Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam/Archive 1

Neutrality
I'm not sure an article that presents a critical review is neutral or encyclopedic. ialsoagree (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because something is critical, that does not make it "not neutral" or "unencyclopedic". there are plenty of critical articles on Wikipedia, espepcially on other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism. They even go further and criticise sects such as Catholicism, Protetantism, Mormonism etc. Why should this article be treated any different. Especially when it is providing arguments from credible, respectable sources. We must not allow the fanatics to scare us into complacency or inaction.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Ialsoagree, i believe you should remove the neutrality tag, since this surely cannot stand up to higher criticism, a part of which i have already provided.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's questionable, no matter who does it, I just happened to notice this article. That being said, if consensus favors your opinion, then I'll admit to my own mistake and not object to the tag's removal. ialsoagree (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I also believe i am offering the chance for neutrality, by allowing those who are being criticised the chance to respond to the arguments against them. Hence, the reader can be swayed either way- for or against Twelvers. So where is the bias in that? The layout of the article is most appropriate for the oppurtunity for neutrality. I have seen other critical articles that lack this clear outlet for defense. Therefore, this article allows all stakeholders to voice their opinions. Let the reader decide which opinion appeals to his/her common sense of right and wrong.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. Give it 24 hours, if no one else has an opinion, feel free to remove the tag. ialsoagree (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very agreeable. Thankyou, really appreciated.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of waiting 24 hours before removing the tag, i decided to wait 1 week. I thought this would allow a more comprehensive study of peoples opinions.Atheistic Irani (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress
This is most definitely a work in progress and hopefully i will be able to update it when i am not busy studying or partying. So please bear with me. Hopefully, the wider Wikipedia community will also get on board and support the growth and perfection of this article. I understand that this article is sensitive and provocative for some, and will definitely come under vandalism attacks from religious fanatics and the weak spirited. However, it is my firm belief that the knowledgeable and consensual Wikipedia community will counter these fanatics' attacks and enable the knowledge provided by this article to continue to reach the wider community.Atheistic Irani (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A note on article layout
If i could just say; i believe the best format for the article is to have the heading of the twelver belief being criticised, followed by the actual twelver belief being criticised, followed by the reasons it is being criticised, finally followed by a concluding paragraph that also links the belief to the broader twelver history. This should then have a "Response to criticism" subsection. I believe this format is the easiest to follow, reduces bewildering clutter, and is the fairest for all stakeholders involved.Atheistic Irani (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Twelver Shia are led by child Imams: Response to criticism: John the Baptist
After some intensive research I have discovered that the statement in the article that “John the baptist (Yahya) was given authority (hokm) while he was a child according to the Koran (19:12 )” is in fact incorrect. This is due to a number of undisputable reasons:


 * Firstly, the Arabic word used in this koranic quote was not hokm (authority). Rather, the Arabic word used is hokmah (wisdom). This is clear for anyone with even an ounce of Arabic comprehension and pronunciation. I would like to think this was an innocent rushed mistake, instead of deceptive trickery that was used due to the similarities in the words hokm and hokmah.


 * Secondly, every single online English Koran translation I found (whether it be from an Englishmen, to an Arab, to a south Asian) translated the word in question (i.e. hokmah) to wisdom, rather than authority. Quite humorously, the person who incorrectly edited the section (at 19.33, 26th May 2010) as hokm (authority) also translated the koranic quote in question as wisdom. This further leads me to believe this editor has made perhaps an innocent mistake.

Therefore, based upon these discoveries I have changed the wording from hokm to hokmah i.e. “John the baptist (Yahya) was given wisdom (hokmah) while he was a child according to the Koran (19:12 )”. Whether this new correct rephrasing of the words is any longer a relevant rebuttal, I leave for the original editor or other interested parties to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheistic Irani (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When an 'atheistic Irani' edits Wikipedia based on online translations of Koran, (admittedly showing his/her ignorance of Arabic language) the result is not better than this. Several points are to be made:

1. The word in question is Hokm (حکم)، there is no such word Hokmah, in Arabic. Hikmah (حکمه) mean Wisdom, whereas Hokm can mean Wisdon, as well as Authority and Judgement. For example check Josef:40.

2. It seems that the User Atheistic Irani is not aware of the basics of Arabid grammer. The 'a' at the end of recitation al-hokma in the verse in question shows that the word 'al-hokm' is a grammatical object, so the vowel 'a' (without any 'h') is used as a so called declination of the word al-Hokm; it does not change the word into the non-existent word Hokmah!

3. It is true that some translations translate Hokm into Wisdom, but there are others who use 'judgement' instead. Again, it's Sourah Maryam, verse 12: Check e.g. translations by Arberry and Sahih International.

All is all, the article has been modified in a reasonable manner. However I wish not anybody allowed himself/herself to play an expert where his/her cluelessness is so manifest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.255.175 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you think Wisdom is the criteria why one shuold have authority. So if John the Baptist was the most wise person of his land, he should have been the ruler whether child or grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.32.212.11 (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My answer: with all due respect, may I advice you upon not rushing into an argument when you clearly have not assessed the evidences and arguments in any depth whatsoever. This kind of hasty response can be very misleading. Let me answer all your points as simply as I can. Anyway, in my opinion, using the John example to justify the Imamate of the 3 children should be rejected and deleted from the article. Whoever added this argument did so based upon a Quranic quote that is too vague and in no way addresses the issue of the 3 children being the highest unparalleled authority for the Twelver Shia communities of their times. Plus, there are no references (of scholars, intellectuals, debaters etc.) that were produced for this John rebuttal, which leads me to believe that this was added based upon the poorly thought through reasoning of its initial editor. However, since this is a sensitive topic I do not intend to fan the flames and so will be patient until there is loud consensus for its deletion.Atheistic Irani (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Your statement “Don't you think Wisdom is the criteria why one shuold have authority” is really misguided. Wisdom is definitely one criterion, but definitely not the only criteria in order to have authority. Besides there are many people who are wise or have wisdom (perhaps you may know a few such people), but that does not mean they should all of a sudden have number 1 authority.
 * 2) Your statement “So if John the Baptist was the most wise person of his land, he should have been the ruler whether child or grown up” is simply untrue. The Quranic quote nowhere mentions “the most wise person of his land”. The Quranic quote only says John was given wisdom while he was a child. While he was a child there may have been people who had more wisdom than him (e.g. If his father Zachariah was still alive, or Mary mother of Jesus- if she was yet born and much older, or other older people) - so perhaps you believe all these people should have shared the leadership of the Israelites? How would they have shared it- on a monthly rotational basis?
 * 3) Besides, for John to have had dominant authority while he was a child, he would have had to of been a divinely designated Prophet while he was a child (just as the Twelver Shia’s child Imams were divinely designated the Imamate). However, nowhere does the Quranic quote mention that John was a Prophet at this child phase of his life- it only mentions he was given wisdom- and I am sure if he was a child Prophet then the Quranic quote would have said he was given Prophethood (rather than wisdom) while he was a child, since Prophethood includes wisdom plus much more including: divine revelation, miracles, highest moral and spiritual standards etc.

--119.160.25.251 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Well sorry for a very late reply, I didn't come to the page for time.

First, I didn't give any judgement so there was no point calling me a person who "have not assessed the evidences and arguments in any depth whatsoever"

Second, as you said Wisdom is not the only criteria for a person to have authority, would you care to tell, what then is the criteria, according to Islam, for authority?

Third, if God can give wisdom to a child, which is not likely in normal circumstances, is it not possible for God the Almighty to give Authority to a child?

Fourth, Did God Almighty not made Jesus (Isah) a Prophet (Jesus was a Rasool not just Nabi) while he was Infant. What is the authority bigger then the authority of the Rasool of the time? I hope you know that Allah Al-mighty said in Quran "we didn't sent any messenger but for that people should obey them"

Fifth, you assumption that John the Baptists (Yahya) not a divinely designated Prophet at that time is wrong. According to Islam A prophet is a prophet the day he is born. According to Islam prophet were prophet even before they were born (Qur'an 3:81-82)

Anyhow, I have said enough, peace be upon you...

The ages of the child Imams
The User:Humaliwalay indirectly brought my attention to a very important issue, which I had lazily ignored. The issue being: to revise the ages of the child Imams (when they assumed the Imamate), in order to make them more accurate. I had previously recorded the 9th, 10th and 12th Imams as being 8, 5-8 and 5 years old respectively when they became the Imams. However, more accurate conversions, calculations and rounding-off (to the nearest 0.5 years) revealed their ages to be 7.5yrs, 6.5-8.5yrs, and 4.5 years old respectively. For those really interested, the values before rounding-off were 7yrs7months7days, 6yrs4months29days-8yrs4months27days and 4yrs6months24days respectively. These new values were also determined while being lenient and using the given values that actually gave these child Imams their highest ages possible (in order to placate any fussy or combative Twelver Shia readers and editors). My working out is too long and tedious to been shown on this discussion page. However, if anyone would like to work out their ages for themselves, then this can be done quite simply by following the Wikipedia link for each Imam then recording the birth and death of each of the last 5 Imams using their equivalent Islamic or Gregorian calendar dates throughout. This is then followed by subtracting the death of the preceding Imam by the birth of the succeeding Imam. This gives the age at which the Imam succeeded his predecessor. However, I would advise anyone who does not want to waste their time to not bother, because these values are as good as they are going to get. Regardless of the revised or pre-revised ages, these 3 Imams were still assigned the Imamate while they were children and while they were less than 10 years old.
 * I have also removed the citation tags since the details are by no means “dubious”. In fact I was only using the details that were given by the Wikipedia article link of each Imam (which I would imagine were added by Twelver Shia editors rather than any polemicists) to determine their ages upon assuming the Imamate.Atheistic Irani (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Atheistic Irani (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC) - Just Neutral and reliable citation needed, once the issue is addressed, you are free to remove the tags. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy vio template
Hi, this template seems to have been added without explaining where the problem is and where the content is a copy vio from, is there some discussion somewhere about it? No worries, found it. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_November_30 - Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is "Twelver" necessary in the title?
Are there any particular items here which do not apply to other Shi'a denominations, or is it safe to move this to Criticism of Shi'a Islam? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

hi MatthewVanitas. thnks for asking me. Yeh even though the ismaili’s and twelvers have similarities I would’nt change the title to just criticism of shia islam because this would eventually make the article too long in future. Also ismailis, alevi and allawites and others have similar beliefs to twelvers but they also have unique beliefs that would make criticism too long. then on top of that you have the zaydi's who are categorised shia but have many unique beliefs such as about the imamah and have many similarities to sunnis. I think it would be like trying to criticize all protestasnts like Anglican, lutherann, evangelicals, Pentecostals, presbytarians and more in 1 article….this would be too much, too long, too confusing.hope to hear ur opinion.Suenahrme (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd still make the case that the article could be both narrowed and widened. I think the overall thrust of the article as it stands, and the direction in can easily head, might be best covered as Sunni criticism of Shia Islam.  I would argue that the primary Sunni objections are to beliefs and practices held by Shia at large, and that the primary source of geo-politically significant criticism of Shiism is from Sunni commentators.  I'd argue that the article as it stands would need very little modification to both confine itself to criticisms from the Sunni perspective, and to ensure that it covers Shiism at large vice simply the Twelvers.  Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary needed improvments to the article?
Greetings, since the AfD is reopened for discussion, I'd greatly appreciate any input on how we can get the article to at least a, say, 80% threshhold where we can attain consensus that the article is worth keeping in the first place. And from there we can continue to improve it and keep it watchlisted to keep inappropriate POV commentary out.

What do folks seen as the main lackings? Should the scope be narrowed and/or widened, as I suggest above, possibly by focusing it specifically on Sunni criticism of Shia Islam, which is arguably the most notable aspect of the debate in terms of explaining the perspectives which fuel sectarian violence. I would also argue that the eventual creation of Shia criticism of Sunni Islam (previously deleted as an attack page) could provide a key support to maintaining two POV-free layouts of ideological conflict. The current Shi'a-Sunni relations is a neat article, but focuses more on the history and geo-political aspects, whereas this article (and any related article on the other side) are focused on the discourse surrounding the conflict.

Thanks again for everyone keeping an open-mind on the issue. I would argue that this article should become an article that does not in any way offend a Shia reader, but rather one that even Shia readers would appreciate as a clear and neutral breakdown of contested theological issues that would help readers of any background to understand the sectarian conflict. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With lots of thanks to user Matthew for his bold edits which resulted in saving of the article. There are lots of matters which are needed to be added. I suggest to discuss the article subject by subject, and as there is no deadline in Wikipedia, we shouldn't be worried about time. A further point which I'd like to add is that there are dark points in all religions and sects. Our duty here is to inform readers about realities, and while paying attention to the wording we use, we won't distort an existing fact for satisfaction of any reader, including Shia readers. On behalf of my self, I'll try my best to reflect all the matters about Shia sect with related responses.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and it's not even so much a matter of "dark side" as "these two groups have diverging opinions on topic X, which contribute to the conflicts between these branches." To ignore that such conflict exists would be too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but to explore the motivations behind dischord can be really educational. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, so don't prohibit yourself from writing something that you think could be offensive. Feel free to write anything you want, as you'll have my strong support in this case. Here I am listing some of the main criticism topics and if you or any one else know something more, s/he is welcome to add. We can discuss them one by one below its section.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

General related discussions

 * Can I take it from your list of subjects that you might support a re-name and slight tightening of focus to Sunni criticism of Shia Islam? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree, article should be precisely named as Sunni Criticism of Shia Islam. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be better that you, as a third party user, decide for this matter. I won't disagree with any rename proposal by you.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One question, please see here which shows recognition of Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project and let me know if you consider it as reliable source for to be used in this article or no.Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've leave the suggestion up for a week or so, but barring any objection I'd support the move. At this point about the only changes that would entail would be slightly modifying the lede, and in the Child Imams section making some slight distinction between which imams are Twelver and which Ismaili (and if necessary what branch), though overall concerns about whether children can be imams are likely to be applicable to all sub-denominations.  Regarding the ABDILP site, at this juncture it appears worth recognising as authoritative on Shia issues but statements taken from them should probably be caveated with something like "According to the Shia think-tank ABDILP..." or whatever phrase seems appropriate to make the source's perspective clear to the reader.  So not necessarily authoritative as to "who's wrong or right" (outside the scope of WP anyway), but in terms of "here's a recognised, representative Shia viewpoint on the matter". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can add a section about name of the article. I and some other friends are currently following a successful approach here. We can do so here as well. I will start, and wish to see more and more users in this discussion.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked many of our criticism articles, and I suggest the name Criticism of Twelver Shia (I'm still doubtful about whether we must use the word Twelver or no) for 3 reasons: To have similar style with other criticism article; Using the simple and well-known word Shia instead of Shi'ism; and that in future there might be criticism on Shia on behalf of non-Sunni groups, so it's better to ease the work of next generation editors. But still I preserve your priority to choose the name.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

recent POV-pushing edits
I have removed the edits by user Suenahrme, since his/her edits are in conflict with several wikipedia's policies. There is significat difference between marriage and prostitution. There are several styles of marriage in some cultures which are not recognized in other culture(s). As examples,Polyandry marriage in some Asian/African communities, Polygyny, and etc. Especiafically about Temporary Marriage, there are several highlight points. I have listed few of them here: Wikipedia should follow strictly academic sources written by experts in the field. The sources which used are nothing but POV fork written like an editorial, synthesizing questionable biased non-academic neo-con sources like BBC and Washingtonpost.Use only academic non-political sources, not as some sort of an attack device in their political and ideological "crusades". Here are some highly credential academic sources which describe Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution:Hossein Nasr professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University ;Japanese scholar "Sachiko Murata, "Temporary Marriage (Mut'a) in Islamic Law," Alseral XIII/1 (Spring, 1987),". . Also here is an academic source which declares Temporary marriage is a means of eradicating prostitution. Ofxord dictionary of Islam has also recognized Temporary marriage of shia as an Islamic marriage .--Aliwiki (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mehr which is a gift from groom to the bride (usually money), is part of all types of Islamic marriage, not only for temporary mariage.
 * Same as other types of Islamic marriage, temporary marriage has Iddah (the period that woman must observe after finishing the marriage period), so the woman can not sleep with another man or simultaneously with more than a man, while in prostitution it's reverse.
 * Temporary marriage can last up to 99 years. It is based on a contract by both parties and for example, both couples might not ask for any material things.
 * Children born from temporary marriage must receive inheritance unlike those from prostitution.
 * Temporary marriage is illegal for married Woman. A married man must obtain the permission of his wife (according to the major Shi'i guide Ayatollah Sistatni) to perform such a marriage.
 * Temporary marriage owith prostitutes is Haram
 * Sunni muslims practice similar marriage, known as Nikah Misyar

Hi aliwiki and all viewers. Sorry I diid not respond to your discussion before I made my revert but I thoufght there was nothing to discuss. I am not going to bother to answeer your reasons why nikah mutah is not considered prostitutuion aliwiki. Just because you say it is not prostitution does not mean that we cannot add that many others criticise it as prostitution. I will give you a example: on the wiki page “Criticism of Islam” they criticise that the quran is not reliable. Now just because I am a muslim and believe that ithis is absolute lies and disproven errors does not mean that it can no longer be criticised. Because actually you will find that people have criticed quran then it must be added to an article about criticism od islam. Another example: in the wiki article “Criticism of the Catholic Church” they also criticise the popal infallibility. Now the same rule applies. Just because a catholic can argue that this criticism is false does not mean it has no right to be in the article. So aliwiki your points defending mutah are pointless.

Now to your ppoints about my sources. They are not neo-con as you say and biased and whatever else you say. They are not anti-shia propaganda. If you read them fully you will see that they mention that mutah is widely criticiesd by even shia, western, sunni, and secular people and feminists. But they mention this in their contexts of reporting on the overall issue. Anyway the only reason I added the criticism of mutah was because I took your advice. Yoou mentioned on this discussion page under a section called “Matters to be discussed” the following edit *Temporary Marriage

“Criticism about this type of marriage has always been a topic in shia criticism discussions”

Now this was your very own words and you acknowledge that is is a source of continuos criticism. But you deleted your own edit on 11 November 2011. I saw your edit summary for your own deletion and it read “(self-revert of my edit)”. Why did you remove this after so long and when I added the mutah section that you yourself suggested?

Like I said on my edit summary. We should let a non-shia judge the appropriateness of my mutah criticism. Actually I already asked matthewvanitas a while ago to do this because I know from experience that he is trusted by both sides. But he has not reponded and I am waiting for that. in the meantime please stop removing the mutah edit.Suenahrme (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Suenahrme. Everything can be criticized without any limitation. I was among the users who tried to keep this article from deletion. My later suggestion was to improve the article. But criticizing important things like a religion, must be done very precisely by using highly trustable and reliable sources. You can not attribute prostitution to hundreds million people just by bbc report written by a non-expert reporter, while we have several academic sources disagree with it. Please bring your reliable sources and discuss your matters here before pushing such a great POV in front of the million visitors of wikipedia. I posted my sources, but in your comment you didn't give any technical explanation. You are welcome to criticize anything you want, but by highly credential reliable sources. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try and diminish my sources by only mentioning 1 source I used. I used five sources and from respected academics and writers. So pleae do not maje it like I am just looking to criticeise with any source I can find lying around. You say you have sources to counter my edit, then please feel free to mention them below my edit- as has been done for every other criticism on the article. Once again I state that I am not just criticizing for the sake of it. I have used more than enough reputable, releveant sources to warrant its inclusion. Perhaps you have not read them. Could you please state where my referenxces do not add value to the criticism or why they do not deserve inclusion? I will then add why they should be included and where they appropriately citicise mutah. As I said before you can add a pro-mutah paragraph below the criticism. And as I said before, we should also get a non-partisan editor to judge the appropriarteness of the mutah edit ie. a non-sunni and non-shia. I realiuse you did help to keep this article and I praise your iopeness, but I think you should read my sources fully.Suenahrme (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit in comparing Temporary marriage to prostitution has problem and it's in contradiction with several Wikipedia policies. I repeat again for your convenience. First of all, there are several other types of marriages, as example I mentioned Polygyny and Polyandry, but they are not considered prostitution because they are accepted in some cultures as marriage but rejected by other cultures. Second, I highlighted some special points for temporary marriage such as existence of Mahr and Iddah like all other types of Islamic marriage (also in Nikah Misyar which is practiced by Sunni Muslims). It's not legal for a married woman and temporary marriage with prostitutes is absolutely Haram. Third, your sources are whether non-reliable or not reflecting what you want to push on article's body. Read WP:criticism, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. According to WP:RS, sources must be provided by expert and credentialed scholars, specially when we want to criticize something that hunderd of millions people are involved in. From the link you have provided, it's obvious that you typed Nikah Muta Prostitution in google and took some results from google without reading and verifying whether they are reliable or no; This is called WP:CHERRY in Wikipedia. TV, magazines and newspapers report can not be considered reliable for highly important articles such as criticism ones, so you can not attribute prostitution to hundreds of millions Shia, 200 millions of them living now, by BBC or washingtonpost report. Your third source, Islam for Dummies by Malcolm Clarke; No need that I clarify more about its reliability since even a beginner Wikipedian can understand that it's not reliable for here. Now the other too books; You accused me of not being aware of their content and not read them, while it's obvious that you didn't so. The reference that Malise Ruthven is Shahla Haeri; Aapart the fact that she is only a director and assistant professor, even if we consider her book as reliable, again your opinion is wrong since you haven't even look to the what she wrote. She states temporary marriage it is not prostitution, but you are cherry picking few words of her sentences. she does provide different perspectives but what matters is that her own scholarly perspective rejects such a conclusion. Forth, on the other hand I provided several highly credential academic sources such as Sachiko Murata and Hossein Nasr, oxford dic. of Islam that described Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution, and a reference that described temporary marriage as a means of eradicating prostitution. Thus you have no specialist source on the topic to meet WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for random results found on google search and Mass perception is not equal in weight to opinion of scholars on the topic.WP:Criticism states: Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic.'. Fifth, the tile of the article is criticism of twelver Shia, while Temporary marriage is not only for Shia Muslims but for other too; here is the link of the First Encyclopedia of Islam which is a reliable source and it declares (on page 776) that Sunni Muslims also practice temporary marriage. Please stop reverting blindly without discussing your points which are backed by reliable sources.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have thrown a lot of accussations but without quoting where the problems are. You say they are unreliable. I think they are reliable and all clearly mention that throughout the ages mutah has been criticised as an excuse for prostitution. You even mentioned it was a source of critique. As i said many times before; we should allow a non-shia, non-sunni to judge this and i have already set about having this done. As i said before; you may very easily mention in a paragraph below the criticism the reason why mutah is acceptable. Let's have a bit of patience here and allow for non-partisan judgement. But i feel the issue is mentioned in the most concise, reliable, referenced, unemotional way possibleSuenahrme (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave my complete detailed explanation in my comments, but unfortunately you are keep repeating your point of view with discussing it according to wikipedia policies. This is not good. Please respect, and explain your ideas in detail and please read my previous comment and discuss it instead of keep reverting. I told you, you are free to criticise everything, but it must match to policies. You can write about temporary marriage as mush as you want and I didn't disagree with it. The point that Temporary marriage is legalized prostitution is the topic of our discussion here, not any other matter of it. Hope you respect. --Aliwiki (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You still hane notaddressed any of my reasons to sipport keeping it. Look at it in this simple way, if you remove the second half then you are removing the reason for the criticism. There is no point in just mentioning what belief is criticised. It is criticised for a specific reason to start with anf in this case it is because it is seen as an excuse for prostitution. This is ehat the sources all say.Suenahrme (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Criticism of something is a POV. You cannot have a "Criticism" page without showing a POV of someone. There are published sources that criticise mut'a marriage as being a cover for prostitution. That is a criticism, and a criticism that can be sourced by published sources, too. I do not see what the problem is. If you have sources that state that mut'a is not prostitution, then add: "However, so-and-so disagree and state that mut'a is not prostitution." What is the point of having a criticism page if you are not going to have any criticism ?! Unflavoured (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@Suenahrme. Your comments is an example of WP:HEAR and it's not nice that you keep repeating non-sense word and refusing to discuss the main point and reliability of your sources, and support your behavior by comments of invited users. I have seen these methods, which is absolutely not work here, and I remind that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, so collecting more votes while refusing to discuss the topic itself don't solve your problem. So for the last time I repeat, hope you and your friends will hear, stay on topic and discuss you points. Everything can be criticized if the cited sources can match to the Wikipedia policies, including Temporary marriage. Our topic here is not that, but it is Temporary marriage is legalized prostitution. Is that clear to you and your friends? Now I explain my comments again very clearly. First of all, as I said before, there are several other types of marriages, as example I mentioned Polygyny and Polyandry, but they are not considered prostitution because they are accepted in some cultures as marriage but rejected by other cultures. Second, specifically about this Islamic type of marriage, there are some additional points as follow: and several other points which distinct it from prostitution. Third, what you have cited as source, are whether non-reliable or not reflecting what you want to push on article and being distorted. As one can see and understand easily, you have typed Nikah+Muta+Prostitution in google and took the results here without verifying whether they are reliable and match to Wikipedia policies or no, and this is called WP:CHERRY and absolutely unacceptable, and in contradiction to several policies such as WP:criticism, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Sources )specially in highly disputed matters or criticism articles) must be provided by credentialed scholars, who are recognized experts on the exact topic. Now let's check again your cherry-picked sources together. The first two are just report of BBC and Washingtonpost which their authors are not expert of this topic. Random reports of TV, magazines and newspapares are not considered reliable sources, specially for important articles like this one and attribute prostitution to hundreds of millions Shia, 200 millions of them living now. About your the third source, Islam for Dummies by Malcolm Clarke, as I said before no clarification is needed to prove it's not reliable for here, and even a beginner Wikipedian can understand it. Sources number four and five written by Malise Ruthven and Shahla Haeri. The book of Malise Ruthven is not discussing this topic, and just writing an paragraph about temporary marriage and in a sentence saying some critics have said..., without saying who are those critics (are you familiar with Some people say...?if no read WP:Weasel), and the reference of his sentence is Shahla haeri (your next source). About Shahla haeri, aapart from the fact that she is only a director and assistant professor, even if we consider her book as reliable, again it's clear that you have distorted her saying 180 degrees! She states temporary marriage it is not prostitution, but you are cherry picking few words of her sentences. she does provide different perspectives but what her own scholarly perspective REJECTS such a conclusion, and it's a question now that why you are trying to distort her sentence?! Four; I provided several highly credential academic sources such as Sachiko Murata and Hossein Nasr, oxford dic. of Islam that described Temporary marriage and how it's different from prostitution, and a reference that described temporary marriage as a means of eradicating prostitution. I remind you that WP:Criticism states: ''Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic.'' As a conclusion of my comment, you have no reliable source that support your point of view, and your sources are in contradiction to several reliable sources in addition to many Wikipedia policies. Now I have clearly discussed my points and expect that you explain your points clearly while staying on the topic and answer me my points one by one, writing your first point is wrong because...., second point due to ..... That I removed only the sentence about attribution of prostitution in the article was to respect you and prove that I don't disagree with any criticism, and my point is problems of your sources. I'll ask an admin to intervene here too. Thanks for your understanding and hearing. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mahr which is a gift from groom to the bride (usually money), is part of ALL TYPES OF ISLAMIC marriage, NOT ONLY for temporary mariage.
 * Same as other types of Islamic marriage, temporary marriage has Iddah (the period that woman must observe after finishing the marriage period), so the woman can not sleep with another man or simultaneously with more than a man, while in prostitution it's reverse.
 * Temporary marriage can last up to 99 years. It is based on a contract by both parties and for example, both couples might not ask for any material things.
 * Children born from temporary marriage must receive inheritance unlike those from prostitution.
 * Temporary marriage is illegal for married Woman. A married man must obtain the permission of his wife (according to the major Shi'i guide Ayatollah Sistatni) to perform such a marriage.
 * Temporary marriage with a prostitutes is Haram
 * Sunni muslims practice similar marriage, known as Nikah Misyar
 * Aliwiki, the sources cited clearly state that mut'a is criticised because some see it as a cover for prostitution. The sources include BBC, Washington Post, and three separate published books. What is the problem ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment to get the point. Everything that is find in google search engine is not good source.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved response
Aliwiki asked me to comment here. Let me give a brief response, and later when I have more time I'll try to give more input. Basically, you're both (in my opinion) wrong. Aliwiki is wrong to want to try to exclude all of the information from the article. Given the nature of this article, criticism needs to come from "good" sources, but not necessarily academic sources. The BBC and Washington Post are reliable sources for this matter. However, the others are wrong because the section as currently written is not neutral, because it paints too wide a brush by saing that mutah is "widely criticized"--because that's not what the articles say. The BBC article, for instance, explicitly says that it is "Iranian society" that criticizes the practice. The Washingpost says that Sunni Muslims and women's rights activists crticize. Unfortunately, I can't see Law of desire, so if someone can tell me what it says, that would help. I can't see Islam for Dummies, but that's not a reliable source. I can see Islam: a very short introduction, but on the linked page I don't see any mention of mutaa (so a quote/quotes would help there, too). Basically, I think the section needs to be expanded so that it is more explicit about exactly who criticizes the practice and why. If someone can provide some details on those 2 book sources, I can try to craft something. A final note: Aliwiki, you're trying to defend the practice by arguments about what the practice actual entails, or its comparison to regular marriage, or its religious background. All of that falls under original research. However, we can provide brief rebuttal points as long as they come from reliable sources; we shouldn't have too many since the focus of this article is criticism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Iranian society + Sunni Muslims means pretty much 95% of all Muslims. Reword it, perhaps, to specifically say something along the lines of: "Sunni Muslims, women's rights group and members of the Iranian society have criticised mu'ta as being a cover for prostitution..." ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the quote: Law of desire: "While tacitly - and sometimes explicitly - acknowledging the similarities between prostitution and temporary marriage, the Shi'i ulama distinguish the former from the latter on the basis of their implications for individual well-being and for the social order." etc etc "On the contrary, the ulama maintain that temporary marriage, while performing a similar sexual function for the individual, symbolizes social control..." ( emphasis mine. ) Unflavoured (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian; Thank you for your comment. You mentioned useful points. About the pints I mentioned about temporary marriage; They are not OR because I gave the link of the book in my first comment, but no worries, because we can include it on the answer section since both me and Suenahrme have no disagree about it. About the Law of desire, as the author explains, ''My focus is on the perception of the institution by some Iranian men and women whose live have been tied together by a contract of Temporary marriage. The book is also about law and customs, religion and morality, public and private contracts, eroticism and desire.''. We need a neutral wording paragraph, including a criticism sentence and its answer. Since our problem is only the criticism sentence and which sources are reliable for it, it will be perfect if you suggest a neutral wording of a suitable sentence, then me and other involved users, will brain storm together about it and hopefully finish this matter. Thanks, --Aliwiki (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Aliwiki, you could simply put in the Shia response for this claim just like it's done with "Taqiyya". Bahraini Activist (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition of Taqiyya on this page is incorrect. I have already posted a wiki entry about taqiyya. Xareen (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Taqiyya
The definition of Taqiyya is incorrect. See this entry on Taqiyya. Xareen (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please edit as was discussed here
@ Aliwiki: your most recent edits on this article go against what was discussed above. You re-edited the nikah mutah section in a way that goes totally against the articles name i.e. "criticsim". You edited it as though to support not criticse mutah. As was discussed you may add a shia view, but this is to be added as a seperate paragraph below the original criticism- not in and dominating the paragraph. Secondly you deleted a whole criticusm called "the occultation". Why did you do this? There seemed to be genuine criticism in it but it did appear a bot too long winded. This is not an excuse to simply delete the whole section. I will see what shortening it needs then we may discuss its relevance.Suenahrme (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Bahraini Activist: actually aliwikis edit is not appropriate for the articlr. It reads like a pure defence of mutah. First and foremost the criticusm must be mentioned which has been removed. Secondly the sghia virw is added after the criticism not before and throufghout. I am not asking for much. Leave the criticism as it is then add the shia virew in a new paragraph. otherwise if you want to simply revert we can again refer to other editors opinions on thw matter.Suenahrme (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User Suenahrme, I am strongly warning you to stop your childish behaviour and leave WP:Ownership of this article. Your didn't participate in the long discussion we made, and just when there is an edit, you appear. It was brainstormed to write a good paragraph. We explained what is Nikah Muta, the base of disagreement, content of disagreement, and their answers which is the manual of style of writing in Wikipedia. If you have problem with anything or any reference, write it here and discuss it instead of blind editing. For the case of occultation, it was written by an IP with no reference. You can open a new discussion here, bring your source and add whatever you want if it matches Wikipedia policies.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * about the iccultation section: just because someone does not have a username does not negate their edits. The section also does in fact have a referebnce if you did bot notice. About the nikah nutah section: your edit does not say why mutah is criticised. It is clear for anyone other than shia editors that your edit is not a criticism but a defense of mutah. If you areso persistent upin your edit then i say we should bring in neutral editors as before to discuss and reach consensus. In the mean time the previous accepted edit should remain. or you could start a new paragraph to give the shia ciew. An idea in starting it could be as follows: (new paragraph) "However, according to Twelvers nikah mutah is practised because....".Suenahrme (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay si i have taken the following steps:1. I re-added the occultation secrion that was again removed. 2. I rewrote the mutah section from the error filled previous edit that had the following clear mistakes and propsganda: it said that misyar and mutah wre the same when this is clearly false because misyar is permenanr marriage unluke mutah. Second it mentionned as if with certainty that sunnis forbid mutah because of umar this is inly shia propaganda because sunnis do not practice it because we have hadeeth that prophet Muhammad forbade it not umar. This is riduculous propaganda. So i fixed these but kept the shia defense of mutah still.Suenahrme (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the entry for Nikah Misyar. It shares many similarity with Muta. Misyar is not a conventional permanent marriage. If they were married permanently then how come so many rights from the regular permanent/nikah are waived? The comparison made is correct and you have to be neutral and fair here. 01:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs)


 * I also take offense at your language and your tone. Obviously the Prophet never saw or spoke to you about his cancelling the Muta. There are many conflicting report in the Sunni books. But the overwhelming majority agrees that it was Umar who forbade the muta. Stop making arbitrary changes based on your whim and fancy. Xareen (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Misyar is not contractual, nor is it temporary. This is the "Criticism of Shiites" page, and Misyar is not a Shiite practice. Unflavoured (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is semantic. All marriages are contractual. The basis on making misyar has the same argument for muta. That is the main reason why it should be allowed. And like I said before, Why are you removing what you dislike. That is a dishonest practice. Xareen (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Suenahrme. You didn't involve in the long discussion we had for Nikah Muta. Now stop your blind edits and if you have some points make clear here; which source has problem, and what is the problem and what is the solution. The paragraph is written systematically in agreement with Wikipedia policies. First it's explanation of the case and then base of disagreement is explained. The the content of disagreemnt (cover for prostitution), and finally answer. --Aliwiki (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is a mess
Why are users making arbitrary changes here? Check the history of the page. There is a major edit war going on here. Can someone please tell me who is the administrator that should be contacted? Sunnis vs Shia war. I don't see any legit reason presented when user are changing. When they don't like something they remove the info they don't like. Xareen (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * New sections at the bottom please. You can check how to contact an admin from Dispute resolution. Unflavoured (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This pg is not a mess. Sure it has criticisn but the shia view is not neglected. The only people who seem to oppose it and remove content is unsurprisingly shia editors. But it would be better to seek consensus instead of just removing or addong content for the sake of it.Suenahrme (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can same pretty much the same thing about you. You are posting garbage and nonsense. Do you know that Bahai is a different religion. Why are you adding Bahai information on this page? Oh right, you have no clue about Shii'sm. If you are ignorant about Shia'ism then why are you removing their edits? You have removed everything according to your whim and fancy. You have no explanation except saying it is full of propaganda. Xareen (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The occultation
@ Xareen: plz stop removing this section just because it is a bahai criticisn does not mean it can't be included. This oage us about critidm whether drom sunni, atheist, bahai or even shia does not matter. Hope you understand that.Suenahrme (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no clue what you are doing on this page. You are writing garbage and nonsense here. This is not your personal blog. Bahai is a different religion. Why are you posting that level of ignorance here? Go and see this page on Mahdi. If you want to add Bahai related info then go ahead. But stop adding malicious edit here. Xareen (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the section for your information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#People_claiming_to_be_the_Mahdi This is the place for your information. Please make the necessary edit on that page. Thanks! Xareen (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Plz do not accuse me of having no clue. Let me explain cery plainly why the occultation is added. 1. It is in fact an area of historical criticism of shia ie. that the 12 th imam never existed. 2. Many different grouos have criticised his existence through the occultation. 3. Just because the criticism is coming from a bahai source does not nean it is not criticism. 4. No one is saying that bahai are mislim. These are your own accusations. Everyobe should ni they are a separate religion. So plz stop removing it for bo reason that makes any sense.Suenahrme (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is quite a bit of original research you have going on here. Have you published your finding in any conference or journal? The idea of occultation is very old and it even exist among the earliest Shia including the Ismailis. Do you know that even the Druze believe in the occultation of their fatimid caliph al-amir. Bahai is new religion. It has nothing to do with Shiism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you are making no sense for your deletion. You cannot delete it just because it is bahai critidism. And no it is not my original research. I got it from the article about the 12 th imam. Plz stop deleting it as it is obe of the critisisms of teelvers.Suenahrme (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a criticsm of Shii'sm. Bahai religion is very very new. Shia occultation happened a thousand years ago. You need to find better sources. Why don't you understand this? Shia occultation happened in 8th century AD. Bahai religion 18th century AD? Do you understand what I am explaining?Xareen (talk)
 * Here is something else you can read The Occultation Xareen (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is Muslim criticism of Christianity, even though Islam came ~6 centuries later. Unflavoured (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Islam talks about Jesus son of Mary. Muhammad doesn't pretend to be Jesus. I hope you see the difference of talking about something and being a pretender of that person. Xareen (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not my point. You removed the Occultation section with the excuse that the criticism comes from Bahai sources, even though Bahaiism came after Shiism. Logically, that is not a valid reason. A new faith can criticize an old faith. Also please note that I am not personally interested in adding or removing the section, just pointing out that your blanking of the section with THAT excuse is wrong. Unflavoured (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the response below by Xareen is not relevant. You'll just have to accept this point, Xareen: if you don't, we have other issues. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you have removed the misyar marriage because you said it is irrelevent. How come you get to decide what should stay in and what should be removed. I also showed you the occultation page which already contain the bahai views about mahdi The Occultation. The Bahai view is already represented on wikipedia. Xareen (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have a Bahai section in this article
The vandal who has no clue what he is doing has now added a bahai section in this article. Can someone please tell me what is going on this article? Why do you keep allowing malicious edit on this page? Can't you see that he is posting nonsense? Here is the wikipedia about the Mahdi. Read the information on that page to see the reality of the Shia occultation. Xareen (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found the perfect place for Occultation in Bahai religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#People_claiming_to_be_the_Mahdi This is the best place to mention all the people who have claim to be the Mahdi. Xareen (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The vandal keeps on adding derogatory information even after being told that Bahai is a different religion. Xareen (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling them a vandal does not make it vandalism. They can view your removal of content as vandalism as well. After watching you two revert each other and not talk about it, I suggest you contact an admin. Unflavoured (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an admin. Both of you, stop edit-warring. Xareen, do not call this vandalism or you will be temporarily blocked to prevent more name-calling. Let's look at this calmly, please. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Glad to have you here. Can you please revert this page to say 12 hours ago. Most of the sections are broken by edit war. I was trying to restore them but it is so hard. Xareen (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes helloDrmies. Good to finally have someone who can help settle this issue.Suenahrme (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors here need to make a couple of decisions. I've read over the talk page, and that's not exciting or well-written reading. Above, MathewVanitas makes some valid points and I have to chime in. a. The article is called "Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism." So, that means criticism--not modified criticism, just from Sunni Islam for instance. It allows for poststructural, atheist, neo-Kantian, and Bahai criticism; it's as simple as that. That means that Xareen's recurring edit summary is incorrect: "bahai religion is not a legit criticsm for Shia Islam" is plain wrong; why wouldn't it be? b. The source cited in the disputed edit, this one is not IMO a reliable source. Momen is cited in a couple of Wikipedia articles but that doesn't mean much. Especially in a disputed area the sources should be beyond reproach. So I won't advocate reinstating it. In short, you all need to do some figuring. What do you want the article to be about? "Criticism" or "Criticism from a specific angle"? That will answer the basic question quickly. Oh, next one to revert gets a block; the next to revert that revert also gets a block. To make sure you get the idea I will give you both 3R warnings. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Xareen, I am not sure which version you want reinstated; I did not see in the history which is to be preferred, but that is the essence of edit-warring. PLEASE y'all don't start editing and restoring and fighting. If that happens I will have no choice but to lock the article, and whatever version is up will be the one protected. You don't want that, I'm sure. Talk it out here. If needs be and you can't figure it out, go to WP:DR. Ask Mathew to drop by; he's not an idiot, as far as I know. Again, good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please revert to this version. This is before the edit war started. much content has been lost :( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Twelver_Shi%27ism&diff=473098329&oldid=473021167
 * Sorry, one war at the time. I can't really see a reason to prefer one over the other, and since Suenahrme lost their Bahai section, perhaps you may have to lose this one for the while. But see more below. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok i will seek extra sources for the iccultation criticism. I will also try and find other groups than bahai who criticise this. Thanks to you and unflavoured.Suenahrme (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One more time: what I think you all need to do is to figure out what the title/topic of the article should be. Sources will come; reach agreement on this point. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bahai section exist in the Occultation section of the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_views. Do you want to change the title of this page to Criticsm of Bahai? Then I would agree with keeping the bahai section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this is about what kind of criticism the article should list. Again, the title suggests no limitation whatsoever. If Kermit the Frog wrote an article published in a reliable source with some kind of criticism of Twelvers, it should be acceptable since the title poses no limitations. Please stick to the topic--and please, you two (three) talk this out amongst yourselves. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin, are you also aware that they have removed textual written about Misyar marriage.They argue that this is irrelevant to the discussion. Can you please restore the page before the edit war because much info has been lost. I also don't agree with your argument about kermit the frog. Do you think people who denies holocaust should be allowed to write their propaganda on wikipedia on the page about holocaust to deny that it ever happened? That is exactly being done here. Xareen (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * once again misyar is clearly not equivalent to mutah. Mutah is criticised because it is not a permanent "marriage". That is why it is criticised. Misyar is permanent marriage. So how can you equate the 2? Why don't you just equate all marriage mutah?Suenahrme (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See. This is the unfair attitude I was complaining. You are playing with semantic. I already said before Misyar is equal to Shia Muta with very minor differences. The basis on making misyar has the same argument for muta. That is the main reason why it should be allowed. And like I said before, Why are you removing what you dislike. That is a dishonest practice. You are removing what you don't like. And adding stuff unrelated from other religion here. How come you get to add something from bahai which is a different religion but at the same thing remove Sunni practice of alternate to nikah? Xareen (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not the same. Just because they are alternatives, does not mean that you can include them both: Fascism and monarchy are both alternatives to democracy, but they are not the same thing. Mut'a marriage: Fixed-term, temporary. Misyar: Not fixed-term, not temporary. Last but not least, and as I repeated several times already: Mut'a marriage is a Shiite issue that is being criticized. Misyar is not a Shiite issue, and does not belong on this article. No more Tu quoque, please. You are not addressing the actual issues that have been brought up, even though several editors have now repeated the same arguments and spelled them out quite clearly. Unflavoured (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Drmies once i include better sources can i just re add the occultation section in the article?Suenahrme (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation there is already a page written about occultation from many sects of Islam. There is already an occultation from Bahai religion. Do you plan to replicate everything on that page here? Xareen (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we handle one thing at the time, please? Xareen, I am going to say this one more time. If "criticism" is not specified as to what kinds of criticism are discussed, then all (notable, verified) kinds of criticism are allowed. It is a very basic thing and has to do with grammar, with how nouns and adjectives work. You need to argue that there is some kind of limitation to be imposed on "criticism". Why would you exclude Bahai criticism? Leave the holocaust out of this--it has nothing to do with the topic. If you cannot explain why an unqualified "criticism" would exclude Bahai or any other criticism, and/or if your explanation is not reasonable and does not find consensus, then we are done here, and Bahai criticism, if reliably sourced (with books and academic articles, for instance) is in: it is as simple as that. If you respond with holocaust or whatever, I have no choice than to conclude that you cannot follow logic and/or English. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand the logic here. I have provided a page on occultation with many view points including Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Bahai and Druze. I urged the poster to make his edit on that page as that is where all the views on occultation belong. But I am trying to understand why you want him to plagarized and replicate all the views here? My second objection is how about the stuff that has been removed from this page specific to Nikah Misyar? Xareen (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. You again have not answered the question. Thus, I see no reason why Bahai criticism of Twelvers should not find a place in the article. You could have argued that the article should be about Sunni criticism, but you didn't. Whatever you have to say about occultation in its own right is irrelevant. It is suggested that Bahai criticizes the Twelvers' thoughts about occultation; such criticism, if properly verified, can have its place in the article. Your further repetition of the points you've made, none of which were pertinent as far as I can tell, is a good reason to invoke DIDNTHEARTHAT: it is disruptive. Suehrname, please don't go and simply reinstate the section with that reference; I suggest you plow through this search where you may find lots of other interesting things. I suggest you take your time, if only to step away from the formalities of WP:3R. I make no comment on this marriage dispute you all are having, but it has no bearing, as far as I can see, on the Bahai question and the general issue of the name and topic of the article. If you cannot agree, you may seek resolution at WP:DR. But continued edit-warring may lead to a block and article protection. Note that you are both currently warned for 3R violations, and those include all reverts, not just the Bahai reverts. In other words, keep your cool and try and talk it out here. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nikah misyar is a Sunni issue, not a Shiite issue. The Occultation is a Shiite issue. If the Occultation is criticised, and that criticism can be backed with a reliable source, then it should have a section. If not, then it should not have a section. IMHO, it is a simple problem with a simple solution. There is no need to have this storm-in-a-teacup over it. Unflavoured (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Still, I placed a notice on the administrator's noticeboard, asking them to keep an eye on it to prevent further/future disruption. Should that occur, blocks and protection may still happen--though I noted what I would call an exception: reinstatement of Bahai criticism with a reliable source. Thanks Unflavoured. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sunni or Shia the issue is the same. Misyar and muta are both an alternative to Nikah. They share more similarity than differences. Why have the misyar section removed from this article? You guys don't like it and deleted the writeup. Xareen (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Occultation page has a very comprehensive information. It tackles the issue from many different sects and religion. It also includes a section on Bahai. The bahai religion is represented on Wikipedia and so is every sect including Shia, Sunni, Druze and Ahmadiyyah. You can add a link if you wish rather that replicating everything again on this page. Xareen (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou again Unflavoured and Drmies. Yes i will look up the website you suggested Drmies but i will take my time since things have become a little too heated and repetitive at the moment.Suenahrme (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)