Talk:Historical Shia-Sunni relations

This article needs help
and i dont know enough to be a help, but i am seriously confused, right off the bat. i mean, you talk about ali, and bakr and caliphs with no mention to who they are, when they were alive, how they were related, where they ruled specifically. in the first paragraph of the article proper alone, it seems like you refer to ali as if he lived and died or rather maybe he was two people... ("a violent coup d'état against Ali in his first day as caliph" at least possibly suggests to me that he died in the violent attack, but not necessarily, but who did the coup, why, and when?) ali who? son of who? lived in where? related to who? serious, i don't know what the hell is going on. --64.142.79.210 09:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the article has a link to the Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split which is kind of necessary for this article. To understand some subjects you sometimes need to go read some other things first.  I think this article is pretty good overall but some specific parts do need help. --W00tfest99 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First comments
Now, lets just wait for Zora to vfd it. --Striver 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * lol. Youre right.--Zereshk 23:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I put a POV tag on it. This page is unencyclopedic. I also suspect that many educated Shi'a would find it risible. Zora 00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcomed to point out where the page lack encyclopedic qualities, so that we can fix the problem and have a good and encyclopedic page. We both are eagerly waitning your input, expecting them to come equaly fast as the pov tag came. --Striver 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and regarding this, this is a Zereshk & Striver joint project, and we both support the facts writen here. You are encouraged to bring a Shia that contests any of the claims in the article, or try to falsifie any of it. It really isnt hard to find anti-Shia propaganda, or quotes what the old Sunni scholars thought of us, its the Salafis full time job to educate everyone of it.--Striver 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * She actually called us "uneducated"...--Zereshk 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah...
 * ''"It feels to me like a grotesque waste of time and energy to negotiate with the mentally deficient and psychologically impaired."Zora on Brandons talkpage


 * However, i seems like Zereshk is geting the idea, everything is not up to here. It is not ok to remove what Shias belive are important, dissmising them as fables and pov just because she hasent heard of it.


 * ''Brandon, I think I've figured it out. Striver and Zereshk enjoy conflict, enjoy writing something outrageous (poking me) and seeing how I will react. See the talk page on Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations. I always respond, due to my dogged insistence on trying to make Wikipedia "good" (by my standards). I have to let go of that. I just will not deal with them for a while, and see what happens. It's up to the rest of you to deal with Shi'a bias and Striver's spelling and grammar. I need to step back. I'll see how it goes if I just work on other articles for a while. Zora on Brandons talkpage


 * --Striver 12:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean, its great that she has started to educated herself by reading some books about shias, like madelungs, but it is absurd that she belives she knows more than us about Shias after reading that book, dismmising everything that we belive in as inaccurate "since madelung dont think so"... --Striver 12:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, you really can be difficult at times. I think it's safe to point out that average Shia knowledge is nothing special in scholarly terms.  I know many Sunnis whom if trying to write an encyclopedic article would get laughed off of wikipedia.  So, we must drop the idea that your religion privileges you in knowledge, and we must start getting you to cite references much better.  From scholarly sources, try books, especially established ones.  These websites that are getting passed off as real sources are problems because they are not scholarly works or even in the ball park.  Britannica would not publish things how you write them Striver, and just going on tone alone Zora's work is much better.  She also tends to cite sources more, and decent ones.  So, I would not discount her knowledge.  In this article you have the list of Sunni scholars that called Shias kafirs... well, you add, "and more..." that is completely unacceptable, it's as if you mean "ad infinitum", as if Sunnism itself is an attack on Shi'ism.  Do you really feel that this article is a balanced portrayal?  Please help to fix and balance it out Striver, these aren't argument papers, they are neutral and you are turning it into an argument for your beliefs more or less and that's not how encyclopedias are written, they don't make judgments.  Okay? gren グレン 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi gren. Sorry for making you feel bad. That part that you fact cheke was not created by me, it was created by zereshk and she defended their validity on the Shia talk page. The only thing i did was to move it here. The "and moree..." is accurate, i mean, can you belive the creator of the four madhab making takfir, but not anyone else? Further, Sunni Islam *is* factualy a attack on shia Islam, Umar himself confessed that in Sahih Bukhari with the words "Ali Zubair and however was with them opposed us". Even if one totaly disregards the Imamah issue, the factual behavior of the Caliphs remain: They denied fatimah her inheritance on OUTRAGEOUS grounds, she stoped talking to them and demanded to be buried in secret. Sahih Bukhari agrees. And when they also did the same to dishonest. Not to talk about Abu Bakr confistating the land of Fadak from Fatimah (Yes CONFISCATING, its was NOT a part of any inheritance). Continueing to Abu Bakr killing Shias on random zakat non-sense arguments and then the Battle of Camel and Siffin, and then Karbala and so on... How can you say that Sunni Islam is *not* an assault on Shia Islam?


 * However, i do agree that some of the things in the article need a factual check, for example, where the Abbasid really Sunnis? Did they acknowledge the three first Caliphs? If not, that needs to be pointed out. Then, i wonder if somone can realy be hanged for three year, is that possible? And then, we need to include the later Sunni scholars that very kindly have joined the Shia call for Unity. Also, we need to add books like "and then i was guided" that literaly have taken countries in a rage of conversion to Shia Islam, and being fobiden in manny countries, and also point out that the reverse fenomen does not exsits, Sunni books causing mass conversion to Sunni from Shia. Thanks for your input and i await your reaply! salam! --Striver 13:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of Sunni ulema
Bringing this up as an example of government suppression of Shi'a is just plain wrong. Al-Mamun was attempting to impose his Mutazili dogma on the ulema and they resisted. Had nothing to do with the Shi'a. Zora 23:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is that it wasnt just the Shi'a that were being persecuted.--Zereshk 00:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't that Sunni-Sunni relations, not Shi'a-Sunni relations? gren グレン 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The point is to show the atmosphere of intolerance at the time. There were different schools of thought even within the Sunni superstructure. Some accept Shias. Some dont. Those who did, died for it. (example: Tusi)


 * Also, there is no Arabic in the text. I therefore dont need to reference anything that I already havent. The Arabic stuff that I posted on the talk page has translations given on the site whose link I posted. Thanx again.--Zereshk 23:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

template
does bring any ideas? --Striver 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to explain what you mean Striver. gren グレン 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Its strikes me as there is a place for a "religous persecution of Shi'as" article, and it should be linked there. Make a "religous persecution by the Shi'as" also, if you find any such material. --Striver 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it deserves a place on the template (since we're getting into sectarian and smaller scopes, and the article is broad) but I do think you could certainly create an article. This article almost is that already because it doesn't discuss good relations very much... and, of course there have been problems. If it's done well it could be a good article :) --gren グレン 05:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is what occured to me. Unfortunatly, there is not much good to report, but i do think that the good thinks from the "shia" aticle should be included.--Striver 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstood concepts
I believe there are some issues that need to be adressed as to whom exactly called "Shiites" as "Kafir" by doing Takfir on them;

It's important to know there were two form of Shiites in history wich both adhered to Shiite teaching (in this case i mean your typical Ithna Ashari)..


 * (1) Shiites that cursed Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman, whom were called Rafidi's for them doing such
 * (2) Shiites that did not curse Omar, Othman, Abu Bakr, etc, the Majority

If we consider that Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa were students under the Shiite Imam, Imam Sadiq, and we analyze how both of these characters have praised their teacher and in addition studied with Shiites alltogether, that Imam Sadiq taught them about Muta, Taqiyyah and other concepts and at the same time them forming a respectful difference in oppinion, we'll realize that these two characters that on the page that have refered to "Shia as Kafir" were refering to the "Rafidi" form of Shiism (1). Someone should definately be sure about whom he attributes the Takfir to and who the person was refering to. The other two Imams (Ahmad Hanbal and Shafi) in addition were indirect students of Imam Sadiq as well, as is generally known.--Paradoxic 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be enriching if you add this historical point to the article.--Zereshk 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Major revision
This is truly one of the most fantastically POV articles anywhere on Wikipedia. Despite my major revision, as it stands now I would vote for deletion in a second. The article is not what the title purports to be; it is not a "history of Sunni-Shia relations" but a huge litany of Shia polemics of the most blatant kind. No neutral reader can regard this article as worthy of any encyclopedia. More revisions will come as I have time to undertake them, unless it is deleted or retitled to reflect it's real agenda. --AladdinSE 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have placed an RFC requesting a review. --AladdinSE 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * AladdinSE,


 * Your act of censoring information is quite revealing of your intentions.


 * Im giving you the chance to re-edit your changes, and bring more balance to the article, before I jump in and revert the unfounded deletions youve made. A shameful history cannot be concealed under any circumstance.


 * Examples of your obvious bias I scanned thru:


 * Any pro-Shia stance is written as "shias claim that..." whereas any pro-Sunni stance is portrayed as standard (i.e. Sunnis dont claim it, because it actually is). That puts you hardly in a position to point the POV finger.
 * You use the word "dynastic" obviously with a negative connotation. That's biased and untrue. That's one example of a "Sunni claim".
 * Youve changed the caption for the image so that it now tries to discredit the document. Such acts are banned by WP. I personally scanned that document. Discrimination against Shias in Malaysia is very real. I personally know the person who was rejected for that application.--Zereshk 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are really saying that the "article", such as it was, was neutral? You really think it describes the "history of Sunni-Shia relations" rather than a heavily POV list of Shia complaints? You think it reads like an encyclopedia entry and not an (extremely) partisan website? If you do, there is very little anyone can say to reason with you. It was so outrageously biased that even I was shocked, and I thought I was used to these kinds of unabashed POV binges from you and others by now. As for your bullet points:


 * No Im not saying it was neutral. But it will edge toward neutrality if we add some things to it. Im not a big fan of Shia rulers either (i.e. anyone except the 12 imams). Especially when they mix church and state. But instead of deleting what I (and Striver and others) wrote, you can add to it, and hence bring balance. I beseech you to consider doing that, instead of mass reversions which can only lead to editorial conflicts.


 * "Edge towards neutrality?" That isn't nearly good enough, Zereshk. You and Striver have thrown up article after article of Shia Polemics that have no connection whatsoever to encyclopedic standards with the "Sunni View" sections often left blank or represented by a precious few words. You can't just spout volumes of highly emotional claims and partisan accounts and then wash your hands of the article and say "oh I'll just let the 'Sunni editors' balance the other side." You ask me and others to "argue for the other side" as it were, but you fail to realize that most of us are not here to fly a religious or ideological standard. You don't even know if I am Buddhist, atheist, Shia or Agnostic, or Wican. You just assume that because I have changed Striver's and your edits, I am not only a Sunni but a "vicious Shia hater" (your own words). I change these edits because they are blatantly emotional and extremely one-sided POVs that look completely ridiculous in a encyclopedia.--AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, On what grounds are you charging that the article reads "partisan"? Merely because it seems like a "list of complaints" (which it actually does...youre right about that)? You do realize that the article was heavily sourced? If it is merely a list of complaints, maybe we can balance the article out by adding or expanding sections in which Sunnis were just rulers and had peaceful relations with the Shia. Not all of the history of Sunni-Shia relations is sour. After all, many of Imam Sadeq's students were prominent Sunnis (for example). Im sure you can add extensively so.


 * On what grounds? Give me a break. On the grounds that you and Striver have not even attempted the slightest sembleance of balance or neutrality. On the grounds that the title is "Historical Sunni Shoa relations" and yet it is a mere list of polemics and emotional complaints. On the grounds that these "heavily sourced" material come from confirmed Shia clerics and partisans. These, you will notice, I did not delete, I merely noted to be what they are, Shia sources. As for your suggestions, well why for the love of pudding don't you go ahead and mention these non-sour points and the Sunni students of Imam Sadeq's etc etc. Stop assuming that I and others are some sort of Al-Azhar clerics. --AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a list of "emotional complaints" is hardly a reason to allege partisanship. What do you call this? I suppose you dont see anything emotional in the text of Death marches (Holocaust). IOW, the term "emotional complaints" is merely your opinion on the matter. We see it as history. That's why we use sources, so you cant throw me the "partisanship" thing again.--Zereshk 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Emotionalism in encyclopedia articles is more than adequate cause to allege partisanship. The article you point to is not emotional at all. I wish you would actually read it and understand finally how markedly more mature its style and content is as opposed to yours and Striver's.--AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Regarding the first sentence in paragraph above:) Oh are they? Please show me such a policy in explicit stipulation. And who will be the judge that they are "emotional"? You? You who reject my invitation to contribute and bring balance? You who only wants a mass deletion of the article?--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then we can wait and see if the RfC committe thinks the text is any more "emotional" than Death marches (Holocaust) or Final Solution. Perhaps as a test to your claim we can replace the name "Jewish" with "Shia" in that article to see how it would sound?--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I only wish your style were as good as those articles you point to. Your claim of "mass deletion" is absurd. I will let the edit history speak for itself. Actually, I am tempted to revert all my changes, just so that your and Striver's original atrocious version can be viewed for what it is, a prime example of emotional POV polemics gone amuck. Also please read: Guide to writing better articles and Neutral point of view. Consider as an example this policy statement: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" and yet here you and Striver have created an article that is supposed to be a history of relations and it was from first to last a representation of Shia-centric views despite that the sect is a minority. This is in direct opposition to stated Wikipedia policy. --AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My claim of you wanting to delete the entire article is absurd? Well then you have a memory problem too: Also, that policy does not mean that we ignore Shia views as illegitimate just because they are a minority in population. Nice try.--Zereshk 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again with this. "Mass deletion" is not the same as an AfD. Claims of "Mass deletion" means a lot of text is removed inside the article, not that the article itself is deleted. --AladdinSE 16:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What pro-Sunni stances?? Your version was from first to last an exercise in one-sidedness. And note that all the links and books quoted are highly partisan Shia sources, and yet the statements they "supported" were presented as fact.


 * Then I implore you to add the other side to the article, not delete the one side that already is. We really need this article. Because it is important. There's alot of bad blood. But Im sure you can find a way where both sides can agree the article is good enough.


 * Again, you add them! Striver should have added them. Actually the whole concept of the article was false and polemic to begin with. It is a strong candidate for VfD. You know perfectly well that Striver wrote it for the sole purpose of sounding off on Shia grievances and to justify and explain Shia doctrine. What's more, I did not "delete the one side that already is", I left most of those statements and merely pointed out that they are Shia viewpoints backed up by Shia scholars. we do not "really need" this article. We do not need any of Striver's style of writing, in fact. It is so emotional, one-sided and grammaticality poor that he ought not to attempt to edit the English Wikipedia until he has mastered the language and achieved some semblance of neutrality. The entire article here can be housed in one or two subsections in the Succession to Muhammad article.--AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article was part of other Shia pages to begin with. Zora was so unhappy with this information being on her pages, that she forced us to outsource it. That's how this page was created in the first place. I disagree with the VfD. That history can be emotional for the oppressed is another discussion.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * She forced you to do nothing. Other editors have not been allowing you and Striver to get away with your radical POV agenda in those other articles and you have responded by throwing up article after article of terribly written, grammatically atrocious, and fantastically POV "mini" articles where you try to get away with what was not allowed elsewhere. It will not work. --AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, yes she did. Outsourcing or exporting the dispute is a regularly practiced tactic by Sunni editors to (in their own mind) sweep away the dispute from the article. What do you think then she's doing here, here, and here? (especially considering they all took place after editorial wars on Shia and Ali pages). Shes doing it all the time.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again with "Sunni editors". If you ever learn to control your sectarian zeal and just think of Wikipedians as editors rather than partisans like yourself, it will be a miracle. As for Zora, if you ever achieve one-one hundredth of her neutrality or prose style, that would be an even greater miracle. Her record speaks for itself, including the links you provided. Let whomever doubts it read for themselves.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one with Sectarian zeal. You dont see us coming around threatening to mass delete Sunni articles and making edit wars in them. And as for Zora, I dont need to expand on that. There are enough users out there that think her editing style sucks.--Zereshk 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If I were truly a Sunni POV pusher, I would not want to give "dynastic" a negative connotation. The Sunni Umayyads and Abassids were dynastic. And it IS a perfectly true Sunni position. The Sunnis do not accept an "inherited" right to rule the destiny of all Muslims on Earth just because of an accident of birth.


 * If it is a Sunni position, then why dont you mention it in the article? Instead you use it as if to objectively impugn the Shia. That aside, "dynastic" by its definition in Meriam Webster implies rulership. None of the 12 imams actually ruled. Except for Ali, none of the imams ever exercized any position of khilafah. Having followers by itself does not exactly equate to rulership. Dynasty is something for the Sasanids or Safavids. Not for imams who were either all in prison, or all were murdered. To shorten it: the word "dynastic" is at best misleading. And at worst, it hints at Sunnis (as opposed to Shias) being democratic (i.e. it is judgemental ). Please use another word.


 * Again, I am not here to fly the Sunni standard or any other standard! And I did mention it, and you objected to that mention. And of course dynastic implies rulership. I am aware that none of the 11 imams after Ali were rulers, that is because Shiism has always been a minority sect. Shia still believe that Imaams should have ruled and been caliphs, therefore the dynastic comment is perfectly applicable and not pejorative in the least. They CLAIMED the right to inherited rulership over all Muslims, i.e. the Caliphate. This is a dynastic claim, whether achieved or not. Even so, despite most Sunni scholarly opinion favoring an ideal that shura determines the election of the caliph, history has shown that political expediency and the greed of men, Sunni men included, have often subverted ideals. It's not a "hint" against Shia, it applies to Sunnis too. It happens all over the world to this day. --AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The word "Rulership" implies royalty and royalty ways. When Ali was Caliph, he still lived on eating dried bread. That's a long way from Yazid son of Mu'awiyah, the heir of the Sunnite Caliphate, who sported dogs and monkeys as pets.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the word "rulership" does not imply royalty. You can dance around the issue all you want, but the position that the caliphate can only be inherited in the line of members of the Household of the Prophet is a DYNASTY, regardless of wether these inherited rulers or would-be rulers assume the outward forms of royalty or not. And you need not expound the virtues of Ali, he is universally well thought of in history. As for Yazid, I know how much you hate him, personally I am ambivalent, and these batings won't draw me out. I am only interested in neutrality. In my own opinion, Ali was a good and respected ruler because he became caliph through Shura, where the able politicians have a chance of being elected whereas most of the Umayyads and Abassids etc inherited their positions, which means that weak rulers became Caliph. --AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My God you even refuse to say that "Sunnis claim it to be dynastic". That would be a compromise for me, if you did. But since you refuse to even budge by simply replacing that word, here are my arguments to any arbiters: --Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I challenge AladdinSE to present us a Shia text where it says Shia Imams became Imams merely because their fathers were Imams (hence "dynastic"). Shia Imams were only Imams because they were ordained by God (as their belief claims). That they happened to be related in kin is coincidental.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) In a dynasty, there is a blood line that is kept. The mothers of Husein and Mahdi were not even Arab, let alone "from the same family", as the word "dynasty" defines.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) You refuse to use the word "dynasty" for Sunni Caliphs in the article, (such as Yazeed and his progeny) where they were not chosen by "shura", lived royal lifestyles, ruled over empires. And yet all Shia Imams were killed, and many lived in prison. i.e. none (save Ali) actually ruled. That constitutes a POV stance.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about here. What "compromise"? As for Imams and their fathers, dynastic does not mean only father to son, it requires belonging to the same family. Many caliphs and kings and queens around the world did not inherit their positions directly from a parent, but from other forebears. And how can you say I refuse to use "dynasty" for Sunni caliphs, of course the Umayyad and Abassids were dynastic. I said that clearly. Only the Rashidoon did not owe their position to a dynasty.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand that compromise has no meaning to you. That's how people with the real agenda are identified. Thanx for pointing that.--Zereshk 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The caption change is a PRIME example of NPOV. Your version made it sound like it was proof positive of Malaysian official government policy. If legitimate, it was not a government letter, it was a university letter, and I quoted it accurately. Since this letter is not a matter of public record, it cannot be verified as having truly been from that University. As you say, it was your own scan. Nevertheless, I did not delete it, I merely quoted it accurately and made clear it was a university not the government.


 * The "university letter" clearly says that it is govt policy to not hire Shia. I dont understand your refusal to reject what even the letter says. Are you implying that the letter is a fraud? I find that insulting. Even Sunni news sources report of such policies in Malaysia also (6th paragraph from bottom) Perhaps I should add these links to silence any other doubts regarding this matter.


 * Yes the letter does clearly say that, and I quoted those words exactly, so how can you complain? If I wanted to reject what the letter says I would delete all reference to it. Your version made it sound like it was an official government letter signed by the prime minister and bearing the royal seal! And if I thought the letter was a fraud, I would have sent it up for deletion from Wikipedia. It may be a fraud, if we are talking of possibilities, since you did not get it from a source other editors and readers can verify as legitimate. That is, it is not a matter of public record. The signature and recipient is not clear or deliberately edited (and I understand why). I could forge a letter like that tomorrow on university letterhead claiming it to say anything I want, and scan it and upload it to Wikipedia. Any caption to a letter like that, since it is not a verifiable matter of public record, must have the caveat that it is a letter purporting to be so and so. That is the essence of NPOV, Zereshk. And by the way those links are fit for inclusion and I would have no objection to them. They're not ideal, after all any newspaper in China is not free in the western sense, and Islam Online is a blog and a partisan website, but they are still usable. By all means you can explore integrating them in the article, with a neutral unemotional portrayal of the facts. I'll do it myself if I have time today or in the next few days. --AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be verified if needed. Because I have the unmarked, which has a office record number. Not to mention that the university can be contacted for verification.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it cannot be verified if needed. Once it becomes a matter of public record, it can be verified. And by the way I doubt very much that the University would want to shout from the rooftops that they practice institutionalized discrimination. And you can't just call the University for confirmation, the university has to put out a document or press release that then becomes part of the public record. Regardless, I was speaking only academically. If I believed the letter was a likely fraud, I would have deleted it.--AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it CAN be verified. The law, in Malyasia, which the letter speaks of, is public record. You have no right to inject "your doubts" about it into the article. Why are you so desperately trying to silence this matter? Arent you supposed to be impartial?--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the letter CANNOT be verified. Do not attempt to change what we were talking about. It is the veracity of the letter as an official University letter that is not a matter of public record. I never said or implied no discrimination in Malyasia exists. In fact I supported the inclusion of those links. I wish there were better ones from more reputable and independent journalistic sources, but these will do for now. If I wanted to "silence" anything I would delete it, not quote it accurately as I have done.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't you see that you are harming Wikipedia? Can't you see what a string of emotional and breast-beating list of woe's your and Striver's edits tend to be? I know you are very pious Shias, and that you have prominent Ayotollah relatives, and you have very sincere religious feelings about what your history tought you about what happened to Ali and Shias in general. However, you must understand that your emotional edits are extremely POV and one-sided. Open up the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any neutral non-Muslim reference. Do you see any similarity at all between your content or style and theirs? Please, please take a step back and reconsider your attitude regarding these relentless POV edits to the Islamic articles. --AladdinSE 03:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So for example, by the same line of reasoning, blacks shouldnt "complain" of their slavery history in America because it amounts to "chest beating"? Or Jews shouldnt be writing and building and talking about the holocaust in every single corner of this country because it is merely "emotional"? (And if Shias are emotional, then I suppose Jews are hyper-emotional. But then it is a value when it comes to them). Why do you propose we be treated any different?--Zereshk 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes absolutely! This crystalizes the difference in our approaches. You believe that Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for emotional self-flagellation and polemics due to the severity of the abuses, real and perceived, of your Shia brethren. Examine closely your perspective and choice of words: "every single corner of this country." Wikipedia is an international reference not bound by the location of its storage servers! It is a neutral encyclopedia, or is supposed to be. Look at the articles on slavery, History of slavery in the United States and the The Holocaust. You will see a marked difference between the neutral, sober encyclopedic style they contain and the emotional breast-beating wails you and Striver champion when it comes to Shia grievances.--AladdinSE


 * Frankly, your argument is very weak here, and I have trouble believeing your claim to NPOV here. Im trying to show you that what you call "self flagellation" and "chest beating" of Shias is in fact the standard norm when it comes to blacks and Jews. The reason you dont see any dispute going on their pages is because there is no one to accuse blacks and jews of "chest beating". Look at the links you posted: The Holocaust related pages in fact are filled with emotional text. They have an entire template of links to tell us ("COMPLAIN") how they were exterminated. And you are trying to delete the very few page that wish to do a similar goal for Shias? If you think the text on the Holocaust pages is not emotioanl, then perhaps would you like me to quote you some examples from a sample page?--Zereshk 07:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again you utterly mischaracterize those articles as "emotional." They portray the facts in a sober and encyclopedic manner. There is no self-flagelation. If you consider their style and content to be on an equal, or even near equal footing with your and Striver's own, then it is impossible to reason with you. As for my not being NPOV and you being so, I will just let our edit histories speak for themselves, for anyone to examine.--AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Liek I said, we can test this. Just pick a "How Nazis exterminated Jews" article, switch the words "Jew" with "Shia", and see which article sounds more "emotional". And remember, there is no WP law against "articles that sound emotional". Show me.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it is impossible to reason with you, as you equate those fine articles with your own POV-heavy prose stye. Emotionalism is a very good red flag for violations of the Neutral Point of View policy. I am glad you articulate again that you think emotionalism is OK in an encyclopedia, let this be one of your own self-indictments for others to read.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And Im surprised that you consider Britannica as a source. That's for high school kids, and you know it. Or perhaps you consider the Encyclopedia of Islam which has been authored by people like Goldziher and Lammens as neutral?!! Have you read Goldziher's writings about Shias? And he's considered as standard reference. Astaghfurillah.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a source, and a very well respected one at that. If you think that because high school kids use it, it becomes some sort of joke, you are sorely mistaken. There are countless Wikipedia articles that have borrowed a great deal from the public domain content of the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you needn't get hung up on Goldziher. Do a contrastive study of well-respected and neutral non-Muslim references, and you'll see what I mean. --AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what we (me and Striver et al) think: There's a dark history alright between Shias and Sunnis. But it's not all bad. AND...there is room for future positivity. All we ask for is a bit of historical recognition. Not the "bid'ah"-accusing sneers and smirks and sly looks that we get behind us whenever we stand to pray with them in mosques. If Americans can be shameful of their past in slaving the blacks, why cant you? Is it that hard???--Zereshk 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is the glaring difference between myself and you and Striver. You think Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for this admirable cause, I do not. What's more you assume I am a Sunni and a member of a class of people that have wronged you and your brethren. For the last time, you know nothing about me, so stop assuming. I am not here boasting of my relatives or unabashedly pushing a partisan POV. I am just another anonymous editor among countless anonymous Wikipedia editors. If you want to go on about being snickered at in Mosques and these other unfortunate discriminations, start a blog or a reconciliation website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.--AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Im sorry SE, if I am seeing 100 pages on how every Ariel and Ehud was burned up in the oven by nazis, we can certainly write a similar page about what happened to Shias. Im not convinced by your efforts in trying to bury this history. You could have at least said: "OK. It did happen. Let us make the effort and present it in an encyclopedic way". Then I would have believed your claim to neutrality.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no similarity whatsoever between the very well written and encyclopedic Nazi extermination camp article and your own style and approach to this article and other Shia polemic works which you and Striver have started and worked on. And I never said "it didn't happen," I merely pointed out the article's extremely one-sided presentation, as well as toned down some of the more outrageously POV statements. I also made clear that the sources were all Shia, instead of keeping the impression you tried to impose that these were regular non-partisan sources.--AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's "one sided"? And yet you staunchly reject my invitation to make it double sided and bring balance by contributing to the article. Instead, your solution is a mass deletion of the article. That speaks volumes about your position.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you allege "mass deletion." Absurd. My edits are there for anyone's inspection. And your invitation is laughable. You keep thinking I am some sort of Sunni editor. You think everyone has an agenda like yourself. You cannot conceive of editors with no standard to fly, and no Ayatollah relatives (or their Sunni equivalents) to consider. The article is so fundamentally flawed that it really does merit deletion and what little can be kept to be merged elsewhere.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Look. I dont care if you worship Buffalo Wings while sniffing toads. Your edits are entirely pro-Sunni. The mark of an extremist pro-Sunni editor is that he refuses to work on an article when invited, instead dismissing all of it, even though it is well referenced.--Zereshk 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits are so outrageously biased that you see any move towards neutrality as being "pro-Sunni". It is laughable to take your word for what marks extremism in Wikipedia. Your edits speak for themselves.AladdinSE 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In the future, please do not extensively intersperse your rebuttals in my own bullet points, it gets too confusing. Notice how I compiled a list of bullet point rebuttals to your own without interrupting your entry. Let us keep to that standard. --AladdinSE 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you find the editing style confusing because you are not following the standard style of indenting. That said, we'll be OK as long as you sign at the end of every paragraph.--Zereshk 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had followed your own advice and signed all your paragraphs, it would have been much better. Still, you were wrong to interrupt my bullet points and start interspersing our comments in this way. After you made your list of points, I did not intersperse them with my rebuttals, but made a new list responding to yours, which you then cut up. Please don't do that. Excessive indentation in an extended Talk discussion can become unwieldy fast. It has already happened here.--AladdinSE 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll follow my own advice hence forth. That should leave you with no further "complaint"s as to the style that I choose to voice myself with.--Zereshk 08:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok again I have no idea what you are talking about here. I can only be grateful that you are slightly less confusing then Striver.--AladdinSE 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, SEAladdin keeps saying that he never advocated mass deletion of the article. I think this post of his should suffice: Note where he says: "I would vote for deletion in a second.": But there are others as well.--Zereshk 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief. "Mass deletions" means the wholesale removal of text inside the article without justification or explanation. Advocating the actual article being deleted or merged is an entirely different matter. --AladdinSE 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mass deletion and deleting the entire article are different. rrrright. Im curious, do you really take me for a fool? I find that incredibly insulting.--Zereshk 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy is really funny... "he article is so fundamentally flawed that it really does merit deletion and what little can be kept to be merged elsewhere" --Striver 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incapable of distinguishing between an AFD and the editorial process of large scale in-article text removal. I do not take you for a fool, but I do take you for an emotional and virulently POV pusher of highly embarrassing, non-encyclopedic edits. Striver is the same, however he has the added distinction that his polemics are also grammatically atrocious.--AladdinSE 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is bad
I haven't messed with it because I'm exhausted, and because I'm reading Moojan Momen's book, Introduction to Shi'ism. It's a solid academic work and seems reliable. I wanted to have a better background on Shi'a history before I tackled this mess.

My impression at the moment, having read about 2/3 of Momen, is that the article title and content are both bad. It wouldn't hurt anything to AfD it. However, we DO need an article on the history of Shi'a Islam and if we changed the title and replaced most of the content, this COULD be it. So I'm neutral as to whether this should be deleted and a new article started, or whether this article should just be "morphed". Zora 08:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We are deeply indebted to you for your tireless research. --AladdinSE 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A Bahai's writings on Shias? hmmm. Not a good start.--Zereshk 08:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is surprisingly evenhanded, given what Bahais have endured in Iran. Zora 10:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wahhabism
I think we need to remove a misconception here about shi'a sunni conflict, in the sence that it is mostly the Wahhabi Islam which is against Shi'as, and not sunnis. Most of the edicts that declare Shi'as non-Muslim, and call for their killing are from Wahhabis. Feb. 26, 2006 Peterhynych


 * That is certainly most true nowadays. We can stress on that in the contemporary sense (even though I personally dont agree with it, but also wish not to stereotype Sunnis either). But for example, was Al-Mutawakkil, who demolished the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali, a Wahhabi or Salafi?--Zereshk 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk
Great job at answering Aladin, keep up the good work. --Striver 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am indebted to you for this piece of merriment. I laughed heartily. How true it is that praise from certain quarters is the worst kind of censure! --AladdinSE 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Balance
This article should either be removed from Wikipedia, or should be modified. Basic rules of this article are: 'Anything that goes against Shias is a fact, anything that is written against sunnis is a fiction, and Salafi Islam is the most tolerant religion in the world.;

On one hand, under Shia statehood, its written that: ''In present-day Iran, while Shi'a religious institutions are encouraged, Sunni institutions are blocked. In 1993 a newly constructed Sunni mosque in Sanandaj was destroyed by a mob of Shi'a zealots.''

Whereas attrocities in Saudi-Arabia, which has the worst human rights record, it is included under the heading Shia position:

The following represent solely Shia arguments against perceived Sunni persecution.

Isn't this page indicative of hostility towards Shi'as? Sometimes I wonder, how they had survived all this.

PeterHenych Feb. 28, 2006


 * Good grief! One has only to compare the differences between the previous version and your edits to discover the textbook definition of imbalance! You remove virtually all mention of "Shi'a views" to present them as facts! You also add a litany of weasel words and Original Research. --AladdinSE 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Im going to revert you since PeterHenych and Zereshk oppose your version. --Striver 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you quite grasp the concept of Talk discussion. You have given no valid reasons! See, for example, how I state to PeterHenych specific instances of bias and imbalance, and the use of weasel words and original research. Whereas all you have to say is" because so and so oppose your version".--AladdinSE 14:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, ill quote him if it makes you feel better:


 * Basic rules of this article are: 'Anything that goes against Shias is a fact, anything that is written against sunnis is a fiction, and Salafi Islam is the most tolerant religion in the world.;


 * On one hand, under Shia statehood, its written that:
 * In present-day Iran, while Shi'a religious institutions are encouraged, Sunni institutions are blocked. In 1993 a newly constructed Sunni mosque in Sanandaj was destroyed by a mob of Shi'a zealots.


 * Whereas attrocities in Saudi-Arabia, which has the worst human rights record, it is included under the heading Shia position:


 * The following represent solely Shia arguments against perceived Sunni persecution.


 * Isn't this page indicative of hostility towards Shi'as? Sometimes I wonder, how they had survived all this.

Better? --Striver 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not better at all. Is this really all you have to offer as justification for reverting? Quoting someone else word for word, whom I have already responded to? --AladdinSE 12:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Im busy with other articles, ill let other people answer you on this one. Peace. --Striver 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. A small request however: The next time you're too busy, please don't employ this method of cutting and pasting other editors' comments as a time-saving measure. --AladdinSE 16:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Due to an extreme amount of vandalism, I'm reverting back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations&oldid=74707408. which is on 9th Sept. I'll try to go back through and fix up anything serious that disappears as a result of that, but that's as far back as one needs to go to get past all the vandalism. El Juno 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not up to standards as written
This article needs a lot of work and I would also support merging it into which is clearer and better written.

I'm not a scholar of the history of Islam and cannot comment on some of the specific statements, but there are many unsupported statements (ex. denying Fatima the Garden of Fadak), some that are clearly contradicted elsewhere (ex. length of Uthman's Caliphate), some that are of questionable relevance (ex. Fatima's children didn't want to eat without her), and far too many laden with unsupported value judgements (ex. "And what a wonderful Caliphate Imam Ali had become!")

Maybe I'll spend a little time cleaning up the language, but I think this article needs much more than I can give it. I look forward to watching it improve through the wikimagic of collaboration --Foosem 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Internet" section
As a neutral observer (I am not a Muslim whatsoever), the "Internet" section seems rather one-sided and unnecessarily inflammatory to me. Is it really necessary to have all of these quotes here? fraggle 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sunni criticism of Yazid and support for Hassan And Husaains
Many Sunni Ulema, did takfeer on Yazeed, and at his time Islam was not defined simply by Sunni or Shia. Sunni Ulema suffered under the ummayads too. It is wrong to say that Yazeed or the ummayads were authentic representitives of Sunni Islam. The repression of Sunnis in Iran also needs to be mentioned, and the Badr Brigades Death Squads wiping Sunnis out in Iraq (I'm not saying they represent Shiaism) Aaliyah Stevens 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) You're forgetting the shias who are being blown up every day by Sunnis (not representive of sunnism)

Move to Sunni-Shia Relations, this article is not simply "historical"
I moved the article because it is no longer historical, and I re-ordered it to give it some structure. Before it was very ad-hoc. Please state your objections on the Sunni-Shia Relations talk page, this title is much simpler and better Aaliyah Stevens 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)