Talk:Shia Islam/Archive 4

Ali's acceptance of Abu Bakr. Section: Ali's caliphate
In this section the article says "Ali did not accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr and refused to pledge allegiance to him." which conflicts with the statement in the introduction of the Ali article that says: "Ali pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, after six months, but did not take part in the wars and political activity, except for the election of the third caliph Uthman."

The issue of Ali's allegiance is controversial and I have not been able to find a reliable answer that does not appear to be biased. I am not an expert on Islam and would not have the correct answer here. At a minimum, I think that each article should be clarified about the conflicting opinion's of his allegiance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars13r (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazan et Öldjeïtu.jpg

Requested move: Shia Islam --> Shi'a Islam
Given that the lead identifies Shi'a Islam as a whole as either Shi'a Islam or as Shi'ism, why is the misspelling "Shia Islam" used as the title? Praxeria (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Request improvement of Second Sentence
The second sentence of this article ("It holds that ... at Saqifah") could be improved: 1. It is very long and could be broken up for clarity. Also some parts could be put in parenthesis, such as "most notably at the event of Ghadir Khumm" 2. It contains a grammatical error, which which changes the meaning of the sentence. Simplifying, it says: "Muhammad (... ...) was prevented from succeeding Muhammad " The subject of the sentence changes from Muhammad at the beginning to Talib at the end.

Perhaps this problem (#2) can be resolved by replacing: "but was prevented"  with "and that Talib was prevented"

I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make this change myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Substar (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Shia Islam redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with a variety of Shia Islam redirects and has thus listed them for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Randi Moth (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

India
Bourienne wrote that: during Napoleon times that religion in "India he would have been for Ali".

Mogul Empire had not yet been abolished and that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were the same polity.

11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)////////////////////////11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.92 (talk) 43.242.178.92 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sunni Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

When not to do fancy Arabic transliteration
Let's not do standardized Arabic transliteration when the word concerned is not Arabic at all but English, such as "Shiite" or "Shiism". The spelling of the words "Shīʿīsm" and "Shīʿītes" currently contained in the lede is nonsensical. Wegesrand (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * According to whom? Nobody. Academic books, encyclopedias, and journal articles published by Brill Academic Publishers use full Arabic transliteration all the time (see for example Arab Law Quarterly, Encyclopaedia Islamica, and Encyclopaedia of Islam). The same is true for Oxford University Press and various other academic publishers of academic books, encyclopedias, and journal articles. GenoV84 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have our own guideline on what type of transliteration to use in what circumstance, WP:MOSAR.
 * The word under discussion here has what this guideline calls a 'common transcription': . This would be any type of reliable reference (also newspapers, etc.), not just academic sources. Examples are Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Al-Qaeda, etc., all of which follow the particular transcription most commonly used in English, not any type of fixed transliteration system.
 * The common way English-language sources refer to our subject here is Shi'ism, Shiism, Shi'a Islam, or Shi'i Islam. As with words like Mecca or Medina, I believe even academic sources use these variants more often than they use something like Shīʿīsm or Shīʿī (especially the former would be only used in some sources, since it's not even an actual Arabic word; some sources do this, but most do not).
 * Per our own guideline, we should follow suit and speak consistently about Shi'ism or Shiism (which may be alternated with either Shi'a Islam or Shi'i Islam), and about either Shiis, Shi'is, Shiites, or Shi'ites (which may be alternated with either Shi'a Muslims or one the four previous adjectives + Muslims). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously more common in non-Arabic languages to avoid the transcription for Arabic names and terms, but the same is true for any non-Western language for that matter (Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, etc.). However, Romanization of non-Western languages is consistently used by historians, linguists, and academics for a good reason, as it serves the purpose to provide the correct transliteration and pronunciation of non-Western words in Western languages. The same purpose is true for Arabic, and yes, names such as al-Qaeda, Mecca, Muhammad etc. are consistently Romanized as well by academics and scholars of Islamic studies.

In comparison to the Anglicized and Romanized Arabic words Shīʿīsm, Shīʿītes, and Shīʿa Islam see for example Māturīdism (an Anglicized term for an Arabic word Romanized in English by Western scholars of Islamic studies), its adherents known as Māturīdites, and Māturīdī theology (الماتريدية: al-Māturīdiyyah), one of the main Sunnī schools of Islamic theology, founded by the Persian Muslim scholar, Ḥanafī jurist, reformer (mujaddid), and scholastic theologian Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī in the 9th–10th century. See also Ashʿarism (another Anglicized term for an Arabic word Romanized in English by Western scholars of Islamic studies), its adherents known as Ashʿarites, and Ashʿarī theology (الأشعرية: ), one of the main Sunnī schools of Islamic theology, founded by the Arab Muslim scholar, Shāfiʿī jurist, reformer (mujaddid), and scholastic theologian Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī in the 9th–10th century, for the same comparison. GenoV84 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have seen "Shīʿism", but never "Shīʿīsm" (i.e., Shīʿī + -ism = Shīʿism). Using strict transliteration with standard English suffixes is not uncommon, as in "ʿAbbāsid". Brill does it. I've done it, but not usually. The logic is that if you are writing ʿAbbās, might as well write ʿAbbāsid. Srnec (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's what I was trying to explain. Btw, the double ī in "Shīʿīsm" is an error in the orthographic transcription on my part; the correct transliteration is the one that you were referring to, which is "Shīʿism". GenoV84 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to mention the ʿAbbāsid example; indeed Brill in particular has a fancy for this type of thing. But it would be a fallacy to reason that, because some reliable sources writes these words in this way, this is the common way reliable sources write them. It is not. ʿAbbāsid is less common than Abbasid, Māturīdism less common than Maturidism, Shīʿism less common than Shi'ism, all of this also in the best academic sources.
 * It's in fact very close to examples of the Mecca or Medina type: some reliable sources use Makka and Madīna throughout, but most do not. Since on Wikipedia we generally follow what is most common in reliable sources, it should be pretty clear that preferred usage is Medina, Mecca, Abbasid, Maturidism, and Shi'ism.
 * In general, my own personal preference is also for using more diacritics. If I could dictate the guidelines, strict transliteration would be the norm throughout articles, including article titles. But that's probably because I'm used to them, because most other publications I read apart from Wikipedia also use strict transliteration throughout, especially the best ones like Brill.
 * But I'm not the average Wikipedia reader. The average Wikipedia reader is not at all used to these diacritics, and so the community wide consensus at this point is that their usage should be avoided wherever possible. For transliteration in general, that means following what is most common in average (one might say, mediocre) sources, and so especially if most better sources also uphold these same common norms (as they do in using Mecca more often than Makka and Shi'ism more often than Shīʿism), community consensus would be strongly opposed to breaking with these norms. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You do raise a good point about the user-friendliness of Wikipedia, but personally, I think that the average Wikipedia reader doesn't even know why the footnotes are there. Moreover, I keep finding articles about non-Western topics (for example, Eastern religions and philosophies) that frequently use Romanized or Anglicized words with diacritics and special characters from various languages (Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Urdu, Arabic, etc.) in the articles themselves. I've never seen anyone complain about that either; rather, it looks like most of the community doesn't even care about this topic. GenoV84 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sunni Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous ellipsis leads to illogical (and probably untrue) statement
The current article text contains:

"It holds that the Islamic prophet Muhammad designated ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as his successor (khalīfa) and the Imam (spiritual and political leader) after him, most notably at the event of Ghadir Khumm, but was prevented from succeeding Muhammad as the leader of the Muslims as a result of the choice made by some of Muhammad's other companions (ṣaḥāba) at Saqifah."

This text implies:

"It holds that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was prevented from succeeding Muhammad as the leader of the Muslims."

since in this context with ellipsis the finite verb "was" attracts "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" as the subject.

The resulting assertion seems illogical to me. Please supply a logical version. Since I am not knowledgeable with respect to this part of history, I urge anyone who is to improve the text.Redav (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Redav (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ghazan
Can Wikipedia remove picture of Ghazan and replace it with an actual image that has significance for this article.

/15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)///////////15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)~/////////////15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)/////////// 43.242.178.54 (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahdi
Can we remove the picture of Ghazan from this article because it has nothing to do with the "Mahdi"!

/15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)//////////////////////15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.54 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)///////////////

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023
2601:CB:8200:9EC0:4DB1:D8A4:9F80:8483 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Hello, I'd like to make a request to edit the stats of Shia Muslim population, as it is %15-%20. I also would like to mention that the Shahadah stated is not required, but a reaffirmation that is optional to say and profess that you are Shia't Ali.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamist Shi'ism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)