Talk:Verse of walaya

Draft
It's very poor style to move a draft out of AfC when another editor has raised legitimate concerns about it. Most of the sources are bad and parts of the text are barely understandable. Since it is now in mainspace, I'll go ahead remove the most egregious parts.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder: ✅ More sources should be added (and some would better be removed), as I told the page creator. But as a Muslim, I recognize whether important points are mentioned or not and if the subject is notable. Btw, no concern was expressed regarding the sources by him, wasn't it? So I did not see concerns legitimate. Be bold and act based on the policies Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not only Muslim, but Shia Muslim, and not everything that Shia consider important and notable is necessarily so. The reviewer rightly requested additional context and it was not provided.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are not necessarily so! Did I say that? The reviewer were just strict on this. Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you unconditionally said you "recognize whether important points are mentioned or not and if the subject is notable" which is the same as saying it is necessarily so. The reviewer wasn't strict at all - declining a text in such a state is more than reasonable. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide nuanced and understandable information - not to WP:SOAPBOX barely comprehensible Shia-favoring writings.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that I "recognize whether important points are mentioned or not and if the subject is notable" is not the same as saying it is necessarily so. Mhhossein (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It is exactly the same.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Story of giving Zakat
You can add "the story of giving Zakat" from this source. Mhhossein (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge
The content and reference of source page was similar to this article and the source page narrated the story of the verse.Saff V. (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * which source page? Mhhossein (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See top of this page. Hadith of giving Zakat while in Ruku page.Saff V. (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hadith
I think the title of Hadith of giving Zakat while in Ruku is not appropriate. Because the text is about narration of history. Can you change the title of this section?Saff V. (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, what would be a better title?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is better use "Incident" instated of "Hadith" in the title.Saff V. (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ThanksSaff V. (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Undone, but made terser. It is in fact a hadith, resting on a chain of authority and included in (and cited from) collections of hadith. Further, its status as a hadith is important to the the interpretation of the verse: whether it's talking about Ali, about Ali and the Shia Imams, or about any observant Muslims. — Llywelyn II   08:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Some questions
I've made a few changes to the article and I was wondering about some things. Is this verse referred to as the verse of Wilayah by Sunnis, or is it Shia's only. If it's only shia's the title could be a POV problem. Also does anyone have any Sunni tasfir analysing the verse, because right now this article definitely has Shi'a leaning POV. I was considering adding some info from tasfir al mizan but that would only increase the lean towards a Shia POV here. Brustopher (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In Shia and Sunni views section, written difference between Shia and Sunni views about Wali and Wilayah. Therefore the article have not POV in the text but in the title I am not sure. So, I searched again and check the title.Saff V. (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking further into the title, I look forward to seeing what you find. The reason I think there might be POV in the text, is that the Shia view is supported in The_verse_of_Wilayah, while the Sunni view is put in at the end of the article. Also are you sure you've written the bit about Innama right? You've written " Innama restricts the meaning of Wali to Allah," but later on you say wali refers to Allah, his messenger and believers who ruku and give to the poor. This seems like a contradiction. Brustopher (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the concepts of Wali section, the text of the article explain the meaning of the verse and the words in this verse. So, Shia and Sunni are agree in the meaning of the word and in this section there is not any refer to Shia view. I want to write Shia and Sunni view in the one section until readers can compare these views. Your question about Innama sentence is correct and this sentence is incomplete. I completed the sentence and solve contradiction.Saff V. (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)