The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [1], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.-- Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:
Try this:
would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!
Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!
Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?
The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!
Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?
Again: Zora logic:
Get your head out of your bigoting ego and start doing some real reserch!
Its feels like:
She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... -- Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.
And further, you remeber this? [11]
A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:
Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like
Zora, stop lying. -- Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [1], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.-- Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:
Try this:
would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!
Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!
Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?
The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!
Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?
Again: Zora logic:
Get your head out of your bigoting ego and start doing some real reserch!
Its feels like:
She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... -- Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.
And further, you remeber this? [11]
A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:
Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like
Zora, stop lying. -- Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply