Talk:Etymology of Shia

[Untitled]
Im curious about this dubiously written "Shia of Mauwiyah I eventually becoming Sunni'sm"..Any refrences? --Paradoxic 14:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to re-write the article now
I put up the POV sticker because I don't have time to rewrite the article. It is extremely POV and unfair to Sunni Muslims. I will try to get to it when I can. Zora 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont see how it is unfair to Sunnites, perhaps they can complain about what they find unfair instead of Zora doing it for them. Quranic verses were used as well as Sunnite sources in order to show a fair basis of argument. If that is unfair to Sunnites perhaps they should ponder rather than have Zora refute them simply because it does not work in their advantage.--Paradoxic 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about having a nuetral point of view, not each side coming in to defend themselves and only themselves. Pepsidrinka 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that User:Zora never explained the details of the concern that prompted the POV tagging, and that happened over a month ago, I've removed the tag. If someone has specific concerns, please bring them to the talk page. -Harmil 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * let me 1st say im not muslim, so this Sunni Shia problem does not sway me. However this is a Shia page, reflecting shia belief. It is not suppose to be neutral, just like the Sunni page is suppose to reflect Sunni belief. dont just "rewrite" the page becuase you have a hard time in dealing with other beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.108.114 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Shia vs Shi'a
Shia and Shi'a are both used in many places on Wikipedia, and often in the same article. Which is correct? Are both? Shouldn't one be chosen, at least per article? -Harmil 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I just went through and selected one usage for this page, and also explained the usage difference. Every source that I can find that discussses the apostrophe at all says that it's widely used both ways, and there's not much difference. I chose the version with the apostrophe only because of the name of this page. -Harmil 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is considered more 'correct': Shia (Shi`a) or Shi`ite? In the UK news it used always to be the latter, but this is rarely heard nowadays.Jonathan3 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shi'a. Shi'ite is another (ignorant) western invention, just like "islamists". --Striver 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've since heard that maybe Shi`a is more Persian and Shi`ite more Arabic in origin. Any truth in that?
 * I don't know, first time i've heard of that explanation. If true, it would be good to put it in the article.--Striver 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. To add "t" or "d" when the word appear in adjective form (Abbasi(d), Fatimi(d), Sasani(d) etc.) is of greek origin, and therefore occours in most european languages. The arabic adjective is "Shi'i". Hamid, 17 November 16:36 2006

Shi'a of muawiya
Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: "During the conflict between Hazrat Ali bin Abu T�leb (Karramallah wajhah) and Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (Radhi Allahu Anh), both groups were referred to as Shi'atu Ali and Shi'atu Muawiyah. Hence, its early usage in the conflict between the two great companions Ali & Muawiyah [ra-both] was to denote who "sided" with who in its political context". 

--Striver 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your source itself mentions that - atleast in the sunni view - the conflict between Ali (RA) and Muawiya (RA) clearly was'nt religious conflict at all. Therefore, i find it Shia POV to say that the Sunni's are the Shi'a of Mu'awiya. The AhluSunna does'nt follow Mu'awiya (RA) as a leader in the same way as the shiites follow Ali, thus, you can support Ali (RA) and Al-Hassan's (RA) claim for the caliphate and still be a sunni. In fact this occur often among Sunni's. Keep in mind that the sunnites does NOT consider Muawiya amongst the four rightly-guided caliphs, however they consider Ali as one of them! The sunni-scholar Shaykh Amjad Rasheed states: "There is scholarly consensus, as is the position of Sunni Islam, that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was correct in the differences that existed between him and Sayyiduna Mu`awiya (Allah be pleased with him), and that these differences did not occur due to selfish desires or caprice but rather through each exercising their independent judgment (ijtihad)." The website of yours cite its source as http://ahlisunnah.org/ - either this website does'nt exist anymore, or perhaps it has never existed at all. I am looking forward to your reply. Hamid, 24 October 2006, 21:24
 * The site did exists before, unless my memory betrays me. And you are absolutly correct in what you are saying. There must be some way to rephrase it so both become satisfied. Do not take offence, but in my view, those who supported Muawiya were the enemies of Islam, the hypocrites, while those who supported Ali were a mish-mash of Real Shi'a (Ammar), casual Shi'as (Ibn Abbas), and institusionolized Sunnis, people who had no real political agenda, but were of the opinion that Umar and Abu Bakr werent that bad after all. To but it in another way, the real Shi'a and causal Shi'a and Sunnis were with Ali, while the real Sunnis were with Muawiya, if that makes sense... i would say that is a fair image of the Shi'a view of the battles between Ali (as) and Mauwiya (censored). --Striver 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, i view it that there were two strains of Sunnis even the Succesion, the Umar and Abu Bakrs sunnis, who were only after power and greed, and the Umayyad Sunnis who were after sins and revenge. The Umar and Abu Bakr Sunnis joined Ail, while the Umayyad Sunnis went to Muawiya. Then, some among the Umar and Abu Bakr Sunnis got tired of the whole mess and became khwarijes. The is supported by the historial fact that Umar tried to limit sins (by his mesures and in his own specia way), while Muawiya and Yazid indulged in sins, murder, looting, pillage and rape. --Striver 06:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it does'nt surprise me at all that you held this viewpoint, since your profile clearly states that you are Shi'i, which is absolutely fine by me. However, i would like to know why you mention your personal view of Muawiya in this particular sense? Your personal view of him as a person has nothing to do with what i were trying to point out - That the AhluSunna is'nt the Shi'a of Muawiyah. When that is said, i would like you to point out the historical sources of yours claiming that people who followed Umar and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with them both) only wanted power and greed? According to sunni sources, 'Ali himself declared his allegiance to Abu Bakr of own free will, and its well known that Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr and much others did the same, dont you find it harsh to make such accusations? Later on, you state that Umar tried to limit sins, how does that fit with your previous statement? I am not trying to make some kind of discussion or fight, i am asking you only of interrest. Anyway, i am happy to see that you agree with what i was trying to say in the first place. My proposal for change in the article is that the phrase "...and later the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah, from the year Muawiya I became a Caliph, also known as "The year of Jamiyat"" is to be deleted. Anyone disagree? I am looking forward to your reply. My May God almighty bless you. Hamid, 26 October 2006, 14:41


 * Peace! I edited the article to source the disputed claim to a Shi'a scholar. Regarding Umar and Abu Bakr, lets read Shi'a view of Abu Bakr and we can continue or talk there. Further, several sources claim that Zubayr sword was broken while defending Ali during the succesion, you know, the event when they set fire to Fatimahs house. And then you have Umar's own admishion that "Ali, Zubayr and whoever was with the opposed us", rated Sahih by Bukhari. How do you regard the present edition of the disputed section? Nice talking to you, and may God bless you to. Peace. --Striver 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Peace, brother. Thanks for you edit. I personally do not think that we, as muslims, can unite on what has divided us for over a millenium. All we can do is respecting each other, so regarding Umar and Abu Bakr, i rest my case. I hope that you, as my brother in Islam, understand this. And regarding Zubayr, this Shi'a website states that both Talha and Zubayr did oppose Ali in the battle of the Camel, and further, its a well-known fact that Zubayr did marry Asmaa, the daughter of Abu Bakr. So i'd always thought that Zubayr immidiately gave his bayah to Abu Bakr, and that the sad story about the killing of Fatima Al-Zahra's (RA) baby (Al-Mohsen) was exclusively mentioned in Shia ahadith and by Shia scholars. I am always interestested in learning something new, so if i am wrong, please let me know. Thank you. Regarding the disputed part of the article, i am statisfied with its present content, but i would be even more statisfied if it did clearly state that the Sunni's does'nt view themselves as the Shi'a of Mu'awiyah. Thank you for everything. Your brother in Islam, Hamid, 27 October 2006, 15:50

I added the edits you requested. I agree that uniting does not mean that one should sacrifice all differences, rather stated that we have more in common that not. Regarding Zubayr, it is true that they opposed Ali later on, but they did not follow it up on the battle ground, they left it before the battle started. I wont bring up Asmaa... Regarding "Zubayr immidiately gave his bayah to Abu Bakr":
 * ''And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.

Regarding Al-Mohsen, i have hear several Sunni sources, but i knew to little about Islam at that time to remeber any of it... But the above quote, and that Fatimah refused to talk to Abu Bakr until she died, and then willed a secred funeral says a lot, IMHO. Peace. --Striver 15:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay brother, thanks alot for your edit. Jazak Allah khayran. Also thank you for your information about Zubair which i did'nt know. I appriciate it. Im my opinion, however, the above quote, Fatima (RA) refusing to talk to Abu Bakr and her request of a secret funeral alone is no evidence that Abu Bakr (Raa) was involved in the killing of Al-Mohsen. Rather, the reason why Fatima (RAA) refused to talk to Abu Bakr was, at least according to Sahih Bukhari, was because that Abu Bakr refused to give her some of the property from the prophet achieved at Khaybar and Fadak . Also, the event of the murderer of Al-Mohsen is not mentioned in USC MSA's biography of Fatima Al-Zahra and is nor either included in the Sahihain or the Tarikh of Tabari. However, i feel this discussion pretty offtopic. The main topic was me requesting an edit on the disputed part of the article, which you did. I am completely statisfied with it now, and i would like to show you my appreciationg by thanking you by all my heart. I am happy to hear that you support muslim unity. May God grant you peace. Hamid, 28 October 2006, 22:47
 * The same my dear brother in Islam, a pure pleasure to edit with you! --Striver 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Quranic usage
Here is another example of Quranic usage of the term shia: Turning to Him, and be careful of (your duty to) Him and keep up prayer and be not of the polytheists Of those who divided their religion and became seas every sect (Shi'a) rejoicing in what they had with them. (Sura Al-Room 30-31). This is the translation of M.H. Shakir. The arabic version is:

مُنِيبِينَ إِلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُوهُ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعاً كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ Thank you. Hamid, 17 November, 2006

History - Content & Formatting
I've added template over-quotation. The problem is actually not "too many quotes" (the quotes are OK) but "nothing but quotes", i.e. the section consists entirely of quotes, no narrative summary or explication. The section needs some explanatory text for good encyclpaedic style (see Quotations). I'm a total dunce layman when it comes to history & Islam, so I'll leave that to the experts.

BTW, I notice the cites are mostly broken links. I'll tag that for cleanup, not sure what to do as the sources are presumably good. ''P.S. on a second look, maybe the broken wikilinks should be external refs. See below, not familiar with this ref style, I'll leave it to (hopefully) the original editor to fix.''

Just to re-emphasize, the quotes are great IMO, good NPOV balance, and a reasonable number for a History section. The issue is the section needs expanding, i.e. adding descriptive history of 'Shia' usage, when, where, by whom, etc.

Adding some narrative would also likely fix the formatting oddity that led me to look at this section. Right under the section title, a 1 ref link followed by 2 braces '1}}' appears as an apparent orphan, altho it does indeed link to the first group of refs. It works but it looks very odd, it's not intuitively obvious what it's doing there, expecially with the braces; a ref link should come after the text it pertains to. Since there is no text, the link is orphaned. Adding some narrative history as suggested should fix this.

The 2 braces '}}' are unbalanced (they're at the end of the section, but appear at the top in the rendered text). I expect it's a typo left over from an earlier template, unbalanced braces elsewhere in the article, or perhaps a bug in the ref group formatting. I tried balancing them as a quick fix; got '' which didn't really help readability. Tried deleting the orphans at the end of the section; remarkably, they still appeared in the rendered text! I'm not familiar with this style of formatting references, so I'll leave the formatting to an expert too. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)