Talk:List of people who did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr

Bogus list!
Where did this list come from? No authentic sources to support this bogus list! (except for biased Shia sources of course) How do you report this nonsense? How do we nominate this article for deletion? can anyone help? 7 January 2007 (UTC) TW


 * Anon, do you consider Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari as un-authentic sources that are shi'a? --Striver - talk 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show me WHERE does this alleged list exist in Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari (the exact number and/or exact text please)TW

Read the "Detailed list" section of the article, it goes in great detail. Could you please bother to read the entire article before afd'ing it? --Striver - talk 03:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost all early historians, among whom are Ibn Qutayba, Bukhari, Massudi, Ibn Abi Alhadid mention that no one from Banu Hashim gave their Bay'ah to Abu Bakr while Fatimah was alive. --Striver - talk 11:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly from Shia sources
Please find verifiable reliable and nuetral sources for your references, otherwise this article will be seriously re-written. Al-Islam.org is not a valid reference, unless you say in every quote from it that it is from the Shia view Aaliyah Stevens 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * al-Islam? Since when is Bukhari a Shi'a source? --Striver - talk 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya'qubi who is referenced so often is usually considered a Shi'ite. There seems to be a valid case for Ali (and Fatima, whom doubtless nobody even asked) declining to support Abu Bakr. None of the other names seem be mentioned by other than Shi'ite sources. Ibn Ishaq does mention that al-Zubayr and Talha went to Fatima's house with Ali, but adds that all the other Muhajirin supported Abu Bakr. Hence there is a suggestion that these two supported Ali at least briefly. But we have no evidence that they did not come around to Abu Bakr the next day. DKleinecke 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Give a couple of days, and i will have some edit requestments ready... Hamid-Masri 11:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again we have Sunnis denying history as told and authenticated by...

1) Their own scholars 2) Their own books 3) Shia scholars 4) Secular Historians

Armyrifle 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Apparently this note is written by a shia, since it says " Imam Ali" and to prove that Ali was an "Imam". ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5E18:22F9:C572:149F:ADD6:5C1D (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion
This article is by design hopelessly POV, is basically without credible sources, and should be deleted. Previous discussions are like Parisian drivers confronted with a four-way stop sign: simply baffled, the community !votes "keep."Proabivouac 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is very, very poorly written. A "muck allegiance" ... Giordaano (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have as a Lutheran no real stake in any of the two sides. Still, it appears interesting to read something on how this obviously decisive issue is seen by Sunni *and* Shia sources. Thus, it is not a good idea for a balanced article to present one list including disputed cases. Rather I would expect two lists, one based on Sunni sources and one on Shia sources. One "all inclusive" list necessarly makes for a large list - so the Sunni side would be "structurally" disadvantaged. This given, the articel has its worth. In the current form, it needs severe reworking. Best regards, --JanBarkmann (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a very definite problem with the way this article is written. This is an example. The author mentions --- "few Sunni sources, however, have suggested that Ali withheld for only six months. The details of whether Ali ever consented to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr is not mentioned in the sources themselves, but are generally taken as added by latter interpretors."

He then goes on to list the names of those who refused the allegiance. However, when you come to Ali (RA), the most important parsonage in that list - the very first reference provided is provided ina very insiduous manner by just quoting one small part of a long narration. Indeed, if you click on the reference from Sahih Bukhari, you see that the quote from Ali is actually what Ali said when he had finally decided to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr (RA). 122.162.110.9 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Yusof/Oct 17

I agree that the article should be deleted, as it is biased. Sae1962 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Peshawar Nights is not a RS
I am going to try and find a copy of Yaqubi's book to verify if any such statements are made. If not, anything that use Peshawar Nights has to go. Unflavoured (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As expected, Yaqubi specifically points out that ALL sahaba gave bay'ah to Caliph Abu Bakr within less than six months. I am removing all the entries that falsely use Yaqubi/Peshawar Nights as a source. Unflavoured (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Title correction
I am moving the page to List of Sahabah that did not give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr because it is the proper grammar. This event took place in the past so the terms should be past tense not present tense. Zabranos (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yaqubi, 9th century islamic scholar
I think in a part of the article it is written "Sunni Islamic scholar" and in another part "Shia Islamic scholar". They might be two different people but if not then check whether this person is a Sunni or a Shia. عمر چودھری 19:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Choudhry (talk • contribs)

Article issues
The author doesn't even directly quote Muhammad Al-Bukhari when he said "Muhammad Al-Bukhari said/agreed/etc.". The same went with Ibn Qutayba and his Al-Imama wa Al-Siyasa (And that Yaqubi, which and whose Yaqubi?). Let me tell you, if you want to quote Muhammad Al-Bukhari, quote Muhammad Al-Bukhari, don't quote Shaikh Asif or Peshawar Nights or Shaikh Al Musawi. Write "According to Shaikh Al Musawi in 'A Shi'i-Sunni Dialogue', Bukhari also said..." or "Shaikh Asif said that Bukhari also said...". Don't say Bukhari or Yaqubi or Al-Qurtubi this-and-that without citing them directly. Just look at it, the author uses these sources throughout what he called "detailed list" with little to no other sources.

After all if what they said could be easily verified as what Bukhari, Yaqubi and/or Ibn Qutayba really said, it should be easy to quote the respective Bukhari/Yaqubi/Ibn Qutayba entry for Wikipedia purposes like this alongside those other indirect ones, am I wrong?.

Furthermore, this article primarily quotes Shia sources (I mean written/compiled by Shi'is). Of course it will be biased. I suggest this article be nominated once more for deletion, or at least mention that even Ali ultimately give his bay'ah to Abu Bakr after those six months, according to the only direct Bukhari quotation he used. Concerning on how Bukhari repeatedly mentioned in the list, this should also be said, right?. Tsubasanomura (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Who issued Abu Quhafa and Umar bin Al-Khatab authority?
Where did Abu Quhafa and Umar bin Al-Khatab receive the authority to veto Ali bin Abu Talib, the Prophet's deputy ( his Haroon) come from ? Is it the scriptural norm for those without the pedigree of prophethood to inherit their mantle of leadership ? Did the Prophet and Ali not represent the Muslims as "ourselves" ("anfusana ") in the Mubahala Verse (Qur'an 3: 61 ) ? Did the Prophet not hand the flag of leadership to the "One who loves Allah and His Apostle, and is loved by Allah and His Apostle" , i.e, Ali bin Abu Talib ? Did the Prophet of Allah not anoint Ali by lifting his hand at the gathering of the believers at the pond (Ghadir Qumm ) ? And did the Prophet not proclaim, "for whomever I am his leader , Ali is his leader " ? Who was the person who accepted Islam after the Prophet and Khadija, Ali ? Was Ali not the leader of the most exhalted Ahlul Bayth, after the Prophet ? Who was the first to taste battle in defense of Islam at Badr, if not Ali ? Whom did the Prophet send to read the Verses of Surah at - Tauba to the pilgrims, if not Ali ? What happened in Darul Saqifa, after the passing away of the Prophet was nothing but an equivalent of modern day coup d'etat , one devoid of heavenly and worldly legitimacy. 105.112.126.101 (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased source
The list is clearly biased towards a side, someone should fix it or delete the page altogether. Also According to Madelung (who i see mentioned often in many of the Islamic wiki pages) is NOT a source or better not a reliable source. Theologist7246 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope to work on the article later this year. As for your claim, presumably about The Succession to Muhammad, the book was published by the Cambridge University Press and authored by Wilferd Madelung, who taught for years at UT Austin, University of Chicago, and Oxford University, in chronological order. It's difficult to conceive of a more reliable source. However, if a view or claim from the book is contested in other reliable sources, then the alternatives should also be presented per WP:NPOV guidelines. That's something to keep in mind when editing this article and others. Albertatiran (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for your reply, undoubtedly Wilferd Madelung was a man of a great knowledge but the author was mostly known for his Shia perspective, the book: The Succession to Muhammad contains numerous contradictions and gives low to no weight to the Sunni version of history, when i read wikipedia i want a neutral POV and not personal opinions of someone who has clear biases.
 * As someone who just started learning about Islamic theology this is really misleading and not suitable for wikipedia. Theologist7246 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Take someone like Veccia Vaglieri who often relies heavily on Sunni sources and normally gives little weight to Shia accounts. This is typical among orientalists, perhaps because they learn about Shia from Sunni sources and so carry the Sunni mindset into their research. By contrast, a central thesis of Madelung (see the introduction of the book) is roughly that if Shia sources are to be suspected of Shia bias, then Sunni sources should also be suspected of, well, Sunni bias. So he argues that both accounts should be consulted to find out the truth. One should also keep in mind just how often Madelung rejects the Shia narrative in his works. In the end, if his views are contested by other reliable sources, the alternatives should also be surveyed in the article with their due weight. It's also the first time I hear about 'numerous contradictions' in Succession. What's your source for this claim? Albertatiran (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)