Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam/Archive 3

Misyar and Mut'a are similarly criticizable
There are scholarly third party sources that suggest they are both equally criticizable. I therefore propose their inclusion in the article:

Mut'a, by Karen Ruffle, Oxford Bibliographies
 * "Although mutʿa is prohibited by Sunni schools of law, several types of nonpermanent marriage exist, including misyar (ambulant) marriage, which has gained official state sanction in Saudi Arabia, and ʿurfi (customary) marriage, which is becoming increasingly popular in Egypt."


 * "The sole object of the Misyar and Muta marriages is for sexual gratification in a licit manner. Like most practices in Islamic society, this is also skewed in favour of the male."

Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism, By Mushtaq K Lod, p. 59

--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the reliable source noticeboard that unanimously endorses Karen Ruffle's work.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC) And here is the link to Administrator's noticeboard(edit warring) where the admin emphasizes that "personally knowing" is below reliable source; specially a source the reliability of which is established in WP:RSN.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is about Criticism of Twelver Shiites. There is no reason for any Tu quoque fallacies. Also, the main criticism of mut'a marriage is that it is a fixed term, contractual marriage. That criticism does not apply to Misyar marriage. Unflavoured (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This page -as the lead section suggests- is more or less on sunni criticism of twelver Shiism:
 * "Some Sunni commentators (Salafi in particular) have identified several aspects of Shi'a belief which they allege are incorrect and even 'heretical."
 * In fact that name was suggested as a substitute for the article title, by MatthewVanitas when the article was nominated for deletion. So, it is natural to see the response to a specific criticism harnessing Sunni principals and practices as the content is to a large extent an inter-faith dialog. Moreover, based on the viewpoints mentioned in the talk page I do not assume anyone here is against posting a response embedded in the article.
 * As for your second argument, however I am seeing sources that are criticizing mut'a not just for its fixed term nature, but for its so called sole purpose of men's pleasure which again according to those sources is common between misyar and mut'a. So, perhaps it is helpful -for the sake of neutrality- we add them to the article as well. For example, I propose changing the lead of the section to the following:

"Nikah mut‘ah (lit. 'pleasure marriage'), is a contractual fixed-term marriage practiced in Twelver Shi’ism. The duration of this type of marriage is fixed at its inception and is then automatically dissolved upon completion of its term. Nikah mut‘ah has been criticised to have a sole object of 'sexual gratification in a licit manner' and to be a cover for prostitution.[8][9][10][11][12][13]"
 * with [13] being the source I have mentioned above that uses the quoted terms. Let me know your thoughts on that--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the five sources that back up the opening paragraph of the criticism of Shiite nikah mut'a, four are non-Muslim sources. Do we add paragraphs about how some non-Muslims are ok with sex outside traditional marriage ?! No, that is not reasonable. The section is about criticism of Shiite nikah mut'a, it is not about comparing Shiite nikah mut'a to any non-Shiite practice. Addressing criticism by saying that others have similar practices (and nikah misyar is not temporary, so it is not actually similar), is not encyclopedic. If you want to discuss changing the starting paragraph, then open a new section. In the meantime, feel free to remove the tu quoque fallacy. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks unflavoured. This is what i have bern arguing all alonf. To remove this misyar muta equation. I was even blocked for trying to remive this but nobidy even responded to my queries. They just blocked me. Kazemita you need to justify why this ruffle ref is added in the article when: 1. She says in yoyr ref that misyar is nonpermabent. This is obviously false as the mistar wiki article says. If you want i can give you plenty of refs that say that misyar is permanent. So how can you cite a prrson who lacks even the elementary kniwledge of misyar? 2. You criticize sunni misyar in the 12er criticism article but no one else. Qhy dont you also add a criticism of western dating systems etc? 3. Your misyar edit is not needed because on top of being from an uneducated ref the defence of muta is already provided satisfactorily in the article. To unflavoured: if kazemita doesnt renove his ref then how can we remove it without getting blocked? Because its addition in the article is really quite ridiculous.Suenahrme (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Suenahrme, Wikipedia has a system, with rules and regulations. When someone adds info that is incorrect, the response should not be to get into a revert war. If you do that, then instead of the information being corrected, you end up being banned. Instead, explain politely why the person is mistaken, and provide sources if needed. That way, the person can reasonably be expected to correct themselves. Once you provide sources, discuss the issue, and can logically back up your actions, then you can make an edit without being hostile :) It is better to calmly explain why a person is wrong, instead of getting into a fight. I have explained why nikah misyar does not belong in the section dealing with the criticism of the Shiite practice of nikah mut'ah, so let us give time to the other side to respond. Unflavoured (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching the recent activity on this article and it seems nobody is getting anywhere. BTW following is the excpert which makes comparison between nikahs of mut'ah, misyar & urfi:
 * "In addition to nikah and the nikah muta'h, there are two other types of marriage practiced in the Muslim world. They are similar to nikah mut'ah in that they allow a couple to have sexual relationship without being judged to have committed the sin of fornication, while allowing them to avoid financial and social commitments of a normal marriage. The most commonly practiced of these are known as nikah misyar and nikah urfi.
 * Misyar marriage is controversial issue in the Muslim world, as many see it as practice that encourages marriages for purely sexual purposes, or that it is used as a cover for a form of prostitutuion. ..."
 * Misyar marriage is controversial issue in the Muslim world, as many see it as practice that encourages marriages for purely sexual purposes, or that it is used as a cover for a form of prostitutuion. ..."

-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 07:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "...For many couples in the Muslim world, however, misyar marriages are a way of marrying without having to obtain the substantial amounts of money needed for the dowry, ceremony..." The author of that book makes that clear too. The view that misyar is similar to prostitution is very fringe, since misyar marriage is not temporary. Again, if you want to criticize misyar marriage, do so in the misyar marriage article. This article is about criticism of Shiite practices. There is no criticism of Western-style dating or sex outside of marriage in this article, and there is a reason for that. Unflavoured (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the wiki article in misyar says it is a permanent marriage so the issue of prostitution (having sex with someone for a limited time) is a non-issue. Whether people abuse misyar for their own sexual pleasure is their own business but that cant then be used to equate it with muta. Id you want to equate a practice with muta you must find a practice that in its legal form is tempirary which misyar is clearly not. Mutah in its legal form is clearly temporary so the issue of abusing the aystem doesnt count. Thats why it is criticized. This whole issue really comes down to some basic coommon sense. Would sunnis ever criticize muta if they also practiced temporary marriage? Of course not. But fortunately they dobt. But definitely ruffle has discredited herself by claiming that misyar is nonpermanent so her ref should be removed asap.Suenahrme (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You discredit Ruffle, who is an RS as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, is this because the author doesn't abides your point of view? Anyways, current articles Mut'ah section states that "nikah mut‘ah has been widely criticised as the religious cover and legalization of prostitution", so when Mut'ah is being cricised for legalization of prostitution is it not potent to give reader an idea that Mut'ah is not the only one of the Islamic marriages criticised for legalization of prostitution but there are others too namely nikah misyar and nikah urfi. And where is it stated that view that misyar & urfi are similar to prostitution is very fringe.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I second that. Besides, I want to propose that this article should be renamed to Sunni Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the fixed nature of muta that had led it to be compared with prostitution. But misyar is permanent so the equation with prostitution or solelt for sexual pleasure doesnt apply. This is what this issue comes down to. & changing the name to sunni ctiticism of tweler just doesnt stick because not only sunnis are criticizing 12er practice/beliefs. The article mentions sunnis, secular scholars, westeners and even intra-12er criticism. Unless you can prove that only sunnis ever criticize 12ers then i dont see under what readoning you can change it. Should people change criticism of catholism to protestant criticism of xatholicism?!Suenahrme (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are against changing the title of the article that is fine.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed or permanent, mut'ah, misyar, urfi all three are "criticised as the religious cover and legalization of prostitution". So when we include misyar & urfi it completes the picture that mut'ah is not the only one which is criticized for legalization of prostitution. I don't see what is the problem with it, we have verifiable RS who compare mut'ah, misyar & urfi and criticize them on similar grounds.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 13:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr Suenahrme you reverted the edits and gave following reasons backing your action,
 * rsn discussion nor concluded
 * but the RSN discussion is concluded and archived,


 * as wikiarticle says
 * Wikipedia itself is a WP:SPS, and itself is not reliable. The guideline "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has been stated and agreed from the very beginning of the encyclopedia. You perhaps would like to read about reliable sources and try to agree with other editors on points at issue.

As you can see above, both of the reasons which you provided have no weight as they are contrary to WP policies. So I'll suggest reverting them back.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * to answer your questions quickly. 1. The wiki article on misyar has numerous mentions of non-fixed with refs. 2. The rsn was only archived today. So pkease do not make it as though it was archived ages ago and i am basing ob this. Anyway i plan to reipen this dicsussion ob rsn.Suenahrme (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So, until you reopen the RSN & it gets concluded, the reference used in the article is RS. Hence, until the new RSN (which you may open in future) gets concludes the other way around the text should & must be based on the RS ref, so, I'm going to revert it back to the text based on RS ref.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * okay but in the meantime someone can fix the actual sebtence be ause it is very poorly written and lacks even a full stop at the ebd!Suenahrme (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of fixing sentences, I suggest you double check your own last post (sebtence? ause?)--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammar, incorrect info & focus
Why do you keep reverting to a version that lacks even a full stop at the end of it faiHaiser? Do you even read the edit before you revert? Also you xan say that according to euffle murah is comparable to misyar. That is one thing. But to say unequivically that misyar/urfi are non-permanent is unacceptable vecause it is mentioned with refs in their articles that it is like normal marriage in its fized nature. Also you have added even more info on misyar equating it with prostitution. Well in case you have forgotten this is nor criticism of misyar but muta. So stop trying to focus on misyar.Suenahrme (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you are worried about a fullstop and behind it you are removing sentences. And do you even read your post even after posting them, it seems to be encrypted one which one has to decrypt to understand. BTW, where is your request for revaluation of RS, as we decided above until you file new request & it gets decided otherwise we will keep the matter of current ref which is verifiable RS. So, plz hold your horses until you have something new apart from this is nor criticism of misyar but muta because when you talk about heaven, hell also comes into conversation. And the revert you just did was of three seperate edits (& not simple reverts).-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * if it says non-permanent u dont then add non-permanent for misyar even if false. If it says prostitution you dont add prostitution for misyar when you have already made your point. This isnt a childs slinging match. Murah has more than amply been defended. This isnt criticism of sunnis. Nany different groups have criticized mutah yet you seem intent only adding more and more criticism for sunnis despite the name page. Strange. & i do intend to rsn. Its coming soon enough.Suenahrme (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you read your own comment above and make anything out of it. And what is Murah?
 * Anyways misyar & urfi are being added to give full picture of the criticism that when mut'ah is criticized at same time there are two other practices which are criticized on same grounds. And stop doing blanket reverts as you have done during last two edits as you are reverting non-contested edits too. And regarding RSN, come back when you have decision in your favour. Until then content of RS (which gives view of two established academicians) stays on the article.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 14:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Following reference classifies misyar as temporary & pleasure marriage:
 * Nonie Darwish (2009), Cruel and Usual Punishment, Pages 36 & 64
 * -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 17:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, I think we can agree on some modification of the grammar or putting a period (.) in the end. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please propose what you deem to be fit. But as history goes on this article people enforce their view and then claim that it is the agreed upon view. Good luck!. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not answering any of my questions. This is not a article of criticism of sunnis. But this is what you have turned it into. Why are you quoting nonie who is a known anti muslim when sunni scholars on misyar article mention it is permanent like normal marriage? I think you should cease quoting any person who will help you make your point no matter how uneducated their words.Suenahrme (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If we take your own logic, why are you criticizing Mut'ah when Shia scholars mention it as purely legitimate and legal as per Quran & Hadith. But when we say criticizm, it will be from everyone, you are not shy of quoting Salafi/Whabi/Anti-Shia sources to criticize Twelver Shia Muslim practices then why not to include known anti muslim too? And regarding your allegation that I'm not answering your questions, I have mentioned my stand time and again but on your insistence I'll repeat it again,
 * "current articles Mut'ah section states that "nikah mut‘ah has been widely criticised as the religious cover and legalization of prostitution", so when Mut'ah is being cricised for legalization of prostitution is it not potent to give reader an idea that Mut'ah is not the only one of the Islamic marriages criticised for legalization of prostitution but there are others too namely nikah misyar and nikah urfi."
 * "Fixed or permanent, mut'ah, misyar, urfi all three are "criticised as the religious cover and legalization of prostitution". So when we include misyar & urfi it completes the picture that mut'ah is not the only one which is criticized for legalization of prostitution. I don't see what is the problem with it, we have verifiable RS who compare mut'ah, misyar & urfi and criticize them on similar grounds."
 * IMO, you should stop discrediting RS from reputed people. And you did one more blanket revert, please stop doing blanket reverts as you have done during last three of your edits . -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 05:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks for making my point. You said that shia scholars legitimize muta. However, if you read the misyar article you will see that its legality is not so clear cut. No shia will ever put conditions on muta. But misyar is frowned upon unless its of a last resort. So u are repeatedly criticizing a practice that isnt even clear cut like muta. & name me 1 salafi/wahabi that is quoted for the mutah please? The difference between me and your edits is that i say mutah is temporary as is accepted even by your own shia scholars while you say misyar is temporary as opposed to sunni scholars even on the misyar wiki article. Do you see the difference?Suenahrme (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Shia scholars legitimize Mut'ah because it hase been there since time of Holy Prophet sawa and banned only by Umar, so in your words, no shia will ever put conditions on muta. While misyar & urfi are recent innovations, so, when Sunni out of region of influence of these practices learn about them they get confused and deffinetely there will be differences about them due to this and you'll not find anything regarding them in older literature. And I said "Salafi/Whabi/Anti-Shia sources to criticize Twelver Shia Muslim practices" and not "Salafi/Whabi/Anti-Shia sources to criticize Mut'ah", so, your question regarding that is baseless. And as you yourself say "misyar is frowned upon" so that means a self criticizm of these practices also exist. Also, you say they are not even clear cut, but it is sanctioned & legally authenticated in the heart of Islam i.e. the Arab world; do you think the learned muftis of these true Islamic countires have implemented half cooked, unclear practices and clearly recent innovations in their nations in the name of true Islam? And from when we decided that we will listen to only Sunni sources with respect to Sunni issues? -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you that there are many difference between misyar and mut'ah, so I need to ask the question that you have not yet answered: Why is criticism of misyar marriage being put on this page ?! Why is criticism of western dating not in this page ?! Misyar marriage is a new phenomenon that is has been rejected by many Sunnis, and it is only practiced in a very few countries, whereas mut'ah marriage is a mainstream Shiite belief. Unflavoured (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already answered your question of "Why is criticism of misyar marriage being put on this page ?!" you just need to read my previous posts. Regarding "Why is criticism of western dating not in this page ?!" because we don't criticize wahabi/salafi passion for takfeer, terriorism, etc too and it is because, these criticisms are unrelated to current discussion while misyar & urfi are very much related as they fall under same umbrella of non-conventional Islamic marriage and we have RSs which club all of them while handling them.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, when I said, "there will be differences about them", here them implies misyar & urfi and not mut'ah, misyar & urfi. I will clear the sentence once more,
 * While misyar & urfi are recent innovations, so, when Sunni out of region of influence of these practices learn about them they get confused and deffinetely there will be differences about them (i.e. misyar & urfi amongst Sunni ulema, muftis & general public belonging to different schools, regions, etc) due to this and you'll not find anything regarding them in older literature (because misyar & urfi are recent innovations).
 * But after all they belong to same class of non-conventional Islamic marriage and to conclude following are few RS stating same:
 * According to Karen Ruffle, assistant professor of religion at Toronto University, even though mutʿah is prohibited by Sunni schools of law, several types of nonpermanent marriage exist, including misyar (ambulant) marriage and ʿurfi (customary) marriage, that gained popularity in parts of Sunni world. -Mut'a, by Karen Ruffle, Oxford Bibliographies
 * According to Florian Pohl, assistant professor of religion at Oxford College, Misyar marriage is controversial issue in the Muslim world, as many see it as practice that encourages marriages for purely sexual purposes, or that it is used as a cover for a form of prostitutuion. -
 * Misyar has been suggested by some other western authors like Mushtaq K. Lod and Elie Elhadj to be a comparable marriage with Nikah mut'ah and that they find it for the sole purpose of "sexual gratification in a licit manner". -Islam and the West: The Clash Between Islamism and Secularism By Mushtaq K. Lodi, pp. 58-59 & The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms  By Elie Elhadj, p. 51
 * -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have already established that there are major differences between misyar and mut'ah.
 * Mut'ah is temporary. Misyar is permanent.
 * Mut'ah is accepted by the Shiite mainstream, and endorsed by the ayatollas. Misyar is not accepted by the Sunni mainstream, and several Sunni religious leaders have rejected it.
 * Mut'ah is an old Shiite practice. Misyar is a new phenomenon.
 * Mut'ah is practiced by Shiites everywhere. Misyar is only practiced in a few countries, possibly only 3 countries.
 * And yet, criticism of misyar is here, and there is no criticism of ANY other practice. Why ?! This page is about criticism of Shiite practices, not anything else. You ignore everything else and point out: "They do it to!" This is a classic fallacy. Criticism of misyar belongs in the misyar article. This article is about criticism of Shiite practices. Adding fallacies to it makes it a weak, unencyclopedic article. If you wanted to be objective, you could just add a "see also", but the mut'ah section is not objective at all: The actual criticism is 2 lines, and Shiite response is 7 lines !! By insisting on adding the "you too" fallacy, you are making it even worse. Unflavoured (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So now you say misyar/urfi are recent sunni practices. This on top of the fact that they are only seen as practices of last resort - unlike muta. Yet you then have no problem repeatedly adding them in the article. These practices are not clear cut like muta. There are differing opinions about how they can be undertaken even among sunnis. So something not clear cut should not be added. You also keep quoting that misyar is nonpermanent when on multiple occassions i have told you that the misyar wiki pg mentions its non fixed. So please stop repeating this fallacy. Also muta isnt criticized in this article because of its "non conventional islamic marriage" nature. It is criticised because of its temporary nature. Likewise if catholics or anyone else practiced a relgiously sanctioned temporary relationship it would most certainly also be criticized on their relevant pages. I am still not sure what your obsession with salafi/wahabis is. How many refs are from these people on the page? And why do you even care when your more than happy to quote anti muslim nonie?Suenahrme (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What you know and what you tell is not important on WP but what RSs say is important here and in this case we have verifiable RSs contrary to what you are saying. I have negated your stand by logical and factual arguments but you keep on iterating same questions all the time. In fact you have systematically avoided all my explanations & questions too. If you are saying that Mut'ah is being criticized for only temporary nature than you should clear off all other things apart from criticism of temporary nature of Mut'ah from the section.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 15:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * its not what i know and what i tell. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this when i have now said on many occasions that this is not my own opinion but the RS of sunni scholars on the misyar wiki article itself. It is stated their that misyar is non-fixed. Yet you want to quote people who oppose this when its obvious sunni scholars are more qualified to tell people what their faith believes. & i'm not sure what you want me to clear off muta? The criticism of muta is very short and to the point. So i dont know what you are talking about?  It mentions muta is fixed term which has then lead to the criticism of the fixed term as a form of prostitution. So i'm not sure what needs clearing off? And why do you care about clearing off when you are more than happy to add sentence upon sentence to defend and then to criticize a non clear cut sunni practice of misyar? This doesnt make sense to me.Suenahrme (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of uncited text
Its almost eight months since I tagged few phrases/sentecnes/paras asking for citation/secondary resources but they still remain in same state. Now as almost three quarters have passed and no citation has been provided I think we should remove uncited content. I'll wait for rest of November and if still after that status-quo remains I'll move ahead and remove the content. I request other editors to please drop by and express their suggestions.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is 2 Dec today & as mentioned above I have removed most of the uncited text. Some uncited text still remain (especially in lede). I may do further cleanup in coming days. For those who have remained silent till now and didn't responed here, if you think this removal of uncited text is incorrect then please discuss it here rather than taking any action on article (e.g. undo, revert, etc.) and putting long edit comments.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncited text was restored which I have reverted back. IMO, as the section of "Child Imams" doesn't have any criticism so the section itself should be removed.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As per one editor "the part you left is criticizing something & you completely removed the context" and the context is unsourced since start and have been tagged so for almost ten months. So, as per "cause & effect" I have removed 'uncited context' and 'cited criticism' (which acyually is not crticism but explanation & defence against criticism). I hope this settles issue and any content without proper citation will not be restored.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 05:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

predestination section
Predestination section says that: "Twelvers reject predestination.  This has led to Sunni criticism of Twelvers, along with their associated belief in Bada' (change in God's will), as being deniers of God's complete sovereignty and as being imitators of the Mu'tazila school of Islamic theology."

Shia believe in predestination, they do not, however, believe in complete predestination. They agree with with Sunnis on that matter. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are enough sources there to back a sunni criticism of the shia belief and badaa seems to further show that shia have a different view of predestination. If you have info and sources that support your position then you may add them in a paragraph beneath that defends the shia belief. But you have no right to removed well sourced content simply because it opposes your own position.__120.18.197.101 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing
While the text of the article is well-written, I noticed that there are only sections with no sub-sections. Would it be possible to organize it into sub-sections based on the source of criticism? Some of the sections are on internal, inter-Shi'ite criticism such as the section on khums while others explicitly seem to come from outside Shi'ism. Perhaps this is my OCD bell ringing but it seems like the article would be better organized that way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A year on and nobody has any feedback to provide? I know the suggestion here is a tall order, but it really might make the article more coherent and accessible to readers. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Editorial
This doesn't seem to have the correct tone for an encyclopedia. Even the title hints it is defending or presenting a point of view.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. That said, the article should not be deleted for the sake of censoring the underlying points. It is legitimate and worthwhile to describe the grievances that the two main divisions of Islam have against each other.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

POV
The title of the article is not neutral; mentioning the differences between the Shia and Sunni is not a criticism against the Shia. Also the differences between the Shia and other sects are cited in the related articles as Twelver. The name of the article should be changed.--Salman mahdi (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious from the sub-sections that the article is criticising specially twelver shia beliefs and rituals. Zaydis, ismailis and other shia clearly do not believe in such things as usuli v akhbari, self-flagellation, mutah, the occultation etc. Therefore, the name cannot be changed to the generic 'criticism of shia islam'. Also, the article is not simply mentioning differences: there are clear references to criticisms from authors of other faiths and even from twelvers themselves. Hence the article is plainly one of criticism and not comparison. I can understand that you being a proud iranian twelver shia may be uncomforable with the article, but please try and keep an open mind. I would also recommend that the neutrality tag be removed since the article is quite well balanced for a 'criticism' article.120.18.167.173 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I Think that this article just base on the claims not fact about a sect like Shiite. According to Wikipedia rules when you are mentioning an stance and claim you should also add other view points while this article only deal with criticism of Shiite, this really is not an encyclopedia article and counted as NPOV.--m,sharaf (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

 * Hello. I am going to add some new information to this article so as to be more balanced. I hope so. Hadi (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hadi, it sure is more balanced and encyclopedic article now. Thanks for your work.

Similarities to Roman Catholicism
This section is judgmental does not mention who criticised Twelvers because they have similarities with another sect. Why would they be criticised for that, anyway? The book sourced does encourages knowing similarities between these two sects of Islam and Christianity, not critizise it. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Shia Imams in Isfahan Bazaar.JPG Twelvers have often been criticized mainly by Sunnis, but even some Protestant Christians, for beliefs and practices that are seen as like Catholicism having deviated from the teachings of its founder and having only been introduced during later stages. This comparison to Catholicism extends from the Twelver focus on Husayn and Fatima, much like the Catholic focus of Jesus and Mary, and the associated elaborate mourning myths that surround them, to praying to the Imams, making pilgrimage to their shrines, celebrating their anniversaries and displaying their representations like the vast and elaborate Catholic institution of saint-veneration, and even as far as the similarities of an overmighty clerical class and an undercurrent of mysticism and philosophy."


 * The book may mention similarities but it also mentions how those same similarities are criticized by sunnis & protestants. The link of criticism is that both shia and catholics diverge from puritanism—which is what the other 2 groups claim for themselves ie. puritanical beliefs.120.18.226.156 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the criticism is that Shia "diverge from puritanism", why in the world not just write that, rather than drag some completely unrelated non-Muslim religious tradition into it? Is it because some Muslims see "diverging from puritanism" as more acceptable than being a Catholic, and thus a greater and more demonizing effect is achieved by likening Shiism to Catholicism? Let's keep the Neanderthalian, low-IQ squabbles among the various Muslim sects out of the article.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The wiki content appears to make quite clear that both Sunnis and Protestants use the comparison of Shiites and Catholics to argue that they (sunnis and protestants) follow puritanical versions of their religions. This is not just Sunnis criticising. I don't see how such content is irrelevant.58.106.238.112 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. The notion that it is a criticism is clearly WP:OR and the section is vague and weasel-laden anyway. I propose we remove it. Do you agree?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have the book at hand to check what it really says? I find critisising Shia because they have similar beliefs to another religion to be very limited in thinking by this who critisised it, but I don't think it could be removed since a citation exists. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I just noticed the paragraph's citations were re-organised (I was looking at the paragraph here). There are no citations that critisise the Shia for the similarities, so I, too, would agree on removing it. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange that you "just noticed the paragraph's citations were re-organised" when nobody has changed the citations. So what are you referring to?58.106.238.112 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the article can benefit the reader by providing this informational section from a reliable source(The University of Carolina Press). Feel free to trim it. But do not remove it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many things can "benefit the reader"–for instance, a section on the theory of relativity. But beneficial as it is, it is not on topic. To be within the scope of the article, the content needs to verifiably constitute criticism of Twelver Shia Islam.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why editors have been so adamant in removing this section. The only argument for removal that has any weight is the claim that the section's info is not supported by the reference; however, no proof has been given to support this claim, besides the assurance of a single editor. Anyway, the issues raised in this section (such as image veneration and shia holy sites) are definitely serious issues of criticism in their own right, and i plan on adding these individual issues under their own sub-sections since this previous 'Catholic' section appears to have lost all hope of a return.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as it doesn't contain OR like your previous section, that sounds great. Use regular dispute resolution processes if there is something you are unsure of—don't edit war. And please don't employ generalizing weaseling such as "Sunnis don't like this" and "Sunnis don't like that". Attribute the POV if you must make such dubious generalizations.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

unjustified reasons
I balanced the article by adding opinions of Corbin, who is one of the best and prominent scholar in Shiite sect and I try to balance the content of article. the opinions added ,refer to opponent views in opposite of first group like Vali NAsr and othe authors. therefore I think you(Unknown IP) don't understand what is my intention in adding the Corbin. I intend to balance the content of it. but about your second reason I have to say that it is not a good reason because you it  was better you refer to strength the test and suggest it but you can not  remove the text only by accusing poor wording. you just could suggest the strength of text not removing it. I thinks both of reason are absurd.--m,sharaf (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is good and the underlying statement is valid, but I don't really disagree with 's explanation. It is not true that he/she is not allowed to remove it on the grounds that the wording is very difficult to understand - see WP:PN. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in English, and it is supposed to be understandable for someone whose first language is English; there is no general entitlement to have content which does not meet the standards included. If you need help formulating a specific statement you can try asking at Reference desk/Language.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very obvious from your comment here, as well as your article edit, that you struggle to communicate in English—to put it politely. If Persian is your native language then perhaps your energy could be put to better use editing that Wikipedia.--120.18.189.244 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so at all. I think that just a native could judge on my skills not someone else. that's it. any way I try to improve it as far as possible.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a native English speaker. Wikipedia is not an arena for someone to improve their language skills—especially when those skills in a foreign language are below passable. If you want to edit in a foreign language then be sure you can express yourself intelligibly in that language. Otherwise, i would strongly recommend that you stick to what you know. It is for this reason that i don't see myself editing the Persian Wikipedia anytime soon.--120.18.135.134 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it is not clear at all you would be a native at least there is no evidence. anyway there is no link between being a native Persian and at the same time could not be a good writer in English for instance. certainly it is possible and actual that someone who is not native in language, at least could wrote in ordinary. therefore I cant agree with you at all. I think there are many skillful English editors in Wikipedia who are not native but could edit as well as native. secondly I think it not our aim because my text could be edited , even if it be poorly writing supposedly, by native editors as well. there is no problem. --m,sharaf (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is like throwing trash in the park and saying "someone will come and clean that up for me". If everybody is that irresponsible, the park will quickly be destroyed for everyone.
 * The deeper question is, if your text "could be edited", why don't you do it yourself? Why do you require of others that they come and do your work for you? Is it because you erroneously consider yourself to be more important than them?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your staggered writing speaks for itself. I don't see why you can't (a) study to improve your English (b) content yourself with editing the Persian Wikipedia (c) spare the English Wikipedia of incoherent language that is embarrassing for editors and readers alike.--120.18.56.182 (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think youAnders Feder just change the subject. I didn't said at all I intend to put destroyed text deliberately in Wikipedia but in contrast, I said since that there are many good editors in Wikipedia in comparison with me, at the same time I try to write in better style always, these editors are necessary for editing. that's point. there is no trash  and there is no bad intention. here we corporate with each other to create a good internet encyclopedia. I think that we have to had charity to other people. it is possible.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMPETENCE: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess." We are not here for the sake of having good intentions. We are here for the sake of writing intelligible articles for an English readership. Good intentions are good to have, but they are not sufficient to write encyclopedic content. See also the "Language difficulty" section.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * please seeAssume good faith. I think not only having good intention and faith is necessary condition but also all people deal with Wikipedia have to obsereve it . just contrary to " We are not here for the sake of having good intentions", I understand competence as something which allow complete good faith. in other words both having good intention and having competence are sufficient reasons. I think so. also competence is required doesn't mean
 * that "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." Wikipedia has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly newbies) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
 * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter--m,sharaf (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether your faith is good is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion does not concern your intentions. It concerns the insufficient quality of your writing - as attested independently by three different users. Note also that perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after consensus has decided against it is considered disruptive per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, from which I quote:
 * "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."
 * --Anders Feder (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

. Pointing out the substantial differences between Christology and Shia Imamology despite their outward similarities requires deep knowledge of the two subjects. Corbin is known for his profound scholarly knowledge of Shia Islam and comparative Shia theology. So I assume you're having a good source at hand to draw upon. But the summarized text you've provided, I think is rather obscure and too brief to do justice to the job. But I may be able to help. If you can email me the part of the original text that you have referenced, I will try to provide a better summary in terms of accuracy and language so that we can balance this part of the article. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC) .
 * your welcome. I try to send you my text on the subject. but before anything do you have any skillfully in understanding this kind of text.--m,sharaf (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite familiar with the subject. But you can also check my proposed summary and see whether or not it represents the subject correctly. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

. there is no contrive as if I have to trust to you anyway. but besides this page, can I ask you to edit also my other pages in Shiite philosophy and Islamic philosophy. is it possible? I ping you there also. thanks--m,sharaf (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will have a look. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Contemporary sectarian tensions" sub-section
This sub-section of the article should be removed, or re-worked, for several reasons:
 * 1) The main reason for this sections removal is that Contemporary sectarian tensions seem to really criticise those acting against Twelvers. Twelvers are portrayed as victims in this sub-section. This is not criticism of Twelverism in any way; if anything, this section would belong in a criticism of Sunni Islam article. For every other criticism of religion article, anything to do with violence is about the violent actions of the religion under criticism eg. see the criticism articles for Islam, Catholic Church, Sikhism etc.
 * 2) Everything that is covered in this section can be found in Shia–Sunni relations or Anti-Shi'ism. At best, the section should be reduced from its current clunky content and linked to these articles.

If a violence-related section should exist in this article then it needs to be re-written. It should expose Twelver violence; luckily there is plenty of that. The section could mention historical Twelver violence against other Muslims and non-Muslims, such as the Safavid violence against Sunnis, Sufis, other Shia sects and Christians; the modern Iranian-backed violence directed against Sunnis in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran itself. This is how the criticism of Twelvers is relevant to the article.49.195.168.48 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so i just added criticism of Twelvers in relation to their espousal of violence. I think the section has plenty more room and material for expansion; however, i think my efforts are a good start.49.195.168.48 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of 'Violence' by Twelver Shia Islam
From Chapter 18 of Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual,     "a 'Criticism of...'  article should contain rebuttals if available". Violence BY Twelver Shia Islam and/or  Persecution BY Twelver Shia Islam   belong elsewhere and not in this Wikipedia article somehow as,   Rebuttals OF criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. In Wikipedia, Violence BY is not a Rebuttal OF. Speedrailsm (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic is discussed directly above, so please keep your comments in that section rather than starting a new section.49.195.158.83 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 49.195.158.83 how about responding to the valid issues raised above by Speedrail rather than just adding pointless comments and off-topic content to the Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam article.  Further, you might consider placing your 'violence by' wording somewhere else within Wikipedia.  119.17.48.210 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since IP 49 started the discussion of the issue above it is Speedrailsm's duty to answer his points above first. BTW: your arguments follow little logic and it appears the edits by Speedrailsm are irrelevant compared to 49's which get to the point succinctly and relate to the criticism levelled at twelvers over their violent history. This is a notable and acceptable criticism of an aspect of twelvers. I think you will struggle to argue otherwise. To waffle on--as Speedrailsm's edit does--about how twelvers are victims of sunni violence is completely irrelevant for an article that is criticising twelvers--not sunnis. Besides, the 2nd paragraph of 49's edit, in 1 sentence, clearly links to everything that Speedrailsm's edit says. So not only is Speedrailsm's edit misguided but it is quite pointless and unnecessarily long-winded. Suenahrme (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock
It is highly likely that 49.195 etal is a sock of Suenahrme: Speedrailsm (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * as 'both' only edit Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam ‎
 * with Suenahrme strongly supporting 49.195 etal
 * with Suenahrme having been repeatedly blocked for edit warring.
 * Is this the only account you've ever operated? Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, but his bias was clearly shown when he noted Shias by "their espousal of violence". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165047/http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm to http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140101080029/http://www.aimislam.com/al-azhar-chancellor-religious-leaders-hail-ayatollah-khameneis-fatwa/ to http://www.aimislam.com/al-azhar-chancellor-religious-leaders-hail-ayatollah-khameneis-fatwa/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228185246/http://www.kr-hcy.com/shia/books/ehsanzaheer/index.shtml to http://www.kr-hcy.com/shia/books/ehsanzaheer/index.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mut'ah
Hello. "The majority of Sunni scholars and Western writers have called it prostitution." Who says that? Is this documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masood L (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Violence and persecution
This section is very biased and presents certain aspects as facts which simply are not true. For example, there is a sourced fragment that states: “there are no Sunni mosques in any of Iran’s large cities“. The statement in itself is a lie, see here, Makki Mosque or even sectarian Sunni website lists numerous HUGE Sunni mosques here. Sunnis in Iran are also free to study in their own Islamic schools, for example Jamiah Darul Uloom Zahedan. Further, the article states that Sunnis “are oppressed” in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. How they oppressed in Iraq when they held power till 2003, since then killed tens of thousands of Shias in numerous terrorist organisations and despite all of that, the newest (2018) government coalition includes numerous Sunnis? How are Sunnis oppressed in Lebanon by Shiites? How are Sunnis oppressed in Syria by Shiites, when Shiites make up 1-2% of total Syrian population? Ten of thousands of Sunnis fight and die for Assad. This whole article should be rewritten because it’s a biased, sectarian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.163.187 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
Why do we have the neutrality tag on the page? Alssa1 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just look at the discussions, this article has been hijacked by Wahhabis and serves no other purpose than to push sectarian anti-Shia bias with selected sources to fit the narrative. In my opinion, it should be either deleted all together or rewritten to meet the academic standards from non-bias sources and ideas. --Szalony Mnich (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

'Usuli versus Akhbari' section
This is not criticism of 'Twelver Shia Islam' as such, but internal one between Usuli & Akhbari. If we go by the logic of including it here, this article should then be merged with 'Criticism of Islam', or there should be detailed discussion of intra-sect criticism there. Hence, I'm removing this section, if, anyone feels otherwise please discuss here before restoring it back.-- Fz t c s 15:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I clearly gave reasons and precedent of the legitimacy of the section’s inclusion in edit summaries and on talk pages; however, s repeatedly ignores them without response. I will restate here: clear precedence is provided from Criticism of the Catholic Church. This is clear intra-sect criticism, since Catholicism is a sect of Christianity. 49.180.153.15 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comparing case of 'Twelver Shia Islam' and it's Usuli & Akhbari sects & 'Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam' with 'Criticism of Usuli by Akhbari' & 'Criticism of Akhbari by Usuli' with that of is too far fetched internal 'Criticism of the Catholic Church' which is clearly not between inter-sects but by the followers of same Church. We have already 'Internal Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam' spread across various sections in the article, actually in many cases that criticisms provides references from Shia sources and I have not tried to remove them. My point is by this logic, we should move all the discussion to 'Criticism of Shia Islam' or even to 'Criticism of Islam'.-- Fz t c s 08:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * there is no difference of intra-sect criticism between catholicism or Twelvers. They are both internally divided within a sect they both subscribe to. Catholics of course are united under a single sovereign - the pope - unlike Twelvers; however, whether they are akhbari or usuli, both identify undeniably as Twelver. Likewise, traditionalists, liberals, ultras etc would all identify as catholic. Criticism is criticism, whether by a sunni, zaidi shia, usuli twelver, akhbari twelver, christian, atheist etc. You can’t choose whose criticism you include or exclude. Wikipedia isn’t selective censorship. 49.180.153.15 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * anyway @ Fz, I believe your position is biased, disingenuous and untenable; therefore, I will seek to involve more serious inputs regarding this matter.49.180.153.15 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)




 * My own opinion on this is that the content disputed should not be included. Criticism of the Catholic Church is a bad analogy as the section is not about disputes between different sects, and even if it was, those disputes (e.g. by traditional catholics) are against Church reforms i.e. they are a criticisms of the actions of the Catholic church as a whole. If in the Usuli vs Akhbari dispute, the criticisms were against the Twelvers as a whole, then we would keep the section - but they are not. The criticisms are of one sect against another. So the topic in the section has no relevance to "Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam".


 * So I agree with, the section should be removed. ParthikS8 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To put it simply, the case being put by IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx falls under other stuff exists; even if for sake of argument we concur that both cases are similar (which they are not) we are not bound to take similar approach, after-all while Catholicism is majority sect Twelverism is the minority sect which skews the level playing field for them in different manners.-- Fz t c s 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Report/mention to dispute resolution
@ Fz, you were mentioned here on drnb. (Fyi: i am the same IP editor that has been seeking to prevent this article from being gutted by biased, self-serving editors. I choose not to create an account and see no problem in this preference.) 49.180.128.47 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @ IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx!
 * I have already stated my point above and was in process of framing a reply to your recent comments, but meanwhile you have reported me for WP:DR.
 * The IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx have been involved in edit-warring on the page for long. Despite multiple pleadings for engagement on talk-page you didn't did it. And came to talk-page only when the page was semi-protected.
 * Interestingly these IPs have been involved in disruptive-editing for at least 5 years (I didn't investigated before that) and have had conflict with many users like,, , , , , , , , pushing the page into semi-protection multiple times.
 * I myself have been involved on page for at least 10 years and have been mostly bold & assuming good faith in my fight against disruptive editing.
 * Now I'll wait for result of DR process, and only then will comment further over this issue above.-- Fz t c s 10:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator
I have been asked to conduct moderated discussion here, rather than at DRN, and I am willing. Please read and follow the usual rules, which will apply here also. Be civil and concise. I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think should be changed in the article, or what they think should not be changed. Comment on content, not contributors. That is, talk about the article, not each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary by Faizhaider
My opinion on this is that the disputed content should not be included. As this is not criticism of 'Twelver Shia Islam' as such, but internal one between Usuli & Akhbari. Comparing case of 'Twelver Shia Islam' and it's Usuli & Akhbari sects & 'Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam' with 'Criticism of Usuli by Akhbari' & 'Criticism of Akhbari by Usuli' with that of 'Catholic Church is too far fetched, as, internal 'Criticism of the Catholic Church' is clearly not between inter-sects but by the followers of same Church. We have already 'Internal Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam' spread across various sections in the article, actually in many cases that criticisms provides references from Shia sources and I have not tried to remove them. Criticism of the Catholic Church is a bad analogy as the section is not about disputes between different sects, and even if it was, those disputes (e.g. by traditional Catholics) are against Church reforms i.e. they are a criticisms of the actions of the Catholic church as a whole. If in the Usuli vs Akhbari dispute, the criticisms were against the Twelvers as a whole, then we would keep the section - but they are not. The criticisms are of one sect against another. So the topic in the section has no relevance to "Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam". To put it simply, the case being put to include the content falls under other stuff exists; even if for sake of argument we concur that both cases are similar (which they are not) we are not bound to take similar approach, after-all while Catholicism is majority sect Twelverism is the minority sect which skews the level playing field for them in different manners. If we go by the logic of including the disputed content here, this article will then be a good candidate to be merged with 'Criticism of Islam'. --- Fz t c s 07:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary by 49.180.128.47
I believe the deleted section should be restored. There is clear precedence for intra-sect criticism from the Criticism of Catholicism page under the Internal section. Most of the intra-Twelver criticism was directed from the Akhbari sub-sect towards the Usuli sub-sect. The Usulis comprise the majority of Twelvers, so a once mighty but now marginalised minority’s criticism has relevance and weight for the article. I don’t see why a particular group should be censored from criticizing. Twelvers are a sub-sect of Shia, so surely if Zaidi, Ismaili Shia sects are given space to criticise Twelvers then why should this space be deprived for the Twelver sub-sect of Akhbaris? They have serious theological qualms about the direction of Twelver Shia Islam that has occurred under an ascendant Usuli majority. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator
Okay. Will someone put the text of the disputed material in the space marked Disputed Section? Then maybe I can see whether it can be understood by non-Muslims. (I don't expect you to understand filioque either. I don't understand it either.)  Also, provide a short paragraph rather than a long paragraph on why the disputed material should be removed or restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Disputed Section
Disputed section/content is quoted in box above.-- Fz t c s 05:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors
.Content should be restored because it revolves around the serious theological criticisms (provided both in the sub-section and within the transgressions of Twelver scholars wikilink) the minority akhbari sub-sect has against the dominant usuli sub-sect. Seeing as today’s Twelvers are overwhelmingly presented in the popular imagination under the Usuli guise then this marginalised group’s criticism has relevance and value. Plus, we already have the precedence of intra-Catholic criticism where different currents within the same stream are in conflict and this is brought up in that sect’s criticism article. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Faizhaider
My opinion on this is - disputed content should not be included. As, this is not criticism of 'Twelver Shia Islam' as such, but internal controversy/criticism/debate/dispute between Usuli & Akhbari, which have been already covered in main article Twelver, under sections Akhbari-Usuli Controversies, Akhbari and Usuli schools, etc; and also under individual articles, Akhbari & Usuli. Moreover, if in the 'Usuli versus Akhbari'sectione, the criticisms were against the Twelvers as a whole, then we could have kept the section - but they are not. The criticisms are of one school against another. So the topic in the section should not be clubbed under "Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam". Also, the case being put to include the content under 'precedence of intra-Catholic criticism' falls under other stuff exists; we are under no obligation to take similar approach. -- Fz t c s 07:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator
It appears that the two editors disagree, and I do not see a middle ground. I would like either of the editors to suggest a compromise or middle ground. I would also like each of the editors to provide a policy-based reason for including or omitting the disputed material. It isn't obvious to me that there is a governing policy reason. If there is, policy should be followed. If there is no compromise and no policy-based solution, a Request for Comments will be used. (By the way, policy means Wikipedia policy, not any principle of Islamic scholarship, but you knew that, and you knew that the moderator is not a Muslim.) Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors
.i don’t believe there should be a middle ground regarding the edit. I believe it should be included as it was because it’s relevant and within the scope of the article. It’s well referenced and notable enough an issue to be sizeably included in a wikilinked page.

NB: nor am i muslim, but being a former follower I have some knowledge of its intricacies. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The disputed section should not be included, as it is not relevant to current article because it is not criticism of 'Twelver Shia Islam' but is internal one among it's sub-sects, hence, it is out of scope,also, to include it here will give undue weight to it. Also, IMHO, the disputed content comes under false claims of relevance and I'll want to mention that notability is not relevance.-- Fz t c s 20:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator
It appears that an RFC is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The moderated discussion will be closed when I post the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors
. I support a rfc. 49.181.169.164 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Disputed Section
Should the text enclosed in the section headed Disputed Section be included in the article?

Keep your answers in the Survey concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disputed Section
Disputed section/content is quoted in box above.-- Fz t c s 05:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey
Respond Yes or Keep to include the disputed text. Respond No or Delete to delete the disputed text. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No/Delete - disputed content should not be included.
 * The disputed section is not relevant to current article because it is not criticism of 'Twelver Shia Islam'. The content covers internal controversy/debate/dispute of one school against another (ie between Usuli & Akhbari). Hence, it is out of scope. Also, the content have been already covered in main article Twelver, under sections Akhbari-Usuli Controversies, Akhbari and Usuli schools, etc; and also under individual articles, Akhbari & Usuli. To include it here will give undue weight to it. Also, IMHO, the disputed content comes under false claims of relevance and I'll also want to mention that notability is not relevance.-- Fz t c s 05:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the case being put to include the content under 'precedence of intra-Catholic criticism' falls under other stuff exists; we are under no obligation to take similar approach.
 * I don't want to repeat everything I said in previous sections, anyone interested for detailed discussion may refer it there. Thanks.-- Fz t c s 07:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: we already have precedence for voluble intra-sect criticism being included within a “Criticism of Religion” Wikipedia article i.e. Criticism of the Catholic Church. Plus, Usulis are the vast majority of Twelvers and the contemporary face of Twelver Shia Islam (even if historically this was not always the case); therefore, this Akhbari criticism can almost be viewed as an outsider’s criticism of Twelver Shi’ism, just like critiques from Ismaili, Zaydi Shia etc. NB.: I am the same IP who has responded to this issue above. 49.180.8.74 (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No/Delete:
 * I agree with and have previously argued that the content should be deleted due to it not being relevant per WP:ROC. It is a criticism of two sub-sects criticising each other, no criticism is made of the larger tradition that they are both part of, and the objective of this article is to note the "Criticism"s of "Twelver Shia Islam", not controversies between sub-sects inside Twelver Shia Islam, which do not constitute criticism of Twelver Shia Islam as a whole.
 * Also the comparison with the Criticism of the Catholic Church article is a false analogy, that article documents actual criticism of the church institution itself by Catholics, whereas this is a section of two groups within Twelver Shia Islam criticising each other. It cannot be viewed as criticism of the Twelver Shia, as argued above, as the Akhbari group is part of Twelver Shia Islam! ParthikS8 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No - since it has been discussed thoroughly in the main article main article Twelver, under sections Akhbari-Usuli Controversies, Akhbari and Usuli schools as pointed out by Fz Idealigic (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as mentioned above, this is either covered in other sections or at least should be covered in the other sections.VR talk  12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 18:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam → Criticism of Shia Islam – per actual content, the larger part of the article is criticism of Shia Islam by Sunnis, rather than criticism of Twelvers in contrast to other Shia denominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  NW1223 &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 02:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)