![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
there should be a color coded map showing which countries are mostly sunni and which ones are mostly shi'a. additionally there should be some way to indicate if the government of a given country is either sunni or shi'a. this would be very helpful for places like syria and bahrain where - i believe - the government and the majority of the people are not of the same sect of islam - ... 213.74.231.183 ( talk) 10:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Peterius ( talk) 17:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC) That map on here is not great. There's no clear listing of where it came from and it conflicts with the sunni-shia populations quote directly above it.
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)
Now, lets just wait for Zora to vfd it. -- Striver 23:25, 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)
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)
Please make citations so references can be checked. Adding Arabic script is not going to help and therefore it is just like be unreferenced. Provide something that makes it trackable for peer review. gren グレン 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
does {{Religious persecution}} bring any ideas? -- Striver 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
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)..
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)
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)
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:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.": [3] But there are others as well.-- Zereshk 00:52, 4 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)
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)
He is surprisingly evenhanded, given what Bahais have endured in Iran. Zora 10:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Peterhynych
Agree.. -- Shah 88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 88 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Wahhabism is a sub-sect of sunnism!-- 79.69.98.109 ( talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(for harmony in inter-communal relations for a peaceful coexistence & progress based on Islamic justice) since beginning of Islam is missing from the article. I can remember the most prominent was by Ibn Taymiyyah in the 13th century AD by having a discourse with the Sheaa scholars in public, to know each other better, to reconcile the differences, & minimise the irreconcilable differences, & to build relationship by mutually acknowledging each other's irreconcilable dogmatic facts & principles for the harmony of the both communities & that effort is covered in his book by the name of : "Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah" or "The Method (or Way) of the Prophetic Path" & contemporary call for Sheaa-Sunni Dialog on the Sheaa Website under the article named: 'A Call for Shia Sunni Dialog Why and How' By Abdul Malik Mujahid at link: http://soundvision.com/info/muslims/shiasunni.asp ILAKNA ( talk) 06:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job at answering Aladin, keep up the good work. -- Striver 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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
Im going to revert you since PeterHenych and Zereshk oppose your version. -- Striver 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, ill quote him if it makes you feel better:
Better? -- Striver 14:38, 11 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)
Due to an extreme amount of vandalism, I'm reverting back to http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
This article needs a lot of work and I would also support merging it into [4] 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)
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)
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)
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, this title is better Aaliyah Stevens 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Although Syria is headed by the Baath party, the lesdership of the baath party and the top army brass are all Alawi. This is a well known fact, just as the Iraqi baath party was sourced mainly from Sunnis. To add to what Zereshk said, not only does baath party contradict the tenets of Shia Islam, it contradicts the tenets of Sunni Islam, and Islam in general, but thats not the point. If you want to point out that Iraq was dominated by Sunnis in the past, even though they contradicted the tenets of Sunni islam by joining the bath party, the same applies to the Alawis of Syria.
On another note, please do not delete whole swathes of referenced material in the Iran section, please discuss your objections here. I have accomodated you points in that section. Why are you being so hyper senstitive to the notion that Shia are also capable of doing wrong against Sunnis? This should not be a sectarian issue, and I am certainly not sectarian like some Salafis. Aaliyah Stevens 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Brother you have obviously let emotions overrun you, and you have deleted my sourced material, and have forgotten what hafez al-assad did to the Sunni groups in Homs and Hama in the early 80's; he killed an estimated 30-40,000 in one month alone. I accept that both Sunni and Shia consider Alawis heretical, and will say that, but Alawis are a offshoot sect of the Shia, just as the Zahiri are of the Sunnis, who attribute human forms to Allah. Saddam was as much Sunni as the Assads were Shia, same goes for all of the current rulers, only a Khilafah or Imamah is an acceptable form of government in Sunni Islam, and none of the secular regimes in the world follow that Sunni model of government. And to argue about Yemen, I'm not defending Yemen, and actually many Sunnis accept the Zaidis as fellow Sunnis too because they are so close to us; the Yemeni government has persecuted many Sunni groups too. If you want to add stuff about Shia Ulema who have been persecuted in Iran and Syria feel free to do so. Aaliyah Stevens 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Saddam Husaain "is revered by Sunnis"? LOL! That just about sums up your approach!. I think we should agree that there is a distinction between secular Muslims Sunni or Shia, and religious Muslims who act based on theology and sectarianism. And keep in mind just as Shia consider Alawis a misguided offshoot, Sunni consider Salafi/wahabis as a misguided offshoot too: The Aqeeda of the Sunnis VS The Salafis. Anyway, lets leave it brother, I don't want argue, the text is settled. Aaliyah Stevens 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should use a POV check, and maybe an accuracy check too. It should read more like an encyclopedia article and not a polemic by either side. Khanagan 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You restored a POV statement that some Shia use Sunni hadith to justify cursing Abu-Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, which although appears to have a reference, the ref doesn't point anywhere, all the Hadith are available online so to support this claim, the hadith it refers to should be sourced, then the sunni view given, or it should be removed. Aaliyah Stevens 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said almost all the Sunni hadith are available online from Sunni sources. But this is bedides the point, this article is not called "Evidences for Sunni-Shia differences", it is on Sunni Shia relations, and we should keep the Fiqh, Theology, and evidences for both sides to a minimum, and rather describe relations between them.
P.S. I think we need to add the recent summit between King of Saudi and Pres. Of Iran. Aaliyah Stevens 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a student learning about this Islamic faith, I use the Wikipedia as a source of clarification for anything I read. Recently, I came across this part of the article.
"The fall of Tabriz in 1501 before the advancing forces of Shah Isma‘il Safawi marked the beginning of a new era in Iranian history. The land of Persia, whose population up to that time had been mainly Sunni, was now beginning to be transformed into a Shi‘ite homeland. Suppression of the Sunni Iranians was swift and merciless. The Sunni ‘ulama and Sufis were specifically targeted for persecution. Many preferred exile to certain death, and with the extermination and exodus of their ‘ulama the Ahl as-Sunnah in Iran lost the leadership capable of maintaining their ‘Aqidah as the dominant creed of the land. Thus the time-honoured Persian tradition of Sunni learning and spirituality that started with the likes of Ibrahim ibn Adham, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and Abu Dawud of Sijistan, and was sustained by men like al-Ghazali, ar-Razi and ‘Abd al-Qadir of Jilan, came to a horrendous end in the relentless persecution of the Safavids, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SUNNI PROPOGANDA"
Sunni propaganda they say. I know that this is not a talk section, but would someone mind elaborating to me the current POV this article has to it or why they would write that and how we can make this article better?
67.182.37.250 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This article emphasizes on Shia-Sunni clashes and neglects attempts to establish unity or at least normalization of the relations. It's clearly POV . We should mention whatever has done by both sects' Ulama to normalize the relationship like taghrib movement. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be completely rewritten--especially considering how many Westerners are probably reading it, as it is a significant modern issue. The grammar is terrible, the section is unorganized, and most importantly, after reading it, I'm still left with the impression, "...what's the big deal?" It's obviously a sensitive issue to Muslims, but seriously, from the perspective of a non-Muslim who isn't familiar at all with the division between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, it comes off as trivial, or at best, confusing. I refuse to believe that no one on Wikipedia can do better than this. - 69.47.186.226 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to cleanup the article and answer some of the complaints above, including adding a new section on Sunni-Shia_relations#Efforts_to_foster_Sunni-Shia_unity which others can add on to. -- Leroy65X 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Is "Shiite" just another name for Shi'a? Because I found several sites that state "Sunni, Shi'a, Shiite". I'm a little confused... didn't find a clear answer in the article.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.151 ( talk) 00:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I belief you are confused about the history rather than the meaning of the words. Sunni means tribe, whilst shiite means not. The daughters of mohamet and arahat are a continued attempt to demean the feminine germ true, but the germ is in fact in number. Good vs evil, no all i see are parlimentary beings worshipping something great like vulcan and the sun. Good night. -- 201.65.79.114 ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to cleanup the article and de-POV it. Are there still complaints or can I remove the tags? -- BoogaLouie 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Memri persian hater.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ther are a great number of citation from this book in the article, most put their by me. The book is by a respected Shia academic, Vali Nasr. As the topic of the book is the not just the revival but the Sunni reaction to it, I hope no one will find its use in the article surprising. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am from Gilan. Gilan is currently under iranian occupation. Most Gilanis were Sunni. They were forced to become Shii in the wake of masacres comitted by Iranian occupants (Safavid) in 17s and 18s centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 ( talk) 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The introduction to this article reported a breakdown of 92% Sunni to 8% Shia, citing "britinnica." Presumably "britinnica" was intended to mean Encyclopedia Britanica, but gave no article reference or encyclopedia edition. Beyond this bad citation, the value contradicted the breakdown reported at Demographics of Islam, which appears to have been heavily researched and includes the Encylopedia Brittanica (1997) as a source. I have changed the values in the introduction to keep wikipedia consistent. Any problems with the values reported should be taken up at the demographics article I got them from. -- Shaggorama ( talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on Saudi Arabia is highly biased, still I kept it highly negative toward Saudi Arabia. some examples of biases : combining Saudis & Salafis together in the same sectin, claiming majority although that claim is at least debatable ( in the Municipal elections Sunnis won in the lage cities of Dammam , Dhahran , Khobar and also in Jubail and Abqaiq . Shiite won by large margin in Qatif and small margin in Ahsa ) , other example is quoting indivisuals like Nasir al-Umar who was jailed and Abdul-Rahman al-Jibrin who was fired from the Higher Council of Ulama before he said his remarks , quoting falsely Saudi textbooks which is available online ( http://www2.moe.gov.sa/ebooks/) last example of bias is this quote : "In return, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in 2007 responded:The Wahhabis ignore the occupation of Islam's first Qiblah by Israel, and instead focus on declaring Takfiring fatwas against Shias" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy yol ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed links per WP:ELNO. Please make sure to follow standards when including. Also, if it can be usd as an inline citaiton it should be used there first.
Cptnono ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed "particularly following the Iraq War|American invasion of Iraq". This smacks of WP:RECENTISM, could easily read that the war caused the conflict, and is limnited to Iraq. The history sections contradict it and it was not in the source provided. Cptnono ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
user "72.215.219.47" wrote "F--- YOU" at the top of this talk page. watch out for this vandalism, and possibly bock this user?-- Violarulez ( talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Restored this sentence:
deleted by 71.102.116.218 5 september 2009 Does anyone have any reason to think it is not true? Vali Nasr is a reputable scholar. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At one point it claims 70% of Muslims are Sunni and 20% are Shi'a, in another it claims 85% and 13%, respectively. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.1.138 ( talk) 05:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I only need to listen to the news to hear reports of Shiite pilgrims being regularly killed by up to hundreds at a time in terrorist attacks on crowds in Iraq.
The article includes a count of "Muslim suicide bombers," but no breakdown on how many of them were Sunnis attacking Shiites and no count of the victims. Is so little known about who kills who in the middle east? Does no one keep count of the dead,of the killers of the sides? I never cease to be shocked when I read the various accounts of the Iraq wars that no one bothers to even keep count of relative deaths on each side. One would think that mass murder in the Middle East was as unremarkable as selling Popsicles on the street!
Also, on another topic, I think that the Iranian regime's support of Hezbollah and both rhetoric and terror against Israel serves the purpose of courting Sunni support by making attacks on what is felt to be a common enemy. So perhaps a section on whether other terrorism and war is an escape valve for hatred between Sunnis and Shiites is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.60.177 ( talk) 03:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Sheikh Hassan Alsaffar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have removed this statement from the post-1980 section as it is clearly nonsense not supported by the citation.
"or American neo-liberals who wish to provoke "a debilitating Islamic civil war." ( Dilip Hiro)". [2]
The article in the Guardian actually says "a debilitating Islamic civil war" is a "scenario that many pro-Bush administration commentators in America had visualised." There is nothing to the support the statement that neo-liberals (of all people) wish to provoke a war.
Lmatt ( talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This talk page is fairly long now. Would anyone else be up for archiving the earlier, now resolved discussions? It would make scrolling through current discussions slightly easier. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 09:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
in light of recent events in the middle east, this article feels quite badly outdated. The current syria conflict receives only two lines, and no mention is made of the ramifications of ongoing violence in syria and iraq upon neighbouring states (e.g. lebanon) or indeed the other parties backing either side (iran, qatar). Someone who is knowledgeable on current affairs across the region should bring this up-to-date with appropriate references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.90.0 ( talk) 10:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This article should include recognition of Indonesia's Muslims, who comprise a large percent of the worldwide Muslim population.
Wikipedia's article Islam in Indonesia begins:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Shia–Sunni relations#Lebanon
I think there is mistake here:
The capital of Lebanon is Beirut. Lybia's capital is Tripoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.79.108 ( talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\biranmania\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the viewpoint summarized below is simply never mentioned at all by the current article - not even to say it's "wrong" or "alternative". The current article seems to simply _assume_ the viewpoint below is INcorrect - that Sunni/Shite differences are the same everywhere at all times:
"[G]eneralizing without context can give the impression that [differences between Sunnis and Shiites] ... are both fixed and generic -- that Sunnis and Shiites behave in specifically varying ways everywhere, at all times. The reality is far more locally specific and complex, and usually mixed up in issues of class, access to economic resources, national identity and historical inclusion in a given country's social and political mainstream culture."
(The above quote was taken from a HuffPo article...)
108.20.52.21 ( talk) 02:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that this user has made changes to few pages without reference. I have undone the change. Please could I request that you reference your edit and amend back when appropriate. Mbcap ( talk) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shia–Sunni relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ISIL gains supporters":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shia–Sunni relations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I cannot understand how Jordan could have 94% Sunni Moslems, when over 70% of its population is Palestenian. Something is wrong here as you state Palestenians are Shia Moslems. is it possble that you do not count the palestenians because most are not allowed to vote?
|
Last edited at 23:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 05:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The article states that "Sunnis cite the lack of a Sunni mosque in Tehran, Iran's capital and largest city, despite the presence of over 1 million Sunnis there", this is complete bullshit. 95% of Iran are Shia, how could Tehran have a population of 1 million Sunni? Sunnis of Iran live in Sistan and Baluchistan, Kordestan and Golestan provinces. -- Mazandar ( talk) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nasibi. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Nasibi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ...
discospinster
talk
16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nawasib. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 9#Nawasib until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
ParthikS8 (
talk)
07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
there should be a color coded map showing which countries are mostly sunni and which ones are mostly shi'a. additionally there should be some way to indicate if the government of a given country is either sunni or shi'a. this would be very helpful for places like syria and bahrain where - i believe - the government and the majority of the people are not of the same sect of islam - ... 213.74.231.183 ( talk) 10:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Peterius ( talk) 17:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC) That map on here is not great. There's no clear listing of where it came from and it conflicts with the sunni-shia populations quote directly above it.
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)
Now, lets just wait for Zora to vfd it. -- Striver 23:25, 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)
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)
Please make citations so references can be checked. Adding Arabic script is not going to help and therefore it is just like be unreferenced. Provide something that makes it trackable for peer review. gren グレン 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
does {{Religious persecution}} bring any ideas? -- Striver 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
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)..
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)
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)
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:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.": [3] But there are others as well.-- Zereshk 00:52, 4 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)
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)
He is surprisingly evenhanded, given what Bahais have endured in Iran. Zora 10:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Peterhynych
Agree.. -- Shah 88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah 88 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Wahhabism is a sub-sect of sunnism!-- 79.69.98.109 ( talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(for harmony in inter-communal relations for a peaceful coexistence & progress based on Islamic justice) since beginning of Islam is missing from the article. I can remember the most prominent was by Ibn Taymiyyah in the 13th century AD by having a discourse with the Sheaa scholars in public, to know each other better, to reconcile the differences, & minimise the irreconcilable differences, & to build relationship by mutually acknowledging each other's irreconcilable dogmatic facts & principles for the harmony of the both communities & that effort is covered in his book by the name of : "Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah" or "The Method (or Way) of the Prophetic Path" & contemporary call for Sheaa-Sunni Dialog on the Sheaa Website under the article named: 'A Call for Shia Sunni Dialog Why and How' By Abdul Malik Mujahid at link: http://soundvision.com/info/muslims/shiasunni.asp ILAKNA ( talk) 06:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job at answering Aladin, keep up the good work. -- Striver 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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
Im going to revert you since PeterHenych and Zereshk oppose your version. -- Striver 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, ill quote him if it makes you feel better:
Better? -- Striver 14:38, 11 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)
Due to an extreme amount of vandalism, I'm reverting back to http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
This article needs a lot of work and I would also support merging it into [4] 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)
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)
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)
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, this title is better Aaliyah Stevens 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Although Syria is headed by the Baath party, the lesdership of the baath party and the top army brass are all Alawi. This is a well known fact, just as the Iraqi baath party was sourced mainly from Sunnis. To add to what Zereshk said, not only does baath party contradict the tenets of Shia Islam, it contradicts the tenets of Sunni Islam, and Islam in general, but thats not the point. If you want to point out that Iraq was dominated by Sunnis in the past, even though they contradicted the tenets of Sunni islam by joining the bath party, the same applies to the Alawis of Syria.
On another note, please do not delete whole swathes of referenced material in the Iran section, please discuss your objections here. I have accomodated you points in that section. Why are you being so hyper senstitive to the notion that Shia are also capable of doing wrong against Sunnis? This should not be a sectarian issue, and I am certainly not sectarian like some Salafis. Aaliyah Stevens 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Brother you have obviously let emotions overrun you, and you have deleted my sourced material, and have forgotten what hafez al-assad did to the Sunni groups in Homs and Hama in the early 80's; he killed an estimated 30-40,000 in one month alone. I accept that both Sunni and Shia consider Alawis heretical, and will say that, but Alawis are a offshoot sect of the Shia, just as the Zahiri are of the Sunnis, who attribute human forms to Allah. Saddam was as much Sunni as the Assads were Shia, same goes for all of the current rulers, only a Khilafah or Imamah is an acceptable form of government in Sunni Islam, and none of the secular regimes in the world follow that Sunni model of government. And to argue about Yemen, I'm not defending Yemen, and actually many Sunnis accept the Zaidis as fellow Sunnis too because they are so close to us; the Yemeni government has persecuted many Sunni groups too. If you want to add stuff about Shia Ulema who have been persecuted in Iran and Syria feel free to do so. Aaliyah Stevens 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Saddam Husaain "is revered by Sunnis"? LOL! That just about sums up your approach!. I think we should agree that there is a distinction between secular Muslims Sunni or Shia, and religious Muslims who act based on theology and sectarianism. And keep in mind just as Shia consider Alawis a misguided offshoot, Sunni consider Salafi/wahabis as a misguided offshoot too: The Aqeeda of the Sunnis VS The Salafis. Anyway, lets leave it brother, I don't want argue, the text is settled. Aaliyah Stevens 18:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should use a POV check, and maybe an accuracy check too. It should read more like an encyclopedia article and not a polemic by either side. Khanagan 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You restored a POV statement that some Shia use Sunni hadith to justify cursing Abu-Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, which although appears to have a reference, the ref doesn't point anywhere, all the Hadith are available online so to support this claim, the hadith it refers to should be sourced, then the sunni view given, or it should be removed. Aaliyah Stevens 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said almost all the Sunni hadith are available online from Sunni sources. But this is bedides the point, this article is not called "Evidences for Sunni-Shia differences", it is on Sunni Shia relations, and we should keep the Fiqh, Theology, and evidences for both sides to a minimum, and rather describe relations between them.
P.S. I think we need to add the recent summit between King of Saudi and Pres. Of Iran. Aaliyah Stevens 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a student learning about this Islamic faith, I use the Wikipedia as a source of clarification for anything I read. Recently, I came across this part of the article.
"The fall of Tabriz in 1501 before the advancing forces of Shah Isma‘il Safawi marked the beginning of a new era in Iranian history. The land of Persia, whose population up to that time had been mainly Sunni, was now beginning to be transformed into a Shi‘ite homeland. Suppression of the Sunni Iranians was swift and merciless. The Sunni ‘ulama and Sufis were specifically targeted for persecution. Many preferred exile to certain death, and with the extermination and exodus of their ‘ulama the Ahl as-Sunnah in Iran lost the leadership capable of maintaining their ‘Aqidah as the dominant creed of the land. Thus the time-honoured Persian tradition of Sunni learning and spirituality that started with the likes of Ibrahim ibn Adham, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and Abu Dawud of Sijistan, and was sustained by men like al-Ghazali, ar-Razi and ‘Abd al-Qadir of Jilan, came to a horrendous end in the relentless persecution of the Safavids, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SUNNI PROPOGANDA"
Sunni propaganda they say. I know that this is not a talk section, but would someone mind elaborating to me the current POV this article has to it or why they would write that and how we can make this article better?
67.182.37.250 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This article emphasizes on Shia-Sunni clashes and neglects attempts to establish unity or at least normalization of the relations. It's clearly POV . We should mention whatever has done by both sects' Ulama to normalize the relationship like taghrib movement. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be completely rewritten--especially considering how many Westerners are probably reading it, as it is a significant modern issue. The grammar is terrible, the section is unorganized, and most importantly, after reading it, I'm still left with the impression, "...what's the big deal?" It's obviously a sensitive issue to Muslims, but seriously, from the perspective of a non-Muslim who isn't familiar at all with the division between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, it comes off as trivial, or at best, confusing. I refuse to believe that no one on Wikipedia can do better than this. - 69.47.186.226 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to cleanup the article and answer some of the complaints above, including adding a new section on Sunni-Shia_relations#Efforts_to_foster_Sunni-Shia_unity which others can add on to. -- Leroy65X 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Is "Shiite" just another name for Shi'a? Because I found several sites that state "Sunni, Shi'a, Shiite". I'm a little confused... didn't find a clear answer in the article.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.151 ( talk) 00:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I belief you are confused about the history rather than the meaning of the words. Sunni means tribe, whilst shiite means not. The daughters of mohamet and arahat are a continued attempt to demean the feminine germ true, but the germ is in fact in number. Good vs evil, no all i see are parlimentary beings worshipping something great like vulcan and the sun. Good night. -- 201.65.79.114 ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to cleanup the article and de-POV it. Are there still complaints or can I remove the tags? -- BoogaLouie 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Memri persian hater.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ther are a great number of citation from this book in the article, most put their by me. The book is by a respected Shia academic, Vali Nasr. As the topic of the book is the not just the revival but the Sunni reaction to it, I hope no one will find its use in the article surprising. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am from Gilan. Gilan is currently under iranian occupation. Most Gilanis were Sunni. They were forced to become Shii in the wake of masacres comitted by Iranian occupants (Safavid) in 17s and 18s centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.22 ( talk) 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The introduction to this article reported a breakdown of 92% Sunni to 8% Shia, citing "britinnica." Presumably "britinnica" was intended to mean Encyclopedia Britanica, but gave no article reference or encyclopedia edition. Beyond this bad citation, the value contradicted the breakdown reported at Demographics of Islam, which appears to have been heavily researched and includes the Encylopedia Brittanica (1997) as a source. I have changed the values in the introduction to keep wikipedia consistent. Any problems with the values reported should be taken up at the demographics article I got them from. -- Shaggorama ( talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on Saudi Arabia is highly biased, still I kept it highly negative toward Saudi Arabia. some examples of biases : combining Saudis & Salafis together in the same sectin, claiming majority although that claim is at least debatable ( in the Municipal elections Sunnis won in the lage cities of Dammam , Dhahran , Khobar and also in Jubail and Abqaiq . Shiite won by large margin in Qatif and small margin in Ahsa ) , other example is quoting indivisuals like Nasir al-Umar who was jailed and Abdul-Rahman al-Jibrin who was fired from the Higher Council of Ulama before he said his remarks , quoting falsely Saudi textbooks which is available online ( http://www2.moe.gov.sa/ebooks/) last example of bias is this quote : "In return, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in 2007 responded:The Wahhabis ignore the occupation of Islam's first Qiblah by Israel, and instead focus on declaring Takfiring fatwas against Shias" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy yol ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed links per WP:ELNO. Please make sure to follow standards when including. Also, if it can be usd as an inline citaiton it should be used there first.
Cptnono ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed "particularly following the Iraq War|American invasion of Iraq". This smacks of WP:RECENTISM, could easily read that the war caused the conflict, and is limnited to Iraq. The history sections contradict it and it was not in the source provided. Cptnono ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
user "72.215.219.47" wrote "F--- YOU" at the top of this talk page. watch out for this vandalism, and possibly bock this user?-- Violarulez ( talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Restored this sentence:
deleted by 71.102.116.218 5 september 2009 Does anyone have any reason to think it is not true? Vali Nasr is a reputable scholar. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At one point it claims 70% of Muslims are Sunni and 20% are Shi'a, in another it claims 85% and 13%, respectively. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.1.138 ( talk) 05:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I only need to listen to the news to hear reports of Shiite pilgrims being regularly killed by up to hundreds at a time in terrorist attacks on crowds in Iraq.
The article includes a count of "Muslim suicide bombers," but no breakdown on how many of them were Sunnis attacking Shiites and no count of the victims. Is so little known about who kills who in the middle east? Does no one keep count of the dead,of the killers of the sides? I never cease to be shocked when I read the various accounts of the Iraq wars that no one bothers to even keep count of relative deaths on each side. One would think that mass murder in the Middle East was as unremarkable as selling Popsicles on the street!
Also, on another topic, I think that the Iranian regime's support of Hezbollah and both rhetoric and terror against Israel serves the purpose of courting Sunni support by making attacks on what is felt to be a common enemy. So perhaps a section on whether other terrorism and war is an escape valve for hatred between Sunnis and Shiites is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.60.177 ( talk) 03:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Sheikh Hassan Alsaffar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have removed this statement from the post-1980 section as it is clearly nonsense not supported by the citation.
"or American neo-liberals who wish to provoke "a debilitating Islamic civil war." ( Dilip Hiro)". [2]
The article in the Guardian actually says "a debilitating Islamic civil war" is a "scenario that many pro-Bush administration commentators in America had visualised." There is nothing to the support the statement that neo-liberals (of all people) wish to provoke a war.
Lmatt ( talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This talk page is fairly long now. Would anyone else be up for archiving the earlier, now resolved discussions? It would make scrolling through current discussions slightly easier. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 09:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
in light of recent events in the middle east, this article feels quite badly outdated. The current syria conflict receives only two lines, and no mention is made of the ramifications of ongoing violence in syria and iraq upon neighbouring states (e.g. lebanon) or indeed the other parties backing either side (iran, qatar). Someone who is knowledgeable on current affairs across the region should bring this up-to-date with appropriate references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.90.0 ( talk) 10:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This article should include recognition of Indonesia's Muslims, who comprise a large percent of the worldwide Muslim population.
Wikipedia's article Islam in Indonesia begins:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Shia–Sunni relations#Lebanon
I think there is mistake here:
The capital of Lebanon is Beirut. Lybia's capital is Tripoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.79.108 ( talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\biranmania\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the viewpoint summarized below is simply never mentioned at all by the current article - not even to say it's "wrong" or "alternative". The current article seems to simply _assume_ the viewpoint below is INcorrect - that Sunni/Shite differences are the same everywhere at all times:
"[G]eneralizing without context can give the impression that [differences between Sunnis and Shiites] ... are both fixed and generic -- that Sunnis and Shiites behave in specifically varying ways everywhere, at all times. The reality is far more locally specific and complex, and usually mixed up in issues of class, access to economic resources, national identity and historical inclusion in a given country's social and political mainstream culture."
(The above quote was taken from a HuffPo article...)
108.20.52.21 ( talk) 02:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that this user has made changes to few pages without reference. I have undone the change. Please could I request that you reference your edit and amend back when appropriate. Mbcap ( talk) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shia–Sunni relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ISIL gains supporters":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT âš¡ 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shia–Sunni relations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I cannot understand how Jordan could have 94% Sunni Moslems, when over 70% of its population is Palestenian. Something is wrong here as you state Palestenians are Shia Moslems. is it possble that you do not count the palestenians because most are not allowed to vote?
|
Last edited at 23:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 05:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The article states that "Sunnis cite the lack of a Sunni mosque in Tehran, Iran's capital and largest city, despite the presence of over 1 million Sunnis there", this is complete bullshit. 95% of Iran are Shia, how could Tehran have a population of 1 million Sunni? Sunnis of Iran live in Sistan and Baluchistan, Kordestan and Golestan provinces. -- Mazandar ( talk) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Shia–Sunni relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nasibi. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Nasibi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ...
discospinster
talk
16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nawasib. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 9#Nawasib until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
ParthikS8 (
talk)
07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)