecdote re the clothing is true. Ibn Ishaq says that one of Ali's companions decided that the men should look splendid as they entered Mecca, and took Ali's "linen" and passed it out, so that "every man in the force" was wearing Ali's clothes. Ali saw this, was upset, and demanded his clothes back. The warriors were angry at Ali, but Muhummad said (per Ibn Ishaq), "Do not blame 'Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of God, or in the way of God, to be blamed."


 * If this is true -- which it might well NOT be -- then either Ali was carrying enough clothes for 100,000 people, or it was a small force!


 * I looked through my indispensible Madelung and all he says of Gadir Khum is that after Ali had assumed the caliphate, and after the Kharijites had left him, his followers made a new oath of allegiance to him, taking his friends as their friends, his enemies as their enemies. Madelung says that Ali then proclaimed that Muhammad had appointed Ali as his successor, said that this had happened at Gadir Khum, and asked some of the companions in his army to step forward and support his words. Which they duly did. These are not exactly the circumstances under which I would expect a reasoned historical discussion of exactly what Muhammad had said, when and where, and how many people were there to listen. This is page 253 of Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad.


 * I would prefer to have Shi'a claims to 100,000 companions discussed in the Shi'a ranking page but -- if the other, non-Shi'a editors think that the question of the number of companions is important enough to discuss in the Sahaba article, I'll try to write up a para summarizing the controversy. Zora 8 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Zora said
If Sunni and Shi'a agree on something, that doesn't necessarily make it TRUE. They could both be wrong. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that the Sunni "agree". Striver is claiming that the Sunni "agree", but I haven't seen any Sunni authorities or websites talking about Gadir Khum.


 * '''Zora, you did not present one single source that disputed that, the only thing that you did is to use origianl research to present you highly personel pov based on conjecture! And both me and the other guy refuted you conjecture with equaly fine conjecture!


 * '''Furthere: If you read it again youll see that ghadire Khumm is uninportant, the sunnis sites that i gave you (if you bother to look at them) showed that sunnis agree there was over 100 000 companions in mecca when the last pilgrimiga happened! This is not about ghadire Khum, this is about you not wanting to acknowledge what both sunni and shia claim regarding a perfectly posible event! Now, that is fine, nobody asks you to belive it, but the problem is that you want to inpose your pov on the article! Now, when i try to include my view i always to that after having already read that somewhere. Yas, even that Yazid was a bastard, had a slave as his biological father, is something that is claimed in shia books, i dont know about sunni books, but i have never heard a refutation to it. The point is Zora, you cant delet something that all sources agree on, if no source contradicts it and it is very much possible, then you have no right to remove it!


 * '''But still, even though shia and sunnis agree to it, you want to remove it in the claims that.. i dont know... Why not remove the Muhammad article arguing that only because shias and sunnis say so dosent make it a fact that he lived? Heck, you could even bring some referens then, it wouldent be original resource like what you are doing now.


 * '''Although i you dont have anything then original research and personal pov to suport your claim, i agreed it to change it to "The is a broad agreement betwen Muslims", and still you want to remove it! That is totaly below your standard, thats 9-year old standard! Shape upp Zora, you know that its true that all Muslims agree to it, i gave you 4 numbers supporting that from sunni sites!

The problem with relying on the hadith "evidence", as Striver does, is that proponents typically focus on what they see as the first link in the chain, the companion who is said to have testified to X. This is supposed to prove X. But is there any good evidence that the companion said X? We are given an isnad, and told, "Well, it was passed along this chain for 300 years and then written down, so it must be true". No one but the pious and determined would accept that sort of evidence. Evidence, as far as real historians are concerned, starts with a properly dated manuscript (or a dated archaeological artifact or inscription, etc.). The hadith is attested at the point at which it's first written down.


 * '''What are you talking abut, i didnt give you a single hadith, i gave you links to sunni biograpies and a linkt to a shia site describing Ghadire khumm, i did not show you one single hadith regarding this topic! And about isnad, no scholar looks and the first person in the chain, i know that you know that, people dedicate their entire life to learn the biogrhies of all the people involved in the chains. Anyhow, totaly irrelevant for this discution, since i did not present hadith and did not imply that the first person is the only one that matters, i likned you to official shia and sunni numbers! I mean, if you are going to say all hadith are worthless, why dont you start by deleting some of the companions biogrpihs since their existence is only proven through hadith?

I don't have copies of Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari, or Ibn Sa'd. All I have is Ibn Ishaq. Something like the speech supposedly delivered at Gadir Khum is found in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq on pages 650-652. It says, "Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage and showed the men the rites and taught them the customs of their hajj. He made a speech in which he made things clear." The speech, as given in Ibn Ishaq, says, "I have left with you something which if you will hold fast to it you will never fall into error -- a plain indication, the book of God and the practice of his prophet, so give good heed to what I say." Nothing in there about Ali. Nothing about 100,000 people -- just, "the men", who seem from the context to have been an army led by Ali. This cannot have been a large "army" if the anecdote re the clothing is true. Ibn Ishaq says that one of Ali's companions decided that the men should look splendid as they entered Mecca, and took Ali's "linen" and passed it out, so that "every man in the force" was wearing Ali's clothes. Ali saw this, was upset, and demanded his clothes back. The warriors were angry at Ali, but Muhummad said (per Ibn Ishaq), "Do not blame 'Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of God, or in the way of God, to be blamed."


 * '''There was no army, they where going back home after a pilgrimiga to mecca, not a raid! Its really strage that you trust books with no isnad, and regard hadithes with isnad as unauthentic, when they get their material from THE SAME SOURCE. Realy weired....

If this is true -- which it might well NOT be -- then either Ali was carrying enough clothes for 100,000 people, or it was a small force!


 * '''So, are you saying that he had clothes for 10 000 people, but not 100 000?

I looked through my indispensible Madelung and all he says of Gadir Khum is that after Ali had assumed the caliphate, and after the Kharijites had left him, his followers made a new oath of allegiance to him, taking his friends as their friends, his enemies as their enemies. Madelung says that Ali then proclaimed that Muhammad had appointed Ali as his successor, said that this had happened at Gadir Khum, and asked some of the companions in his army to step forward and support his words. Which they duly did. These are not exactly the circumstances under which I would expect a reasoned historical discussion of exactly what Muhammad had said, when and where, and how many people were there to listen. This is page 253 of Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad.


 * ''' Ther is 100 people that reported the events of Ghadire Khumm. In first place of the chain, inm not talking abuot 100 people in all the whole chain, no, 100 first narrators. Everyone knew it, most had wittnesed it, 100 first person reports survived though history. No matter, we are not talking abut ghadir. Sunni claim there was over 100 000 in mecca.

I would prefer to have Shi'a claims to 100,000 companions discussed in the Shi'a ranking page but -- if the other, non-Shi'a editors think that the question of the number of companions is important enough to discuss in the Sahaba article, I'll try to write up a para summarizing the controversy. Zora 8 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)


 * ''' Sister, what is you problem, its not a shia claim vs sunni + zora claim, its shia + sunni claim vs +zora original research pov!


 * Striver, who is also getting cranky...

Give me a break
Striver writes,

Regarding the actual number, WP does not endors original research, so unles you can come upp with a source for a alternative number, the consensus betwen Shias and Sunnis for the number 100 000 stands as fact.

Come on. This is an encyclopedia. She just got done explaining that there is no evidence for the 100,000 claim, beyond religious literature from hundreds of years later. It's not "original research" to point out that this material is not historical source material. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)


 * In that case, why do we have nubers for the participants of badr? Or anny battle for that matter? Why do we even care to belive Muhammad existed? I mean, all the letters he wrote could be forgeries writen by pious scholrs... you know what, maybe ther was a Muhammad (as), but does that prove that Badr existed? And by the way, she is not "pointing "point out that this material is not historical source material", she is deleting the whole statement, even though i rephrased it to say that its Muslim belife!


 * --Striver 8 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)


 * Have we discussed this before? "Muslim belief" may be enough for you, and it may be enough for me, but it is not enough for the average reader. Because this is an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to a) stick to the facts, b) avoid speculation, and c) stay on topic.


 * If you feel like arguing that Muhammad never existed, which, of course, I doubt, there are other articles where you can do that. (I've seen stupider arguments on WP, by the way, but they didn't hold up, in large measure because we have an obligation to document facts.) For this article, our goal is to create a responsible, factual, neutral answer to the question, "Who were the sahaba?" BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)


 * Brandon, Whe are her to also report on the muslim view. Actualy, if you look at it, most article is about reporting the muslim view on the Sahaba's, so i dont get why we are supposed to not report the muslim view of the number of sahaba. Reme ber, the Sunnis also beliver ther was over 100 000 in mecca during the last hajj. And you tell me, since when does Sunni buy in to Shia belifes? To say that Sunni belife is influense by Shia is ridiculos. --Striver 8 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)


 * If it's only Islamic religious tradition that supports the 100,000 number, then why not just state in the article that, "According to Islamic religious tradition, there were over 100,000 Sahaba who saw Muhammad during his lifetime, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses at Ghadir Khom. However, the plausibility of this figure has been disputed"?  It seems to represent everyone's POV here fairly, while remaining NPOV itself.  If it turns out that there really is a difference of opinion betwen Sunnis and Shi'is about how many Sahaba there were, then we can amend the statement to reflect that.  Agreed?  --Skoosh 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you idea Skoosh. I could live with "According to Islamic religious tradition, there were over 100,000 Sahaba who saw Muhammad during his lifetime", although i dont get why ots neccesary to write "religious tradition" since ther does not exists other than relious traditions. Shouldent then all Muslim biogrpies include "religious"? But that is only a small issue, i can live with it


 * "based on the testimony of eyewitnesses at Ghadir Khom" is simply false, since the number has to to with the amount of people that came to Mecca for the last hajj, not Ghadir Khom.


 * "However, the plausibility of this figure has been disputed" is simply false. There are not a single source that make such a claim. No Shia disputes that. No Sunni disputes that. No Western scholar disputes that. Only Zora disputes that. Zora and NOBODY ELSE. Its baseles conjectural pov from a single individual. She has no sources what so ever. Its original research. In contrary to the 100 000 number that all sources that do make a estimate on agree. I have already given links to 5 numbers suporting that from diffrent 3 sites.


 * Brandon reverst me because he likes the idea of belitteling Ghadire Khumm, but he will NEVER say that ther is less than 100 000 since it is a insult to a Sahaba to say that they dont exist. Jayg just has a thing against me, he dont have any arguments, he only reverts me since he thing that i think that i own the page.


 * Thanks for you contribution! Best regards, --Striver 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)


 * All I know is that there is a dispute among the editors of this page (several, really), that this particular dispute has decent arguments on both sides, and that the dispute should be resolved before any further edits are made regarding the point in dispute. Otherwise, we're going to keep going round and round, everyone's going to dig their heels in deeper, and it will be more and more difficult to make progress.  Also, I'm fairly sure that a scholar or two could be found who will dispute the 100,000 figure, since there are at least a few historians who have doubts about the entire conventional story of Islam's first two centuries (cf. Historiography of early Islam).  Zora's criticism is a fairly obvious one that some other skeptical scholar could easily have made, and is not obviously invalid on its face.  Now, instead of finding these specific historians and then getting into detailed debates about how valid their criticisms are, I would rather that we agree upon a NPOV statement on the matter that briefly mentions both points of view.  That way, we can go back to arguing about, IMHO, more important things like the structure of the article.  --Skoosh 8 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Sunni Mecca
Brandon, im deeply sorry to see you hate for Shia's makes you blind for what your own School of thought teaches you. You are prepared to twist history just to minizie the possiblity of Ghadire Khumm havig happened. You are deniying Muhammad (sa) his Sahaba, just to because you liked Zora's sourcesless conjecture about Ghairee Khumm not happening. Is that not the greates insult to the Sahaba, to deny their existens? What is one who insults the Sahaba accoring to your school of thougt?

Her Brandon, take and read what your school of thought, the Sunnis, teach:


 * ''As soon as the people knew of Rasulullah (peace and blessing be upon him) 's intention and heard his call to march with him for Hajj, the whole Peninsula reverberated with the call, and thousands and thousands of people from all corners poured into Madinah. From every town and village. From every mountain and valley, from every plain and desert across the wide Peninsula the people arrived to perform the Hajj. It was as if this very vast expanse of land had all been illuminated by the dazzling light of Allah and his Rasool (peace and blessing be upon him) Around Madinah tents were set up to accommodate the new visitors, numbering 100,000 or more, who rose up in response to the call of their Nabi (peace and blessing be upon him). All these men came as brethren, in love and respect for one another, and united in true bond of friendship and Islamic brotherhood. whereas but yesteryear they had been the most hostile of enemies. These thousands upon thousands of men filled the streets of Madinah, all manifesting the smiles of faith, the certainty of conviction and the confidence and pride of true religion. Their gathering was an inspiring evidence of the victory of truth, of the wide reach of the light of Allah and the deep bond of truth and righteousness which had cemented them one to the other so that they stood like one great fortress.


 * ''On the twenty fifth of Dhul Qadah of the year 10 A.H. (23rd February 632 A.D.) Rasulullah (peace and blessing be upon him) set forth towards Makkah accompanied by all his wives each riding her own carriage. He was followed by a great multitude, numbering 114,000. These men marched with consciences deeply moved by their Imaan, with hearts full of joy and contentment at their intended accomplishment of Hajj to the holy sanctuary of Allah. Sunni Site


 * ''The land of Arabia had seen many wars and killings for centuries. In the year 10 A.H. most of Arabia had embraced Islaam. There were no idol-worshipping. In the month of Zil-Qadah 10 A.H. Rasulullah (peace and blessing be upon him) accompanied by 124,000 Sahaba (Companions) left Madinah for Makkah to perform the Hajj.

sunni site


 * ''After all arrangements had been completed, a caravan of over one hundred thousand Muslims fired with their enthusiasm for Islam, started for Makkah to visit the House of God and offer their submission to God. It was a remarkable sight, like which the people of Arabia had not seen before. The Holy Prophet rode at the head of the caravan. All his wives accompanied him. Ali rode by his side. He was accompanied by Fatima,

sunni site


 * ''On the way to Madina the caravan of those who had participated in the farewell pilgrimage spread over several miles ... Calling a halt near a pond Ghadir, in the valley of Khum the Holy Prophet sent men to call all persons of the caravan who had gone ahead or lagged behind to assemble there to hear the command of the Holy Prophet.


 * ''When all people, over one hundred thousand in number had assembled at the pond in the Khum valley, the Holy Prophet addressed them. The exact text of the address is not available. There is a good deal of controversy about the contents of the address, and both the Sunnis and the Shias have their own versions of the address.

another sunni site

How ammusing to see a Sunni deny the very existens of their beloved Sahabas just to belittle Ghadire Khumm.

How pathetic to claim that the sunnis got that idea from the Shias, as if Sunnis have ever listened to anything Shias have said. What an insult to your scholars. Im disgusted by your bias.

--Striver 8 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Striver ...

 * With respect, you talk so obsessively, and so repetitively, about the subject of "Shia and Sunni points of view" that you have a dismaying habit of making that the topic of each and every article that you contribute to. This not only ignores, say, the Ibadi, but it ignores the adherents of schools that now no longer exist. (Not to mention non-Muslims who may encounter your work.) This approach may make sense if your goal is to proselytize, but that is not what this project is about.


 * It is a fallacy to hold that every subject in WP benefits from your personal take on what the "Muslim Point of View" is.


 * Regardless of the article you seem to be editing, I believe you are in fact perpetually writing one and only one article: Striver's Summary of Shia and Sunni Beliefs. It is, frankly, getting really tiresome, and I join the growing chorus of people urging you to back off and let a few other people help to develop content.


 * Rather than continuing your attempts to monopolize this page, start a blog or something, okay? This is supposed to be a neutral information resource that benefits from multiple voices, not just yours. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)


 * Dear brother in Islam. The reason that it seams that every article i write i about Shia-Sunni is simple: Im Shia. I expect WP to report on the shia view. Its nothing strange about that.


 * The problem comes when other dont have the same pov. For example: In shia pov, pig is haram to eat. Fortunatly, most Muslim agree to that. Therefour, the Shia pov is represented when the pig article claim "Both Islam and Orthodox Judaism forbid the eating of pork in any form, considering it to be an unclean animal: no form of pig meat can be kosher or halal (see taboo meat).". There is no need to add anything there.


 * However, the shia view states that Umar was an usurper. No, unfortunatly, Sunnis dont agree to that. So to represent both view's, it is necesary to have both of them in the articles. Now, since the Sunni view is the default, since sunnis are the majority, it resulst in me needing to complement the articles to include the shia view. Is this worong? Shoud WP not included the shia view?


 * You are correct in that my main motivation in WP is to represent the shia view. Is that wrong?


 * About me not letting other to contribute: That is false. I almost never delet other peoples contribution. However, i strongly oppose that other should delet my work. Why? Since there was almost no shia view represented befor i started, im the main contributor to shia pov representation. I strongly oppose that shia view should be deleted or censored. Now, as it happens, whenever people delet shia pov, they are also deleting my material. That makes people draw the conslusion that im reaction to me people deleting my contribution. That is not correct, i have nothing against people correcting my work. Or even delition it, as long as the same content is represented in some other way.


 * That also expands somewhat to issues that could be seen as non-shia views. For example, i demand that the Abu Bakr article contains the list of people he liberated. He did a real good deed by liberating them and i demand that to be represented. And about this issue, it just makes me angry to see how "Shia + sunni vs nonbody" view of the number of companions is perverted to "shia vs sunni + western world" due to original resrearch that contains no referens to enybody. Zora i can understand a bit. She argues as she wants. Unfortunalty she forgets that originalresearch is not a part of WP. If her pov is correct in deeming it improbale, then she would have no dificulty in finding somebody, anybody, that claims otherwise. She does not. Jayg i do understand as well. He dosent really care, somebody rang the admin bell and he thinks he is regulating a crazy and vandalizing user (me). What breaks my hart is that you, a sunni, are prepared to igonre what the sunni pov states as fact and deny the existens of the sahaba, motivated only by your disliking of Ghadire Khumm only to claim that Zoras original research pov is accurate.


 * What im saying is irrefutable. The only thing Zora can show is her original research based on conjectures. She will never ever be able to bring support for her personal pov. And that is not allowed to shape an encyclopedia.


 * As for you, my brother in Islam, tell me: Why are you ignoring the sunni view?


 * Honestly, why are you denying the existens of the Sahaba?


 * Ma salam, --Striver 8 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

I did write a section on the number of companions
I think it was yesterday that I tried to summarize the dispute with this para, which I added to the end of the article:

How many companions were there?
Shi'a Muslims believe that Muhammad appointed Ali ibn Abu Talib as his successor at Gadir Khum, a way-station on the road to Mecca. He is said to have done this when returning from his last pilgrimage, or Hajj. The Shi'a traditions say that there were 100,000 pilgrims at Gadir Khum. Therefore they assert that there were 100,000 companions. A few Sunni authorities have accepted the Shi'a crowd estimates, without accepting the Shi'a version of Muhammad's speech. (See Succession to Muhammad.) Western academics have generally passed over the whole incident, possibly because they regard it as an implausible pious exaggeration. Aside from polemic claims to a huge audience, there is no historical or archaeological evidence for such an enormous gathering.

I tried to be NPOV and present the matter fairly. Striver deleted the whole section, it seems, prefering to put HIS sentence at the head of the article. Perhaps we can make sure that it is NPOV and then put it back? Zora 9 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)


 * Zora, that part you wrote is abslolutly non-sens. Ill show you:


 * ''Shi'a Muslims believe that Muhammad appointed Ali ibn Abu Talib as his successor at Gadir Khum, a way-station on the road to Mecca. He is said to have done this when returning from his last pilgrimage, or Hajj. The Shi'a traditions say that there were 100,000 pilgrims at Gadir Khum.

Totaly false!

Its not shia traditions caliming that, its MUSLIM sources claiming that.


 * ''Therefore they assert that there were 100,000 companions.

No, its not THEREFORE, they are plenty of sunni sorces that say they where over 100 000 on THEIR WAY TO MECCA.


 * ''A few Sunni authorities have accepted the Shi'a crowd estimates, without accepting the Shi'a version of Muhammad's speech. (See Succession to Muhammad.)

NON-SENS. Sunni write in ALL their Muhammd biographies that there was 100 000 people on their way TO mecca. Not talking about that Sunni shcolars have never accepted ANY shia statement. If they lived long enogh to make on, that is.


 * ''Western academics have generally passed over the whole incident, possibly because they regard it as an implausible pious exaggeration.

Oh yeah? Is that original research or plain and simple Zora pov? Wich western academic are you refering to?


 * ''Aside from polemic claims to a huge audience, there is no historical

Hitorical evidence? Are you kidding? If would ignore all the hadithes that they ther was over 100 000 to their way TOWARDS mecca, whe still have all of them that say there was 100 000 in Ghadire Khumm. Oh, Hadithes are not historical facts? Then why do we bother even having a Muhmmad article since his exsitense is only established through hadithes?


 * ''or archaeological evidence for such an enormous gathering.

Look att that! She want archaeological evidence for people walking in mecca! Can you belive it?

No, THAT IS NOT NPOV!

Im angry att people that cant see the diffrence bettwen personal pov that they orginaly researched though conjecture, and pure links to sources.

Zora has not presented ONE SINGLE SOURCE OR SCHOLAR that agrees with her, and therefor she thinks that the article should not claim factual fact that


 * ''"ther is a broad agreement betwen shias and sunnis that there was more than 100 000 companions"

IT IS AN OUTRAGE THAT SHE WANT TO REPLACE THAT WITH:


 * Shi'a Muslims believe ... The Shi'a traditions say ... Therefore they assert .... A few Sunni authorities have accepted the Shi'a crowd estimates, without accepting the Shi'a version of Muhammad's speech...

AND HAVING STARTED A REVERT WAR OVER IT!!!

Im angry!

By the way, the Sunni DO ACCEPT the shia version of Muhammad's (as) speech, they just say that mawla means friend in this speech. Why do they accept it? The is 100 confiremed wittneses that has passed through hadithes. Think about that, 7 first hand narrators make a mutawatir hadith, what does 100 make? --Striver 9 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

*** *****
ZORA YOU ***** *****; WHO CARES ABOUT IT BEING TRUE OR NOT; I AM TALKING ABOUT WHAT MUSLIMS BELIVE; I DONT GIVE A ***** ABOUT IT BEING TRUE OR NOT!!!!!

I DONT GIVE A ***** ***** ABOUT HOW MANY SAHABAS THERE WAS; I JUST WANT IT TO SAY THAT SUNNI AND SHIA BELIVE THAT THERE WAS 100 000 SAHABA; I DONT WANT ANY ***** GHADIRE KHUMM NONSENS IN THIS ARTICLE!!!!

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR YOU CLAIM THAT SHIA BELIVE THERE WAS 100 000 ONLY ONLY DUE TO GHADIRE KHUMM

AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR YOU CLAIM THAT SUNNI BELIVE THAT 100 000 ONLY ONLY SINCE SHIA BELVIE SO.

THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NOBODY NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE EXCEPT YOU THAT HAVE EVER THOUGHT OF THAT AS A POSSIBILITY!!! GOD ****; TAKE YOU UNCOURCED CRAP OUT OF THE ARTICLE!!!!

--Striver 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

-Kode 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If he wasn't right I'd have to admonish him for yelling, as he put it so inelegantly, cite your sources please zora. Then we can debate who's sources are more accurate instead of what is true or not true.

List of companions section - delete ?
Shouldn't the List of Companions section be deleted, as all the Sahaba there (and more) are all listed in Category:Sahaba ? MP  (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That irritating tag at the top of Sahaba articles...
... should be changed to 'This person is a Sahaba of Muhammad'. At the moment, it makes a basic grammatical blunder - confusing one companion with all companions. The problem is '' links to the written part of Category:Sahaba, and I can't see another way round the problem other than to remove that offending link and type in my suggestion (or something very similar to it) instead. Comments please. MP  (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've solved this problem as it's been bugging me an awful lot - I've created a new template Template:Sahaba which produces This person is amongst the Sahaba of Muhammad. MP  (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this tag from articles. This is best served by a category. The current template/tag is distracting and poorly made. Cuñado  -  Talk  17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The tag should stay - reasons:


 * Your argument doesn't address the issue I have objection to, namely, the fact that the old link is grammatically incorrect; how can you fail to see this ??? Each article is about a Sahaba so when there is a little sentence at the start saying, 'These people are among the Sahaba of Muhammad', it's just plain wrong.


 * There is already a link to the Sahaba category - that's why we put category links at the bottom of pages.

I don't know who created that old link to the Sahaba category, but I appreciate the idea of trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone by having a nice little sentence at the top of Sahaba articles with a link to the Sahaba category. Even though my modest attempt at creating a little tag (which, when placed at the top of Sahaba articles, gives a correct sentence rather than an incorrect one) may be described as "poor", I fail to see how it can be any more distracting than the old one - which, I hope you will now finally understand, is incorrect. I suggest you revert the changes you've made. MP  (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The template was used on articles in the same place as the disambigutation link. A proper template should be made into a work of art with a frame, and put aligned right, or under "see also" or even as part of the introductory text. I have never seen a template used in such a way, and there is a good reason why: it's distracting and unnecessary. Please stop putting graffiti on articles. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, my points are not talking about the grammatical correctness of the words. If you think it needs to be changed, just change it. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're exaggerating how much you dislike my attempt at being correct: "Please stop putting graffiti on articles". In any case, if you think you can adapt the template I created into a "work of art" then by all means go ahead and do so - I have no objection to that (I'm not experienced enough to create a "proper template"). What I do object to is you removing something that is correct (no matter how ugly you think it is). MP  (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rejigged the sahaba template - now please put in the new template in all those articles from which you deleted my initial template. MP  (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadi view
User:Khestwol, I'm not sure how my edit was undue. First note that Ahmadiyya qualifies at least as a significant minority per description here WP:UNDUE. Secondly, WP:UNDUE appears to be aligned towards fair representations of "theories". The fact that Ahmadis consider companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a sahabah is not a theory. A better guideline is perhaps WP:RNPOV, which sets an example of how religion based articles should be treated: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That...", which is exactly how I edited the article. The article gives a descriptive paragraph on sahabah and attempts to show differences between Sunnis and Shias. Adding that "Ahmadis additionally refer to the companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as sahaba" fits in perfectly with the theme in discussion. --Peace world  14:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . If you can get a consensus here to add that view right into the lede, I will have no objection. But at the moment I am opposing adding that, simply because I do not think that a view held by only 0.5% (or less) of all Muslims has a WP:DUE weight to be mentioned in the lede. Academic sources don't give as much weight to Ahmadi views as much as they give to Sunni and Shia views when discussing Islamic concepts. Hope this helps. Regards, Khestwol (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Khestwol, please don't simply enforce a consensus, particularly to this somewhat incomplete and badly written article with almost zero academic sources which therefore will probably not itself garner sufficient editors to hold a consensus. Please correct yourself, Ahmadis represent roughly 1%, which corresponds to 10-20 million adherents and is therefore sufficiently significant for its distinctive views to be mentioned in the article. The lede is indeed the correct place, which as I said earlier is the only reasonable place that fits the context. --Peace world  16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadis are not Muslims and they should rather be called Quadiyannis.They are derailing the Muslim Ummah.You should consult various refutations written against this deviant group.Even considering them minorities is not right as they are not Muslims in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.231.64 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Biased
This article is confusing and misleading. Quranic verses should never be cut short so the true meaning is not distorted. IssaTruth (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Whole article is based on the Sunni sources and point of view without including Shia one at all. (Seriously?? have you read it?) Rather the Shia's are biased towards the Sahaba's (Radi Allahu 'Anhum). Also ' Radi Allahu 'Anhu ' and ' Radi Allahu 'Anha ' should be used for male Companions (Radi Allahu 'Anhu) and female Companions (Radi Allahu 'Anha) respectively.Also when referring two or Sahaba's (Radi Allahu 'Anhum) ' Radi Allahu 'Anhum ' should be used. After mentioning the name of The Prophet Muhammad (Sall-Allahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) whether directly or indirectly or by using other name like Allah's (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala ) Apostle (Sall-Allahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) etc 'Sall-Allahu 'Alayhi wa Salaam ' is not mentioned.Similarly appropriate terms should be used for Sahaba's (Radi Allahu 'Anhum) and the great scholars.Typo errors,errors in understanding or any type of error should be removed as these are religious matters.Also while mentioning The Name of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) ' Subhanahu was Ta'ala ' should be mentioned.For Angels and The Prophet's (Alayhim al-Salam) 'Alayhis-Salam' should be mentioned. Again any type of errors whether it be typographical, errors in correctly interpreting or understanding should be removed.Also cite references.

Massive Quotations
the article includes several verses of the Quran as quotations but I am really sure just a few of them are necessary. I wonder if you give me a clue to solve this problem? Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? Not sure how I got involved but obviously the solution is to remove the verses, include a citation, and make sure it includes a link where curious people can click through to read an English translation. — Llywelyn II   14:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives
I really don't know Muhammad's wives has nothing to do with Sahabah. So The views belong to Sunni Muslim is with no source but Shia views are. I will move it to different views.Saff V. (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)