Talk:Shia Islam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Ali callig.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ali callig.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence Fragments

I found the following fragments under section Prosecution "Militarily established and holding control over the Umayyad government". Xareen (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No pictures

Why is there no pictures of Imam Ali or Imam Hussein or Imam Reza shrines? You put picture of mecca, and bahrain shias but not Iraqi/Iranian Shia pictures?

Please fix this immediately,and put a Imam Reza picture up.

Iranians are credited very much for keeping the faith alive, as well as building these mosques, it is upmost importance and of respect to give credit where it is due.

Put the pictures up please.

Do you know of any pictures available in the wikimedia? Xareen (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

no valid pic of them is available. Srahmadi (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srahmadi (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Shias section

the section Origin of Shias is totally stupid it is fully written by anti shia'a where is the shia view about how shia was there from the day one of islam ??? --82.194.62.25 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This section is factually incorrect. Shia Islam is not a political movement! Here, I am quoting from the book The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam by Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri, 978-0195793871 Chapter 1 page 6

Those who thus emphasize the political nature of Shi'ism are perhaps too eager to project the modern Western notion of the separation of church and state back into seventh century Arabian society, where such a notion would be not only foreign, but completely unintelligible. Such an approach also implies the spontaneous appearance of Shi'ism rather than its gradual emergence and development within Islamic society.

Can we please fix this? Xareen (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcomed to help to improve the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added the following text and the citation.

The western scholarship that only view Shi'ism as a political movement is factually incorrect. The concept of separation of church and state did not yet exist in the Muslim community, in the 6th century AD. S.H.M Jafri, the author of The Origin and Early Development of Shi'a Islam writes Those who thus emphasize the political nature of Shi'ism are perhaps too eager to project the modern Western notion of the separation of church and state back into seventh century Arabian society, where such a notion would be not only foreign, but completely unintelligible. Such an approach also implies the spontaneous appearance of Shi'ism rather than its gradual emergence and development within Islamic society.[66]

Xareen (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit

I removed repetitive superfluous content. Pass a Method talk 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Something that may seems superfluous to one person may not be for others. Hence a need for discussion. We need to be careful not to overtly remove the citation. When a part of the article is already cited and being referenced correctly, then there need to be some reasoning given to why the citations/references are being removed. Thanks! Xareen (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource, book review

The Revolutionary Shias] DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books by Malise Ruthven regarding Shi’ism: A Religion of Protest by Hamid Dabashi (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press) 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource, book review

The Revolutionary Shias DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books by Malise Ruthven regarding Shi’ism: A Religion of Protest by Hamid Dabashi (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press) 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology section

Is there a reason why this section should be removed? It contains a reference to the meaning of the word Shia and an alternate spellings to the sect like Shiite. This section should be kept.

Shia in Arabic The word Shia (Classical Arabic: شيعة shīʻah /ˈʃiːʕa/) means follower[19] and is the short form of the historic phrase shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي /ˈʃiːʕatu ˈʕaliː/), meaning "followers of Ali", "faction of Ali", or "party of Ali".[1][3][4][5] The term has widely appeared in hadith and is repeated four times in the Quran;[2] for example verse 37:83[20] mentions Abraham as a Shia (follower) of Noah.[21] Shi'ite, Shiite, Shia, and Shiism are alternative terms.

I just found another article on how the Etymology section can be used. Please see this article Sadducees. They try to trace the history of the term/word or when it was used. The word is spelt in hebrew and a few meanings are proposed. This is very helpful for English speaking crowd. Xareen (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over "oldest denomination" claim, etc.

The dialogue which has been entered into regarding User:MatthewVanitas' mass-reversion of my edits has taken place on his talk page. Irānshahr (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Irānshahr recently made a series of changes to the article, with very little edit summary explanation and no attempt to discuss the issue on Talk. I take issue with his inserting the claim that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination of Islam", a claim which I believe is way too controversial to be just tossed into the lede. Similarly he's inexplicably added a phonetic description for a (relatively uncommon) spelling Shiis. Yes, it is a spelling, but the lede is already getting heavy with orthography and the like.

He's also made substantial changes to the statistic for Shia populations given. I have not dug into all of them yet, but given the past tendency for folks to "re-interpret", "fix" or just plain tamper with these numbers, I submit a clearer explanation of why numbers are changing should be given.

I reverted him twice, so can't do so further. Here are the diffs between edits before and after his recent push. I request others following the page take a look and let me know if they share these concerns, as he has not taken the trouble to gain any consensus before making these edits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have voluntarily removed the edit which states that Shia Islam is the "second largest and the oldest denomination". Not because this is not fact, but until I have a reference to hand to accompany it. It has already been explained to Matthew that my adjustment of the figures in the table was nothing more than restoring the referenced figures which had been wrongly altered. His reaction here seems to have been nothing more than a kneejerk dislike at the idea that Shia Islam is the "oldest denomination" of Islam. If and when I have a reliable reference of this fact then I will re-insert it. Until then I've removed it to accomodate this user's fears. Irānshahr (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming in to get consensus on the issue of the lede claims. I emphasise that I don't have a dog in the Sunni-Shia argument, but my concern is because I greatly doubt that "oldest denomination of Islam" is a cut-and-dry, NPOV claim for any branch. So far as the statistics, if that is the case and you're simply correcting earlier tampering, that's appreciated. It just wasn't clear from your edit summaries, and since it was immediately unaccompanied by contentious (and, I submit, possible POV) statements, some scrutiny and questioning seems a fair reaction.

I look forward to hearing from the body of editors on this page as to whether the claims to be the "oldest denomination" and "started during Ali's lifetime" are NPOV factual statements. Regarding the statistics, have we considered placing such tamperable things like population numbers from specific sources into a sub-template so that they can be locked in at a higher editing level than the article overall? This has been used to good effect on some other articles where mischievous IPs like to go in and shift numbers, and would help protect this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I will not re-insert a claim of being "the oldest denomination" unless it is accompanied by a reliable reference.

I wouldn't get your hopes up about there being a "body of editors" on this page, otherwise things like earlier tampering of figures wouldn't have gone unnoticed. In general this is a neglected article. As I earlier explained to you, the fact that Shia Islam began in Ali's lifetime is axiomatic and there is nothing whatsoever controversial about stating it. Shia means "faction [of Ali]". To quote the second line of this article:

"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي), meaning "followers of Ali", "faction of Ali", or "party of Ali"

Stating that "Shia Islam began in Ali's lifetime" is no different to stating that "Christianity began in Jesus' lifetime". There is nothing at all controversial about the statement. If you know anything about Islamic history you'll know that there were "followers of Ali" (Shi'ah) during the reign of Abu Bakr (632-634). The suggestion of locking in figures within a template is a good one, I may do that later. Irānshahr (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

is no different to stating that "Christianity began in Jesus' lifetime". There is nothing at all controversial about the statement

I completely disagree; I submit that the Jesus statement is contentious, as scholars have certainly argued that during Jesus' immediate lifetime he was perceived as a reformer of Judaism, vice founder of a religion. And the Jesus issue is less contentious than the Ali issue because Christianity doesn't have a pro-Jesus vs. anti-Jesus faction, as seen with Ali. Perhaps an even closer example would be the contentiousness of the Catholic claim that "the Catholic church began with St. Peter's investiture by Jesus." Catholics certainly believe that, but many other denominations would say that's ridiculous anachronism.

Yes, I agree this article is under-supervised for how crucial it is, and that's lamentable. Yes, some way to prevent statistic tampering would be great, agreed. I continue to take issue with (as does at least one other editor today) statements, particularly uncited, tracing a particular Shia Islam to Ali's own lifetime. Nobody is denying that Ali had a "faction of Ali"-supporters, but whether one can properly say that Shia Islam, as an institution, existed in Ali's lifetime is touchy. And it is far, far, far touchier to argue that Shia Islam is "older" than Sunni Islam. Do you not think that many Sunnis would argue that Shiism is a later development, a derivation of Sunnism? I'm just genuinely confused how you don't think that anyone could object to Shiism being assigned seniority within Islam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of templates in the margins?

I submit that the article layout has become massively cluttered with all the templates jammed into the margins for each section. At this point, we have templates for "Shia Islam", "Islam", "Muhammad", "Twelvers", and "Ismailis" all lined up in a row down the right margin. Is there not some policy on WP saying that you should pick one primary template that applies to the whole article? I suggest that the "Shia Islam" template be used and the others removed to cut down on the clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. More generally this article is a horrible mess. I've just started looking at it to see what diagram/charts etc can be taken out & other layout changes but tbh it's such a mess I don' even know where to begin. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is truly grievous that what should be one of the top Religion articles on the entire WP is a) poorly written and b) poorly supervised. I'll leave the template issue for a day or two to see if anyone objects to removal, the proceed. If you similarly want to start a new section here and mention a few ways to start chopping, I'm game. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving this article, currently a horrible mess

It's written in poor English, badly laid out, repetitive, over-long and meandering & ignores WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It's notable (in a bad way) that what should be 2 major subsidiary articles,Shi'a Islamic beliefs and practices & History of Shi'a Islam, are just stubs.

As a starting point I propose a revise simplified structure

1 Etymology & Origins

2 Beliefs (to incl. differences between Branches)

3 History (to incl. the Branches)

4 Modern Communities

4.1 Demographics

4.2 Persecution

Unless anyone objects I'm going to start applying WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to History. It's focus needs to change from "Shia empires" (although still to be referenced) to the history of its development as a religious movement (esp. the Branches). DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; I particularly submit we need to trim down the different branches into manageable sub-sections that give the reader just enough info to understand their distinguishing characteristics, and allow the magic of the WP:blue link to permit them more info as needed. I also support sliding more of the main-page content to the subsidiary pages and working in cogent summaries. Lacking any outcry over the last day or so, I'm going now to remove the redundant templates. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the excess templates, so the layout is cleaner now. Also taking out a few suspicious phrases (see History and I'll leave clear Edit Summaries, a feature sadly lacking on this article). If at all possible, it'd be nice to replace some of the Britannica quotes with secondary vice tertiary content, but that's a lower priority compared to just cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Made some decent amount of changes: agreeing so far? Though the lede should be left for last, I do submit we need a much shorter and clearer lede. The current one spends too much time on etymology and hammering home points about Ali rather than holistically covering the broad topic.

No major qualms with your outline above, though not sure if we need to separate out "Practises" from beliefs in order to cover holidays, worship styles, lifestyle customs, etc. It does really make it tricky that 12ers/7ers/5ers are rather different from one another, so we do need to stay pretty on-focus trying to cover Shiism overall, and not make the article "all about Twelvers and oh-by-the-way here's a mention of the 5/7 guys."

I'm still mixed on how best to address "History" - the article History of Shia Islam is pretty terrible and mostly just links; I almost want to just merge that article into here, but we'll see how best to go. Looking forward to seeing any edits/thoughts from you and others on this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote most of the lede. Should i condense it? Pass a Method talk 19:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC);

I don't think the lead is the problem - although it is mainly about beliefs whereas the article covers other topics as well. I suggest revisiting the lead once the rest of the article is sorted out.

I've done a condense of the lede, trying to make it somewhat mirror in structure/length that of Sunni Islam. It just felt too much like it was trying to argue a case for the validity of Ali's successorship, rather than simply describe it. What we call the WP:Beware of tigers issue.

I condensed it, and so as not to lose cites moved the secondary-source material down to "Beliefs" below for now. I feel better about the current lede, though I do think it should have some extremely brief mention of history/demographics. Someone reading just the lede should come away with a general idea that Shia differ from Sunni, the key issue is Ali/imamate, and within Shia there are three main branches.

I welcome any comments on my changes as I go through them. I am following WP:BEBOLD so I will not at all resent it if someone raises an objection or wants to go back a few drafts and bring something back. I just ask that anyone reverting or copy-pasting old text up to the new version provide a clear edit summary and ideally post about it here, so that we can all understand why things should/not be changed. Glad to be talking this out! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest To-Do list

A few brainstorms:

• We have some redundancy between "Beliefs" regarding Ali's succession, and the "History" section where they discuss the debate over succession. This is a bit extreme, but maybe we could put everything up until Hussein's martyrdom under "Beliefs", since although history it's history that informs the whole Shia belief system. Then the actual "History" section could be post-Hussein, explaining how the Shia reorganized themselves, founded dynasties and countries, etc., leading up the Safavids who established a long-lasting Shia nation.
• I have some concerns about the Safavid section, since a lot of it seems to be purely Twelver history, and could probably be briefly summarised and folks could go to Twelver for the nitty-gritty details of Usulis vs. Akhbaris.
• The "Branches" sections are way too long. They need to be a brief description of why/when each branch split off, what makes them distinct, and a quick paragraph about their arch of history to the present day. EDIT: Currently "Branches" takes up about 1/3 of the main text of the article. I'd argue that's a bit undue, and we can probably trim the branches down a bit, to give the reader just enough info to decide if they want to go read the main articles for each branch (easily done with the pretty blue link...)
• We have several items in "Beliefs" that only pertain to some branhces, like ismah and Occultation. Maybe we need a section at the end of "Beliefs" to detail the doctrines not shared between all groups, leaving the first part of "Beliefs" for those ideas that are common to all three? That'll help keep the topic unified until we absolutely have to get into the complicated "X says this, but Y and Z say that" distinctions.
• In "Beliefs": "Infallibility" is too cluttered, "Theology" is too aimless, and "Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt" is too long and discursive.
• There's no description of any distinct customs of the Shia. Are there any generalisations that can be made about distinctions between their worship practices from those of the Sunni, or is it just too dependent whether they're 12/7/5?
• I'm a bit concerned about how easy it is to muck with the numbers on the table of populations by country, which has in the past been a popular target for IP tampering. One possibility that's worked well on some India pages: we could move the whole table to a separate template, so it would display just fine on the article, but wouldn't show up for editing unless you specifically hit the "E" on the template itself. Plus we could put the "Pew Research Shia Population" template at a higher protection level than the main article, arguing that as a specific cite from a ref it shouldn't be as easily editable.

I think this is going pretty well, though I'm standing by for some hostility when someone comes by and finds they don't like this version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a basic stab at cleaning up the basic outline of the paper, and done some simple trimming/condensing of content. What do folks think so far? What are the most important steps next? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

shia - Muslim?

Is there any strong fatwa sent by Muslim scholars to recognize shia as Muslims? Are they considered Muslim by Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.148.251 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking whether the article can be rewritten to define Shia as not being a branch of Islam? The existing sources all seem to agree that Shia is a branch of Islam. If you are asking for the article to be rewritten to support one particular side in a religious disagreement, the neutral point of view policy would prohibit doing that at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like POV trolling more like DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does any branch not recognise Zayn al-Abidin?

The article currently states:

Hussein is the last imam following Ali whom all Shia sub-branches mutually recognise.<ref>Discovering Islam: making sense of Muslim history and society (2002) Akbar S. Ahmed</ref>

However, to my understanding the Twelvers, Zaydi, and Ismailis (both Nizari and Mustali) recognise Zayn al-Abidin as an imam. Is this quote referring some other extinct Shia sects, or small current sub-sects, which I'm overlooking? Or is it incorrect, and all Shia sects recognise Zayn al-Abidin as successor to Hussein? I know that the Zaydi split off after Zayn al-Abidin's death, following Zayd ibn Ali vice Muhammad al-Baqir of the Twelvers and Ismailis, but is there any group that split off even earlier than that, yet is still considered Shia? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Gnostic Extremism

I've been reading several scholarly articles on Abatur and other Gnostic deities and frequently learn of a connection between them and Shiite extremists. Has anyone else located the same or similar information? Secondly, where should it be written? The portal is located here (for those unfamiliar):

Twillisjr (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Early Islam

I have done a lot of research in this area and currently work in the University of London and have been through hundreds of books in the school of oriental and african studies SOAS library too. The SOAS library contains more books on this topic than almost any other library. Some of the books are also very old. When you go through the oldest books like Al-Muwatta you realise that there was no such thing as Sunnis and Shias at that time. There were highly educated people like Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and Imam Malik. But there were no theological differences. Then when students of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq when to far away places they still all agreed on what was contained in the Quran but allowed the people in those areas to continue with some of their pre-islamic laws and traditions if they did not contractic with the Quran. Due to there not being good communications, their implementation of islamic laws was also not as standardised.

A good book to read is

N.J. Coulson - History of Islamic Law http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d5Ks31qHlSYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=coulson+history+islamic+law&source=bl&ots=QVA59sVI8G&sig=stT7OrQHTIkIJ6mgK5-kQzT0gAg&hl=en&ei=durLTOa5KI_QjAe06rnYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

The concept of Sunni and Shia developed much later. These terms were developed to divide people so that the rulers could get people to fight their opponents. The Safavid dynasty did a lot in this regards. Safavid ruled Persia and the Persians were sufi as were the Ottomans and the two groups would not fight each other. So the Safavid implemented a policy of divide and rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs edit

The respect that Sunni Muslims show to ‘Ali and his descendants ("sayyids" in the East or "sharifs" in North Africa) is just one of several ways in which Shia Islam has influenced Sunni Islam.

I removed this edit as it is inherently incorrect. The Fatimids were known as Syed through witnessed accounts (and later collated as Hadiths) which confirmed the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) referred to Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain (as) as Syeds. This respected title did not originate from Shia Islam, but from their ancestor Prophet Muhammad (saaw) corroborated by the Sahabis who witnessed this statement. These Hadiths stating this case are accepted by Sunnis, especially Sufis, therefore this is not exclusive to or originating from Shia'ism.

Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain (as)are two childs of Ali (as). syed means children of Hashim. the sentence you removed is correct. because prophet had no son and only one daughter and Ali (sa) married to the only daughter of prophet so all descendants of prophet are also descendants of Ali (as. you are right. this title (syed) is originated by prophet. and the removed sentence does not claim it is originated by shia'ism. the descendants of prophet all are through Ali (sa) Srahmadi (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

```` according to the shia fiqh seyed is one who is descended from Hashem, grandfather of holy prophet Muhammad, and this title, seyed, has specific ahkam in shia fiqh. of course now time they are known as the children of holy prophet. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shakeri.1987 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Shia vs. Shi'a

I note that this main article is spelled "Shia", but most other articles and categories are "Shi'a". This was more mixed-up about a year or two ago, with "Shia", "Shi'a" and "Shiite" being used with no standardisation. I talked to some folks then, got the green-light for "Shi'a", and changed some cats and pages to that spelling. However, whatever spelling we're going with, the main article for the whole cat should match up. So should we change this article's spelling, or are folks adamant enough about "Shi'a" as a spelling that we need to put in a mass WP:CFD to change several dozen categories to remove the apostrophe? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shia is used more often as it is simple without an apostrophe but Shi'a is better representation of original Arabic word. Whild Shia is more often used in South Asia (by all muslims, non-muslims, govt., academicians, etc.) and rest of the world were British Empire ruled at any point of time and exported English to that region (rememeber it was Indian-subcontinent where English first came in close interaction with Shia muslims). Rest of the world (esspecially Arab & Persian speaking) uses Shi'a but remember English was not a common language in any of this countries till recent (& not even now) so they tend to have different standards of transliteration. Until last century in English Orietal transliteration were being replaced by South Asian transliterations but recently (in last decade or so with spread of internet) now it is more globaly accepted phenomenin to transliterate words as per orignal language pronounciation (i.e. how Oriental Osman became South-Asian Usman & then Arab Uthman or Koran→Quran→Qur'an, etc.). Wikipedia also favours local language transliteration but is there any clear guideline for it? and do we have transliteration guidelines for Arabic words?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started a section discussing the Etymology of the words/term, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shia_Islam#Etymology_section Please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.Xareen (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Various articles and categories did have Shi'a rather than Shia in the name. These were all changed to Shia, matching this main article, following this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria

The table includes Bulgaria with the way too unprecise indication "~100 000" Shia muslims, whereas the correct number given in the article Islam in Bulgaria is only 21 610, which is also the number of Shia population in the official census of 2011: http://www.nsi.bg/EPDOCS/Census2011final.pdf. Since this is a very small percentage of the total muslim population of the world, as well of the particular country, I will remove it from the article. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested subsection shift

Upon reading the "Imamate" subsection of the "Beliefs" section, I found the majority of the content to revolve around the early history of Shi'ite Islam, not necessarily Shi'ite beliefs regarding the Imamate; that was only in the opening sentences of that subsection. The smaller sub-subsections of "Succession of Ali," "Ali's caliphate," "Hasan" and "Husayn" all seem to consists of history, with actual beliefs regarding them and the rest of the Prophet's family being contained in the "Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt" subsection. Furthermore, the "History" section of this article is rather small and jumps from Origin of Shia Islam to the Fatimid dynasty. Why not move the sub-subsections on Ali, Hasan and Husayn down into the history section? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. What's up with the slow archiving here? This talk page is huge and bloated and only two pages are archived. Maybe we can do something about that, too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Shīʻatul ʻAlī (شيعة العلي)

Shīʻatul ʻAlī (شيعة العلي) is not correct -- neither in the transliteration nor in the Arabic. The name "ʻAlī" is already determined. So it is not correct to supply it with an article (the "l" after Shīʻatu).

It should be read: Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي) -- (DMG would be šīʿatu ʿAlī) --132.187.111.19 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The English transliteration Shi’i redirects to this page. The English transliteration Shi’a does not. Is this an oversight? Do the two spellings represent the same Arabic word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.9 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Shi'ite shahada

For the purpose of disambiguation, if the mithrab inscription at the Abbasid Ibn Tulun mosque is to be used as a reference, the shahada ought to read, 'Ali is the wali (intimate or friend or associate) of God'. There the Arabic text is quite clear 'علي ولي الله'. Other variants might be referenced. Comments please? Cpsoper (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Shah Ismail I

Note: Shah Ismail I was the architect of the clash between Sunni and Shia entities in the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.12.32 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shia Population Worldwide

Statistics

An anon editor just changed the stats opening the article, upping the percentage of Muslims who are Shi'a from 15% to 25%. Is this right, or is the anon just engaging in primate chest-beating behavior? Where would I look to get religion stats? Zora 01:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the text following this map, as many as 40 % of the Muslims in the world might be shia. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/ShiasReligionCore_lg.png --Vitzque (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of Shi'a in Turkey

Shiites do not constitute the 10-15% of total population in Turkey. They are very rare, maybe only Azeris exist as example of Shiites living in Turkey. This information must be false. According to USA religious report, 500.000 Shiites live in Turkey. To take into consideration that Turkey's population is approximately 75.000.000, Shiite population corresponds to 0.7% of the total population.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.180.186 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Shi'a in Iraq

Thulfeqar changed the percentage from 62% to 82%. This is unbelievable. All the news sites I've been reading have quoted figures like 40% for percentage of the total Iraqi population. In fact, the whole para is badly laid out and confusing. Percentages of total population, or percentages of Muslims? We need a table, like the one I recommended for Sunni Islam. I should have fixed this when I did the last major edit, but, hey, I didn't. For the moment, I'm going to modify the para with a placeholder rather than just reverting. Zora 23:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone better at Wikisyntax than I am please fix the formatting on that section! I wanted to get rid of the odd words that straggle up between the logo and the pic, and I did so, but at the cost of adding extra white space at the bottom. D'oh. Zora 23:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Zora, um what’s the website for the Iraqi senses bureau? Oh I’m sorry, they don’t have one do they, as far as news agencies go, they are about as reliable as anything considering the fact that most of them get their foreign information from the AP.(IE there is no real research envolved) I don’t see why that’s such an unbelievable figure it is more or less correct, I should have changed it to 90%! But that’s not even the issue at had, if there are no reliable statistics, then I don’t believe that any should be posted. Thulfeqar 3:41 AM, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the statistics aren't completely reliable. I've read that Saddam Hussein had any government figures modified to show fewer Shi'a than actually existed -- just to prevent any uppity notions about "majorities". But I believe that the Kurds are all Sunni, which would increase the Sunni figures. Zora 07:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page has been modified and trashed beyond repair. I'll have to come back in a few months and start afresh.--Zereshk 08:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Map and Yemen

I really like this article and appreciate all the work, thanks guys!, but would it be possible to get another map? Some percentage of the Yemeni population is Shia but the key to the map covers Yemen up. Would it be possible to add a pie diagram showing the figures for Yemen? Lao Wai 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good edit. Thanks. Zora 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

WRONG MAP

This map (Image:Shiyemap.jpg ) is wrong, because western and northeastern parts of Iran are Kurds and Turkmens who are sunni muslims.

lol, Northeast Iran is Mashad, thats a Sunni part? But i agree, Its a incorrect map..Probably the most accurate one thus far though. Shia population from '87 to today has tripled due to a baby-boom after the Iran Iraq war and the numbers should definately have to be reviewed and accurately estimated without being undercounted. --Paradoxic 11:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

something is off with the second map. it doesnt have the borders of Yemen (which would have been South yemen at the time.) It makes it seem as though that area is part of Saudi Arabia. Also isnt ther a significant Shia population in Yemen. It isnt shown on the map. Xerex 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are all simple: (1) Yemeni borders: with regard to those, the map is very old, this is very obvious!! There has been a very long border dispute between the Yemenis and the Saudis which wasn't resolved until less than 5 years ago, I believe, which explains what you see. The borders are now demarcated and 'all is good'. (2) Yemeni Shia areas: the dark green doesn't mean that all the Yemeni ZAIDI Shia live there only, but it means that these are their areas of heavy concentration. It is, however, true and is well known to those specialized in the region that the former 'Northern Yemen' republic was of majority Zaidi Shia population, which explains what you see on the map. The "significant Shia population" you are talking about is above 40% and being so doesn't mean you have to see 40% of the Yemeni soil painted in dark green!!! Certain areas would have more people per squre kilometer than many vast lands!! There is no such rule, when it comes to drawing maps, to reflect the percentage a group of people comprise in the total population by means of colors on the country's map!!! I thought this was commonsense!!! SilkySword 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shia Muslims in East Asia?

Is there any Shia Muslims in the far east? From what I know, East Asian Muslims are all either Shafi (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, southern Philippines, southern China) or Hanafi (northern China) Sunnis. Le Anh-Huy 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, if I remember correct, Indonesia and Malaysia are 99% Ahlus Sunnah and China is like 95%. There is some Shi'a in the area, but a (Malay I think) brother on Myspace informed me that there was no Shi'a there. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll be surprised that there are 2.5 millions Shias in Indonesia (http://www.jalal-center.com/muktamar/2.html) Oleleho (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Really 95% of China is sunni? A "brother" on myspace is being used as a source?! What a joke! Can we please keep the gullible jokers out of Wikipedia? How do you know he's a "brother" it could be anybody pretending to be a "brother" on the internet! Use some common sense "brother"! Wikipedia has an incredibly foolish amount of falsehoods about shias. Especially any page with demographics of any place in Pakistan. People who create those articles usually write about Pakistani shias as if they are from a different planet. Where in reality the term Pakistani Shias should tell you that they are from the same country as Pakistani Sunnis but just belong to a different sect of a religion.

Percentage

This article mentions Shia Islam as being 15% and 85% of all of islam. Only one number can be correct. The first number is mentioned in the first paragraph. The second number is mentioned in the "Demographics" paragraph. This appears to have been corrected 216.119.176.54 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Anders

This article mentions an incorrect percentage of 15-25% of all muslims which does not coincide with the facts stated on the sources provided. The initial source is cited from a page that says only 15% and also the cited reference for the sentence is not from a legititmate source but from a "forum" site. Also in the same page above it states 10-15% which are the factual numbers. Please correct this immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper112 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Map and table issues

The table shows Oman being 75% Shia but the map doesn't show anything! Zazaban 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The table is wrong in some cases. For example according to official statistics only 89% of Iranians are Shiite.[1] There is another problem about the table. It is sorted on the basis of Shi'a population percent. It means this table doesn't include India with 10 million Shi'a. Also the map may be wrong in some case like Yemen.--Sa.vakilian 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two seprate aticles about the demography of Shi'a Shi'a population and Demographics of Islam. So I propose to remove the table from this article.--Sa.vakilian 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Image:Shiite-1.jpg map but it's a pity as i see that it was removed by a bot because of its disputed status of fair use images. I believe it is more accurate than Image:Muslim distribution.jpg. I don't have Photoshop or an image software but if you have you can recreate it yourself. -- Szvest 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

There should be done some corrections about Yemen and uzbeckistan.--Sa.vakilian 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of Shi'a Muslims

The article states that 15% of Muslims are Shi'a and then goes on to say that there are 400 million Shi'a Muslims. This would imply over 2 billion Muslim people in the world, which is not correct. I am suggest dropping the 400 million, as almost all sources agree with the 15% claim. Elijahmeeks 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiites are 130 million to 190 million people.[2]--Sa.vakilian 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the change based on your source Vakilian. OLD: Today there are roughly 400 million Shi'a (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) all over the world, and around three quarters of those reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3] NEW:Today there estimated to be between 130 and 190 million Shi'a Muslims[1] (including Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaydis) throughout the world, about three quarters of whom reside in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and India. [2][3]--Chobbs138 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

muslim_distribution.jpg

The Map is not correct. The provinces Gilan and Mazandaran are shown as Sunni, while they are Shi'a. Please replace the map with another one. Sohanaki 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yemen - Majority?

This articles states that Shia Muslims constitutes the majority in Yemen. According to the Islam in Yemen article, this is not true. What is the correct, then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamid-Masri (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Shia Muslims in the world

'the shia muslims is betwean 15 - 25 % of muslims and in bahrain there is 70 % of population are shia muslims and in India there is betwean 43 to 83 millions are shia muslims , shia muslims in saudi arabia betwean 20 - 30 % of population , kuwait:at least 35% are shia muslims. also the shia muslims are 16 - 20 % in United Arab Emirates , 18% in Qatar , at least 1% in Egypt , 35 - 40% in Lebanon , 16 - 20 % in Syria , 40 % of muslims in Ethiopia , 15 - 20% in Afghanistan , 20 - 37 % in Pakistan , 20 - 37 % in Turkey and there is a lot of Shia Muslims in other countries .If you want near right information go to the web site of The Congress Library'Ahmad_islam88 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon Shia

Since there has been no census in Lebanon since 1932, it is pure speculation that Shia are the plurality of Muslims there. If someone has a good source, please bring it forward, but until then, wording needs to be changed.Hoshidoshi (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the demographics section of the Lebanon page, There are 27 % shia and 27 % sunnis in Lebanon. Jleknes (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shi'a Population

The intro states that there are 130-190 million Shiites worldwide, which constitute 10-15% of the Muslim world. In the demographics section it states that there are actually 190-250, making up 15-25% of the Muslim population. Both of these statements cite the same source and the source only says the first set of numbers with no mention of some estimates giving as high as the latter number. I'm changing it back to the 1st set of numbers until someone can cite another credible source supporting higher numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.177.72 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. --Enzuru 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Shia population in Turkey is now way near 25%. There is Alevis, if thats the case. And they are only about 10% of the population. So the claim, '25% in Turkey' is false. Im a Turk, and been to Turkey many times, and researched it dozens of times. I have not yet come across a claim of '25% shia' in Turkey, not even Shia being in Turkey. There is only Alevis, and thats a different case, because Alevi's arent mentioned in this page. I claim this as an insult, to my nation and religion. Please give factual information next time, not falsifying crap to benefit yourselves...Ahmed Kayihan (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, stop being rude, we aren't trying to purposely bump up the numbers, assume good faith. Having Shi'a in your nation is a blessing, not a curse. Second, we also have sources, and yes, Alevi are considered within the scope of Shi'a Islam, however not in the scope of the Twelver branch necessarily. Anyway, I suggest you do more research if you have never seen this mention anywhere:

• It is estimated that up to third of Turkey’s population are followers of Alevi.
• 10-20 million, meaning 14-28%, almost a third
• The source the above link cites
• More statistics can be found here

--Enzuru 03:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The current first pararaph reads,

“ Shi'a Islam (Shī‘a Arabic: شيعة; šīʿa is collective; Shī‘i, šīʿi, is singular), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. They also constitute over 45% of the population in Yemen, over 35% of the population in Kuwait, 10-20% of the population (primarily Alevi) in Turkey, 20% of the population in Albania, 20% of the population in Pakistan and 15% of the Muslim population in India. There are an estimated 130 to 190 million Shi'a, 10-15% of the world's Muslim population. ”

It seems like way too much detail in the intro paragraph. I'd like to change to this,

“ Shi'a Islam (Shī‘a Arabic: شيعة), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. ”

Thus deleting the extended etymology and extended demographics. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Enzuru 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No reason to remove the extended etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.187.53 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it down to the etymology section. It really clutters up the first sentence and doesn't provide any useful information to 99% of people reading. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

People should immediately understand that one follower should be called a Shi'i not a Shi'a. Maybe it would change the disturbing established norm of calling a Shi'i, Shi'a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.187.53 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to be sarcastic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.187.53 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no that was supposed to be serious. I have studied Arabic and have fought my own battles on wikipedia trying to standardize Arabic transliteration. Most people just don't care about nuances of Arabic or the difference between hamza and `ayin. The information is in the article for those people looking for it, but the real issue is that 99%, if not more, of the people reading the page will just see a mess of etymology and not even know what the S with a swirly thing over it means. It is a problem that people use the term wrong, but it cannot be resolved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shia population in Pakistan

Provided reference (i.e. State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia By Ishtiaq Ahmed) says,

“ According to Demographic Reasearch Institute of Karachi University, Shias make upto 12-15 per cent of the Muslim population. Shias themselves claim to be more than 30 per cent, while Sunni sources put the Shias at only 6 per cent of the Muslim population (Qureshi, 1989:109). ”

Taking all percentages w.r.t. 2008 estimate of Pakistan's total population of 172,800,000; we have:

• 06% of 172,800,000 = 10,368,000
• 12% of 172,800,000 = 20,736,000
• 15% of 172,800,000 = 25,920,000
• 30% of 172,800,000 = 51,840,000

While different estimates for Shia population in Iran varies from 70%(Sunni Sources), 75-85%(Western Sources), 90%(Official Sources of Govt. of Iran).

Taking all percentages w.r.t. 2007 census data of Iran's total population of 70,472,846; we have:

• 70% of 70,472,846 = 49,330,992
• 75% of 70,472,846 = 52,854,635
• 85% of 70,472,846 = 59,901,919
• 90% of 70,472,846 = 63,425,561

It is clearly evident that even lower percentage(i.e. 70%) of Iran's Shia population will exceed (Iran's data is of 2007 census while Pakistan's data is of 2008 estimate) higher percentage(i.e. 30%) of Pakistan's Shia population.

So until anyone has claim of more than 30% for Pakistan's Shia popultion with verifiable references, please allow demographic data of this article to rest in peace. ;)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Shi'a of Yemen

Why is Yemen not listed in the demographic table? Best estimates say that 40-45% of Yemen is Zaidi Shi'a. Given that the population of Yemen is around 25 million, that means there are at least 10 million Shi'a in Yemen. Please add them to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.130.148 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

provide a reliable source and it'll get included as the case with Turkey stats. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Experience festival.com is NOT a reliable source

It appears that that web site uses Wikipedia as its primary source (look at the note at the bottom of the page). We need to remove the information sourced to this web site and find reliable sources for Shia population statistics. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for pointing out this source, an unreliable source tag has been placed against this source(you can help by putting at other occurrences, I found only 3). Meanwhile alternative sources are being searched to support or correct this info otherwise it'll be removed. Thanx again. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the appropriate steps, it didn't cross my mind to use the tag. Yes, it appears to be only three instances.

I am currently updating Demographics of Islam article and I am having difficultly locating reliable sources for Sunni/Shia population numbers. Here are some of the decent sources I found [3] [4][5]. If you know of any other reliable sources, please send them my way. Thanks and assalamu alaikum. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yemen

Yemen's large Shia population (ca. 10,000,000) is missing in the list. Tajik (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Plz provide reference(authentic & reliable) to add the data. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of Shi'a in Yemen

Here are sources stating the number of Shi'a in Yemen. Please include these statistics in the article.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/pilgrimage-to-karbala/sunni-and-shia-the-worlds-of-islam/1737/

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,45a5199f2,45a5f8b22,488f180d1e,0.html

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2009/September/middleeast_September406.xml&section=middleeast&col=

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_population.htm

Shia Population in Pakistan

I have repeatedly try to highlight the fact that the actual estimated Shia Muslim Population of Pakistan is far more then the given lame facts by UNCHR or CIA FACTBOOK. I am a have now finally provided references supporting my claim of the fact that Shia's in Pakistan make up about 25% or above, out of the total Muslim Population of Pakistan. Let me be clear about this that though Muslim are about 97% of Pakistan in this regard we are only estimating the Muslim population and the sect's in Pakistan. Hence the Shia are estimated to be more then 30 million out of 160 million. In future i would provide further references supporting my claim. I would likely mention two links supporting this. 1)http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3591 and 2)http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106508&sectionid=351020401---> the last paragraph.

According to the 2007 Pakistan Inter-Faith Society Dialogue in Karachi out of the total 100% of Muslims in Pakistan Shia Muslims are around 25-30%. Pakistan Bar-Council meeting with the Census Commission of Pakistan under the Interior Ministry repeated the fact that Shia Muslims were One-Third of Pakistan's population. And so it is acknowledged by many and also accepted by the Shia community of Pakistan. I came to know this through the Newspapers. <ref name="DAWN NEWS">

I would kindly request you all to stop changing the facts by relying on decades old facts from the CIA factbook and UNCHR. Kindly look for further independent references in this regard free from any political or religious pressures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paki90 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 October 2009

The statistics in question are neither "decades old" nor "lame facts" by either UNCHR or the CIA; they were published in October 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a strictly non-advocacy organization. Since the Pew report, 'Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population', would appear to be the epitome of a reliable, third-party, published source, I have reverted the article back. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems we need a thorough revision in our policy of accepting single source for demographics (I myself have following this practice since the day I created democraphics sub-section on this articele and have been thorouhly defending the stance). We can have look on different sources and have average/mean/etc so that it can incorporate various estimates. We'll need statistical knowledge for this but I think this approach will result in more balanced and suufficing estimate of the Shia population. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 07:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are correct though yet old, although rough independent estimates suggest they account for one quarter (15-20%) of the population. However, Shia Muslims claim to make up one-third of Pakistan’s population of 180 million, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, here and here, since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations, many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[6] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 39%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference is not clear and gives data of 1980s (atleast I understood that). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, i understand that you are an admin and you primarily focus on demographic and Shia related article and stubs and only accept sources meeting WP:verifiability, but brother the source over here and this link says its 30%, and fulfills both the WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:verifiability requirement you need to understand my claim. According to "Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 612-614", Pakistan's Shia Muslim population was more then 37 million which is actually a statistical figure of the past two decades. And according to the CIA factbook Pakistani Shia Muslims are more then 20% hence PewForum 10% -15% stats are no where near to the respective 20% and 30% figures. And Pewforum states "Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate estimate", and since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division Pewforum's report is not a Legitimate truth, rather a rough estimate. While Shia Muslims of Pakistan claim to be one third of Pakistan's Muslim Population. You should understand my claim. Would please take my reasoning in consideration and kindly mention both facts, all have sources claiming it. While that claim of Shia in Pakistan to be one third of Pakistan, you still think thats a made up number? Please realize this, i am not lying or making stories. Regards! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division so any and all claim are just estimates. Pewforum is an average of all the dependable estimates it is them most recent statistics and has the widest cover of all the estimates; that is the reason it was taken as primary source for demographic data on this article. Although it is not the final record but it holds high-ground. There are various grounds which should be cosidered before taking a source as reference. As this is the case of demographics (which is not static) we need most recent verifiable source. Now that does not mean that recent source taken from some website can discard comparatively older source which is more reilable (e.g. Govt, UN, International organizations, etc.). The reference provided above was not that good for demographics (as per my view) but I did not wanted to waste the reference so I placed it in Persecution section. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i accept your view, but what is wrong in mentioning both figures? We can mention it to be between 15% to 30%, hence satisfying both point of views. Would you please re-consider this? SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to the inclusion of a second set of statistics as long as they are from a reliable, third-party, published source, the numbers from the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life can hardly be considered current, especially since they are now twelves year old. Do you have any other reliable sources from within the past four or five years? — Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i am glad that you are willing to accept this, here are two sources full filling the reliable, third-party, published source criteria, this link and this one. You may also consider this link. Though I'll soon update you with few more recent sources. Till then you can use these. Thank you! SyedMANaqvi 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The presstv.com article states, "Shias say they make up one-third of Pakistan's 160 million-strong population" which is not exactly a credible source for population statistics and demographic information (otherwise a pro-Sunni source could just as easily be quoted as saying that Shias make up 1% of the population). The islamicinsights.com article looks like a good source for the 30% statistic, but it should not carry any more or less weight than other reliable, third-party, published sources that indicate other numbers (like the BBC News which states 20%). — Kralizec! (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can enter two more columns to demographics data table i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim. To start with we can have blank values. Will be shortly expanding the idea/proposal. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you are right about the third party claim, and i too regard that to be the case. But we can also see it from a different angle, that is, if somebody without knowing ones family members goes on giving random estimates about their actual size. Hence we should respect both point of views, and like Faizhaider said, we should further expand it by mentioning the demographic data in the table, i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim. And we should start working over expanding it, need suggestions.SyedMANaqvi (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Faizhaider guess we should now finally edit the demographic data in the table, i.e. minimum estimate/claim & maximum estimate/claim, awaiting for you reply. I hope you will soon start working over it, and I'll be there to help you out. Guess you'll certainly take a prompt action. SyedMANaqvi (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have added two columns to the table and provided Max data for India with reference. Sorry for the delay was bit occupied with other things. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks alot brother. I have also added the Pakistan's maximum claim, by mathematically finding the figure out of the total Muslim population in Pakistan/percentage of Shias in Pakistan. Hence out of 173,000,000 the total Muslim Population of Pakistan, mathematically the 30% of the figure, which is actually 57,666,666. Even the 20% makes the total Shia population in Pakistan mathematically to be round about 43,250,000. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, i have just changed the Shia variation in Pakistan from 10% - 15% to 10% - 30%, since the percentage variation should mention the minimum & maximum estimate, hence i edit this claim. I rather accept and respect the Pew Forum Research, but i have also mentioned the Shia communities claim regarding their actual size in Pakistan, with a reference. I hope you all would regard this justified. Though i haven't edited the the Shia population table since, it already has a maximum estimate claim. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its enough to metion claims data in columns of demographics table under Max/Min claim. Text should abide to more NPOV data. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Majority in Iraq?

The demographics of Iraq page, following Encyclopedia Britannica and the CIA World Fact Book, contradicts this assertion. How can we square this? 128.135.29.48 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The statistics in question are by either UNCHR or the CIA; they were published in October 2009 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a strictly non-advocacy organization. Since the Pew report, 'Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population', would appear to be the epitome of a reliable, third-party, published source, I have reverted the article back. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Population of Shias in US & number of Iranian-Americans

Iranian-Americans are far more numerous in the United States than census data indicate, according to research by the Iranian Studies Group, an independent academic organization, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The group estimates that the number of Iranian-Americans may haved topped 691,000 in 2004—more than twice the figure of 338,000 cited in the 2000 U.S. census.[5]

According to extrapolated 2000 U.S. Census data and other independent surveys done by Iranian-Americans themselves, there are an estimated 1-1.5 million Iranian-Americans living in the U.S. in 2009, with the largest concentration -- about 72,000 people -- being in Los Angeles.[13][14] For this reason, the L.A area with its Iranian American residents is sometimes referred to as "Tehrangeles" or "Irangeles" among Iranian-Americans.[15] An NPR report recently put the Iranian population of Beverly Hills as high as 20% of the total population. Iranian communities in the U.S. also have varying religious populations among each city. Other large communities include New York; New Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Seattle, Washington; and Houston, Texas.[16] Iranian-American organizations, including the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans and Iranian alliances across borders have banded together to form the 2010 Census Coalition, focusing on educating the Iranian-American diaspora about the 2010 Census.

How is it that, in the Shia demographics section, there are only 200-400 000 Shias living in USA. When there are clearly over million Iranian Shias living in the US. There are Jewish Iranians, Christians, Catholics, and Zoroastrians, but all of these pale in comparison to the overwhelmingly Shia majority of Iranians. In short the stats should reflect the number of Iranians living in the US and on the fact that most of them are Shiites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.95 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Population in India, Kuwait, etc

Please before editing or inserting any figure, kindly check whether it corresponds with the official and local view of the said country or not? For an Instance from Arab sources and Kuwaiti Media Shia population is between 35 - 40 percent of Kuwaiti Population. From renowned and neutral Non-Shia and Non-Muslim Indian sources India's Shia population is between 40-50 million as per 2005-2006 report, similar is case with Pakistan where Shias are between 25 to 33 percent[43-55 million]. CIA Factbook, PEW Research Centre are not authenticated by the officials of these country to be considered there findings of the local communities in the said country. In order to maintain the neutrality all sources should be taken into consideration. For more please refer articles Shia Islam in India and Shia Islam in Pakistan where you will get multiple sources both national and international to refute the 17-26 million figure from other sources.

Last but not the least Britannica Book of the year 1997 mentioned Indian Shia population over 26 million, that's 13 years ago and the source is third party similarly Pakistani Shias at that time where no less than 25 million so how come they are below that figure after 13 years there is no finding which says that birth rate of any community in these countries declined in past decade or moreHumaliwalay (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Plz refer to above discussion Shia Population in Pakistan. Till there is any consensus third-party claims can be included in max/min claims of the column and most of the higher claims are there already. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction with inaccurate statistics

I am just giving a heads up to concerned editors about changes that I will be making later today regarding the statistics in the introduction about overall demographics of shia in relation to total Muslim population. I will be referencing the 2009 pew research that has been done. This study has been cited extensively by all major media outlets and is regarded as the latest most accurate estimate. I cannot post the link at the moment because my work place has blocked the pew site. However here is an article that references the study: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25434060

I will post a link sometime later today for the pew study. The paragraph in the wiki says that Shia make up 20-30% of Muslim population where in fact it is 10% or 13% at most. Mbcap (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference for Saddam Hussein's persecution of Shia

There is a bit in the persecution section about Saddam Hussein's treatment of Shia Muslims. I have found this document that we could use to reference the statement as it lacks one at the moment. I do not know how to cite a pdf so was hoping someone would do it. The document is called 'SADDAM HUSSEIN:crimes and human rights abuses'. It was published by the Foreign and commonwealth office in 2002. The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf

It is a questionable document in regards to its link with propagating the need for the war that subsequently followed so I am not sure if it would be appropriate to use it. If possible, maybe someone knows of a better source to use as reference. Mbcap (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed?

I have added the citation needed tag to the following statement in the article:

According to Shia Muslims, one of the lingering problems in estimating Shia population is that unless Shia form a significant minority in a Muslim country, the entire population is often listed as Sunni.

Please could someone find a suitable source for this. I shall wait 48 hours before deletion. That is an arbitrary waiting period as I do not know what would be appropriate. If someone objects, could you tell me how it works normally. Mbcap (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ali's caliphate

'as a last source ' - should this be 'as a last resort'? Unclear to me, as a non-muslim. Regards to all.

Notreallydavid (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rejectionists"

I read in a book that Shia's are often called "Rejectionists". The book is "Fundamental Shi'te Beliefs" (downloaded from kalamullah.com). Is it a reliable source? A.A.Wasif | Talk 11:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There is already a seperate article, linked at the bottom of this article, on rafidah which is the arabic for rejectionists and an insult used to refer to shia by Sunnis so it's already covered

New Structure

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein:The structure of the article needs to be changed.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think in the belief section, just these should come, The Oneness of God (Taw˙íd), Divine Justice (Adl), Prophecy (Nubuwwa), Imamate (Imåma), The Hereafter (Maåd).--Salman mahdi (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this structure:

Shia Islam

1. Twelvers
   1. Usul al-Din
      1. Tawhid
      2. Adl
      3. Nubuwah
      4. Imamah
      5. Ma'ad
   2. Theology
   3. Philosophy
   4. Jurisprudence
      1. The Roots of Jurisprudence

No. Your structure is more suitable for Twelvers article. So this is my suggestion:

1. Etymology
2. Origin (relates to Succession to Muhammad)
   1. Theological theory
   2. Political theory
3. Beliefs
   1. Tawhid including Adl
   2. Nubuwah including Quran
   3. Imamat and Wilayat
      1. Imami Shias (Twelvers, Ismailis and the other post Imam Al-Sadiq branches)
      2. non Imamis (Zaydis, Kisanis, Murjae and the other pre Imam Al-Sadiq branches)
4. Shia and Sunni; Similarities and differences
   1. Quran and Sunnah
   2. Theology
   3. Fiqh
5. Branches
   1. Imamis
      1. Twelvers
      2. Ismailis
      3. The others
   2. non Imamis
      1. Zaidis
      2. the others
6. History
   1. First century (1-81): Emergence: from Imam Ali to Imam Sadjad
   2. Second and third Century (81-148): Formulation: from Imam Al-Baqir to Imam Al-Sadiq
   3. Fragmentation, consolidation and organizing (148-300): from Imam Al-Kazim to Imam al-askari
   4. (300-450):Rising to power: Zaidi, Esmaili, etc dynasties
   5. 450-650:Decline and fall of Shia states: Shia under Sunni dynasties
   6. 650-900: From Mongol invasion to Safavid dynasty
   7. 900-1800: From Safavid dynasty to modern era
   8. 1800-1979: Shia in colonial era
   9. 1979-onward: From Islamic revolution: rise of Political shia
7. Controversial issues
   1. Tawassul
   2. Dissimulation (Taqiyya)
   3. Change of Destiny (Bada')
   4. The Return (Raj'a)
   5. Mut'ah

--Seyyed(t-c) 15:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Imams

@Sa.vakilian and Mhhossein: I think the table of the list of Imams is related to its own article and just its link is enough for this article.Salman mahdi (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree Mhhossein (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

basic disagreement Shia / Sunni

This article states that Mohammed quite explicitly designed Ali as his successor. Someone should update this article to explain why 75% - 90% of Muslims, the Sunni, do not believe that Ali was the rightful heir to Mohammed as leader of Islam. This article just silently states as fact this successor designation, and does not say why the overwhelming majority of Islamic people do not believe that Ali was the rightful heir despite (??) this statement from Mohammed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.77.111.18 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Basic disagreement is that, for example girl wants to go to beach, and most of other girls are partially naked, and this is not stated in Quaran; then Shia is adaptive, and hence girl can do what others do, where Sunni is traditionalist - as this is not stated in Quaran, girl must dress herself like terrorist ninja. 77.11.41.93 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian and others: Why does this sentence exist in the article: "Muhammad, before his death, designated Ali as his successor." Do you agree it should be removed or rephrased?--Anders Feder (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This particular POV seems to have been first introduced by an anonymous editor[7] and then, on a second occasion (in good faith), by Faizhaider[8]. If that continues, the involved editors should be blocked.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm no topical expert, but it seems to me that the question about why this sentence is in the article touches on two separate areas of concern.

• First, the topic of the article is Shia Islam. Discussion about how other branches of Islam differ, if mentioned at all, probably ought to be confined to an article section on that subtopic.

• Second, that sentence cites page 15 of this book as a supporting source. I don't have access to a hardcopy, and the book is not previewable via Google books, so I don't know how strongly the book supports the assertion as it is expressed in the article. However, I see that

• Hazleton, Lesley (2009). After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-385-53209-9. seems to suggest that whether such a designation was made, and how that fact came to be known beyond the circle of persons present at Mohammed's death.
• Brown, Daniel W. (2011). "The Caliphate". A New Introduction to Islam. John Wiley & Sons. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-4443-5772-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) asserts that Mohammed said something like "he of whom I am the patron ... Ali is also the patron", and that was interpreted as designation of Ali as his successor.

Re the second point, I'm pretty sure that other sources touching on this exist, and that the sources are not in unanimous agreement that Mohammed unambiguously designated Ali his successor. Given that this is the case, it seems to me that WP:DUE comes into play, and that the article should not assert that there was a clear and unambiguous designation but rather that Shia Muslims believe that there was such a declaration and that other branches of Islam disagree on that point - with sources supporting both views being cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be modified "The Shiʿites maintain that the Prophet designated ʿAlī as his successor by God’s command.[9]" For more explanation there is another article: Succession to Muhammad.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated Material

There are too much unrelated material in this article, please help to delete it.5.116.141.161 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Salman mahdi: Sorry, but this is an important article on Wikipedia and your edits are of very limited quality. Please read the WP:MOS and don't dump incoherent stuff in the middle of the prose the article contained before. I took the liberty of reverting yours edits, but you can obviously still find them here. Please don't make major changes to the structure of a high profile article without establishing some minimum of consensus beforehand. You can add reliably sourced parts back in a little more carefully, or we can discuss them if you wish. But keep in mind, the point is not to present Shia Muslims' beliefs, but to explain in ordinary English what reliable sources write about Shia Islam.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I agree that any change regarding the structure should be postponed until we reach consensus. However, if you think the source is not reliable or should be changed, you can add one of the suitable tags instead of removing the text. Your manner is not constructive. Reza Shah-Kazemi and Ja'far Sobhani's work is published by I.B. Tauris in London. He is a notable scholar and his view about the meaning of Shia is not sectarian.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: You wouldn't know what being constructive is. I haven't commented on the reliability of the two sources you mention anywhere. I reverted Salman mahdi's changes because they degraded the structure and layout of the article. As I specifically wrote above, I wouldn't have anything against any reliably sourced portions being added back into the existing structure.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Massive work needed

Massive amount of work is needed.--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@88.111.129.157: Be more specific.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not soapbox

@Strivingsoul: Re: [10]. What is "integral to the author's characterizations of the subject" is completely irrelevant. The author of that source does not dictate Wikipedia policy - see WP:ONUS: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". I don't really mind either way, but if anyone challenges the statement's neutrality, you won't have a case.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean that most (if not all) modifiers (such as "far", "remarkable") should be replaced by concrete information that substantiate them? Then, I will hopefully get some time to study into the source(s) to gather information that demonstrate the author's opinion. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideally. It is generally more interesting to learn about the factual premises that lead an RS to given opinion than the opinion itself.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That whole paragraph seems very WP:UNDUE, amongst other issues. There's no reason why the opinions of a single academic should have an entire paragraph dedicated to them in the lede of the article. Also, whilst the first sentence is clearly attributed as her opinion, the rest of it is presented as fact. Big claims require big evidence. While this clearly isn't suitable for the lede, I'm not exactly sure where else in the article to put it. So for the time being I'm removing the paragraph from the article until these problems are dealt with. Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder and Brustopher: It is neither WP:UNDU nor irrelevant. There are several academicians such as Henry Corbin who has the same viewpoint. Therefor, we should add it to the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As per Brustopher, if it was properly attributed it could probably be included elsewhere in the article. Just keep the dubious puffery out of the lede please.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm partially in agreement with Brustopher for he believes that there's no reason to have a whole paragraph dedicated to a single academic, but also I see no reason to not include major views in this regard in the lead. For this, I suggest Strivingsoul and Seyyed to support Dakae's view if they can find similar viewpoints from other academics (such as Corbin) and bring them some where in the body of the article. Then, we can simply dedicate a paragraph in the lead to major views. Mhhossein (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the argument is that it should not be included in the lead for being a "dubious puffery"! But once that view is corroborated as a fact by alternative sources, that argument is negated. And I think having a paragraph dedicated to description of distinct features of Shia Islam (like its rich philosophical legacy and the influential role of the Imams in inspiring theological and juridical thought in Islam) is useful for a more inclusive introduction of the subject. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your new suggestion seems applicable within the limit drawn by existing reliable sources. Let's move step by step. By the way, I'd like to ask Seyyed whether Allamah Tabatabaee has also some thing on the originality of shia Islam or not. Mhhossein (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, He has the same idea in "Shi'ite Islam (book)", however we should find non-Shias who support this viewpoint. I suggest to make a new section. What is your idea about "Shia contribution in the Muslim world" ?--Seyyed(t-c) 11:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...How do you support your suggestion Seyyed? I would suggest something brief such as "Shia in Islam". Mhhossein (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's good idea! We can have a separate section to cover this important aspect and then have a summary for the lead. I propose something like "Contributions to the Islamic world" or "Contributions to the Islamic Civilization". Note that the right preposition for "contribution" is "to" not "in". Strivingsoul (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shia Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813160720/http://www.nmhschool.org:80/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/shia.php to http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/shia.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Are all Ismailis Seveners?

The section on Ismailis is titled "Ismaili ("Sevener")" leading one to believe that the two terms are interchangeable. However, the graphic captioned "Tree of the Shia Islam" suggests that Seveners are just one branch of Ismailism. Which is it? 74.71.78.145 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Where it says "...law Abu Bakr, not Ali ibn Abi Talib, was his proper successor." simply remove ", not Ali ibn Abi Talib,". it is confusing and unnecessary. Randydspence (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Shia Islam is a "non-islamic religion"?

The claim, in an article titled "Shia Islam", that Shia is "non-islamic" seems false on its face. Surely, Shia Muslims identify themselves as part of Islam, so where does this notion that it's "non-islamic" come from? Situwannabe (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If a 25 year old man self-identifies as 75 years old, should he be given an old-age pension? If a 12 year old girl self-identifies as 21, should she be allowed to vote, to get married, and to drink in bars?

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, what matters is what mainstream reliable sources say. The view held by religious scholars in Saudi Arabia that Shia are non-Muslims is mainstream there, but fringe everywhere else. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I would be delighted if someone were to add a one-paragraph section citing Saudi scholars explaining their point of view. But nobody has done this so far. There is no need to mention this POV in the introduction to the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That assertion was inserted without support by an anon in this edit and removed about five hours later by this edit. As far as WP is concerned, the opinions of WP editors matter not at all. What matters is the opinions of verifiable reliable sources, and such sources should generally be cited in support of article assertions. If sources have differing points of view (POVs), those differing POVs should be afforded due weight.

If the 25 year old man mentioned above self-identifies as a woman, should his use of the ladies' restroom be accepted? The answer to that question is a matter of POV (at least until required behavior is dictated governmentally, see e.g., Bathroom bill), and the POVs of WP editors about that matter not at all in WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

history according to Corbin

@Faizhaider and Sa.vakilian:.I want to add some valuable information about shia history according to Corbin.You revert my edit and propose me other place. Can you tell me where I could palce it.Thanks. m,sharaf (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mehdi ghaed: Following addition done by you is not even coherent & complete and needs to be rewritten.

breif history

According to Henry Corbin, we can envisage four fundamental periods for the history of Shia. First period considers with the life of Imams. The period begins with the imamate or guardianship of Ali. He was one of near relative and treasure of mysteries of Prophet Muhammad. The first period lasted until the absence of twelfth Imam namely Muhammad Al mahdi in 329/940.However Koleini passed away exactly in the same year.

I suggest you put draft version here on talk for review by other editors, once reviewed and okayed it can be placed in article at appropriate place.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As you mentioned it,My drafts is not complete beacause i intend to complete it gradually not at once.therfore I try to palce my draft here for revision and copy editing.Thanks for suggestion.m,sharaf (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Salam alaykum @Faizhaider: How are you? I am happy to meet you again. last year when I work on Twelver article, I put forward periods of Twelvers history which you can find in Talk:Twelver#New_Structure. In addition, Ismailis have at least two different versions of it. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Walekum Salam @Sa.vakilian: Yup, I'm back and it seems lot of water has flowed under the bridge in last two years. Thanks for point me to Talk:Twelver#New_Structure, it seems to be quite detailed discussion. I'm trying to go through things one at a time while side stepping any confrontation.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shia Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019004703/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mq3mbNO1?url=http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf to http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408085103/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Afghanistan.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Afghanistan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202020810/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/bahrain to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/bahrain/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iis.ac.uk/home.asp?l=en

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shia Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223071144/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/ibrahimII_adil_shahi/5_provinces.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/ibrahimII_adil_shahi/5_provinces.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shia Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222163432/http://shialand.com/ to http://shialand.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808131020/http://shafaqna.com/english/ to http://www.shafaqna.com/english
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124173517/http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/index.php to http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/index.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shia Islam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110404044349/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/681/re2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/681/re2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502125032/http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/yemeng.htm to http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/yemeng.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cites, and (Ṭabāṭabāʾī YYYY)

I've just made several edits cleaning up mislinked or unlinked shortened footnote cites in this article. When I came to the cites of various editions of a work by Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, I stopped. Refs should cite the page in the variation of the work which supports article assertions; if different variations of a work are used, they should be cited individually. I didn't want to do this, and I'm not sure it is appropriate in this case since, after checking here, I'm pretty sure that all these variations are page-for-page identical since they all have 253 pages. I'll leave it to others to clean this up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

the photo of the statue of Shah Ismail I

bears the caption:

One of Shah Ismail I of Safavid dynasty first actions, was the proclamation of the Twelver sect of Shia Islam to be the official religion of his newly formed state. Causing sectarian tensions in the Middle East when he destroyed the tombs of Abū Ḥanīfa and the Sufi Abdul Qadir Gilani in 1508.[83] In 1533, Ottomans, upon their conquest of Iraq, rebuilt various important Sunni shrines.[84]

This is too long a caption. I am planning on changing the caption to " Shah Ismail I" - which is what the pictures is. If you need to get the caption information into the text please consider doing it soon. Carptrash (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Alevism

The inclusion of Alevism and the Alevis in Turkey to this article is highly problematic. Alevism is mostly a syncretic religion. It incorporates some elements of Shi'a such as the veneration of Ahl al-Bayt, but it includes significant elements of sufism, Christianity, Khurramiyah, and pre-Islamic Anatolian, Mesopotamian, and Central Asian cultures, as well. Some local versions in Turkey even include strong elements of animism (There are numerous examples of attributing sacredness to specific trees, plants, bodies of water, etc.). The creed, the rituals, and core beliefs of Alevism all differ from the mainstream Sunni and Shi'a versions of Islam. In Alevism, the compulsory practices of both Sunni and Shia Islam, such as daily prayers, pilgrimage (to Mecca or Shi'a ziyarat sites in Iraq and Iran) or the fasting during the month of Ramadan, are not observed. Unique religious ceremonies, such as Cem, are performed in local vernacular – mostly in Turkish – and open to both men and women. Music and dance are incorporated into religious rituals. Poets such as Pir Sultan Abdal, Fuzuli and Shah Ismail are recognized as saints and their poetry is venerated as sacred texts. The place of worship is not the mosque but rather the Cemevi (Cem house) where the Cem rite is conducted. Similarly, their fasting is unique. It is in the month of Muharram, and especially in the day of Ashura, despite the Shi'a hadith that specifically prohibits this act. The style of fasting is entirely different as well, to simulate the pain suffered by Hussein and his companions (especially to simulate their thirst), they do not drink a single drop of water in the day of Ashura and the twelve days preceding it. There are other additional conditions, as well. They do not consume meat, and do not engage in sexual intercourse during this fasting period (even after breaking fast at sunset). Most Shi'a mourning elements such as chest-beating, zanjir and tazieh are not part of Alevi mourning period in Muharram which shows that the rituals of these two belief systems were developed in entirely distinct environments and according to entirely different religious needs.

In summary, the rituals and belief system of Alevism is highly eclectic, and it radically differs from Orthodox Shi'a Islam. It can be examined as a synthesis of Twelver Shi'a elements, and pre-Islamic religions, customs, culture and traditions of the region but the Shi'a elements seem to be significant mostly on the surface level. In its essence, Alevism can be considered either as an entirely different religion or more probably as a distinct Anatolian philosophy, or a world view. Pigeonholing such a complex belief system as Shi'a does not seem correct to me. Including them in the Shi'a population of the world without mentioning these distinct characteristics does not seem fair or logical to me.

If I am correct the Druze is included here as a Shi'a sect, as well. That is highly debatable, as well. I hope that we can find some middle ground here, unless the inclusion of both of these groups to the Shi'a population of the world can give the impression as that someone is actively trying to inflate the numbers of the Shi'a population and can give the article a unscientific coloring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.238.127 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Shia in Russia

There are a significant amount of Shia in Russia mainly Azerbaijani migrants and some Dagestani people. The total number almost certainly exceeds 600 000 Shia people. Sources are here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 . Since these are official figures which tend to underestimate for bureaucratic and political reasons, many suggest that there are more than 1 000 000 people or even 2 000 000.

91.211.26.70 (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC) a Moscovite

Mustabsir

@Ohnoitsjamie: As result of discussion between @HyperGaruda: and me, material was moved to this article. Where is POV issue exactly as well as is not better try to remove the drawback rather remove it?! Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a grammatical mess and as such is difficult to parse, but "sure about the injustice" is POV.[11] It doesn't add any useful information to the understanding of the topic, other than stating what word a religion uses to describe it's converts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this page clear and unbiased?

I just did a minor copy edit but have qulams about possibly supporting incorrect material. Someone please check.

Given the importance / contentiousness of the subject, I probably won't do any more copy ed (my only contribs) on this page until it looks more robust. Jimmy Hers (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Rename Shia Islam to Shia

Please rename the page from Shia Islam to Shia to avoid confusion to non muslim. Shia is not part of Islam because Shia is not Islam and Islam is not Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarimauMalayaHM (talk • contribs) 09:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Islamic branches.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Taking statement of Shi'ite beliefs from one westerner

I contest the following passage,

They also have a complete knowledge of God's will. They are in possession of all knowledge brought by the angels to the prophets (nabi) and the messengers (rasul). Their knowledge encompasses the totality of all times. They thus act without fault in religious matters.

It seems disingenous to rely on what one non-Shi'i westerner has written, to define key Shi'i beliefs with regards to the knowledge of the imams.

I suggest this passage is removed and that we use Shi'ite sources to source Shi'ite beliefs. ParthikS8 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree as it smacks in the face the fundamental tenets/basic principles of Islam. No creature, no matter how well endowed with knowledge or special attributes, can have such Absolute Knowledge --which is the confine attribute or distinct domain of God Alone. In my opinion, it is impossible to reconcile some Shia belief (like the above) with Islamic beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Explanation of term ‘Shiite’

The first parentheses end with ‘sometimes spelled Shi'ite is also used in archaic English’. I tried to change it but the change was reversed. I will change it back unless there’s a reasonable counterargument to the following:

1. This is ungrammatical.

2. ‘Shiite’ is not archaic, but very common today, and in no way a slur or inappropriate. Someone behind the edit may think that any word from Arabic must be replaced by as close a transliteration of the Arabic as possible, but that doesn’t mean usage they don’t like is ‘archaic’ if many people use it. Nor is the Arabic word for ‘English’, ‘al-injliziya’, in any way archaic just because it differs from the source language. Harsimaja (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

“Nor is the Arabic word for ‘English’, ‘al-injliziya’, in any way archaic just because it differs from the source language.”

1. Which is precisely the point. You say إنقليز when saying the word “English” in Arabic. Which is a direct Arabic transliteration of the word. Likewise it is more grammatically correct and proper to refer to a Shi’i individual as a Shi’i, and not a Shi’ite.

2. Forcing adjectives to be created in lieu of already existing (and more correct) adjectives is redundant an unnecessary. JasonMoore (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020 there are some grammatical issues such as , and curly bracket etc

Just want to correct some grammatical issues 39.32.34.61 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest edits here on the form "Please change X to Y" – Thjarkur (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. After extended discussion, there is no support for the move. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Shia Islam → Shi'ism – Requesting page move based on WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google Ngram analysis Google Ngram analysis, "Shi'ism" has significantly more usage among sources than "Shia Islam". Such article naming already has precedence in regards to religious sub-groups (e.g. Protestantism, Anglicanism and Sufism).

(I'm seeing an issue with Ngram processing the request; just press enter in the search bar and it should work fine.)
Alivardi (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment But "Shia" is much more common than "Shi'ism", so if we move the article, why wouldn't we move it to Shia, which already redirects here? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: I would say because "Shia" is an all encompassing term that could refer to anything that relates to Shi'ism (Shia practices, Shia places, Shia people). "Shi'ism" and "Shia Islam" meanwhile can only refer specifically to that group's body of beliefs. I guess it's much the same reason why the articles we have here on Wikipedia are "Protestantism" and "Hinduism", as opposed to "Protestant" and "Hindu".
Alivardi (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that when English speakers use the term "Shia" they are almost always referring to the branch of Islam. If they are referring to people they usually use the term "Shiites". Also, as far as the term "Shi'ism" is concerned, English-language dictionaries seem to prefer the term "Shiism" without an apostrophe, with "Shi'ism" being an alternate spelling.[12][13][14][15][16] Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Actually, 4/5 of the dictionaries you had cited have their primary definition of "Shia" as being a follower of Shi'ism.[17][18][19][20]

In regards to your second point, Ngram seems to pretty heavily favour "Shi'ism".
Alivardi (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – (edit conflict) the original Ngrams search above is invalid. It might still be the case that Shiism is more common, but this query does not demonstrate it. See #Ngram searches in the discussion section. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've now included alternative spellings into the ngram, though only a couple of the ones I've found had meaningful results. And from what I can see, including wording variations will only make a negligible difference; see my reply in the section below.
Alivardi (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to seize this opportunity to draw attention to the remark I made a while ago at #Title grammar of Shi'a vs Shi'i. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. After giving this a lot of thought, I think the current title is the better option. I think it's more recognizable and is a consistent title format with our article on the other major branch of Islam, Sunni Islam. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Tbf, the article titles for the two biggest dominations of Christianity, Catholic Church and Protestantism, aren't consistent with each other.
Alivardi (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Plus, as I've stated previously, ngram suggests that it is the more commonly used term.
Alivardi (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Shi'ism is unrecognisable. But perhaps just Shia is a possibility, as suggested above. Or perhaps Shi'ite? Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

​ Like it's mentioned above, "Shia" and "Shi'ite" generally refer to followers of the faith in the way that Hindu and Christian do for their respective religions. Could you clarify what mean you by "Shi'ism" being unrecognisable? Ngram seems to suggest it's the most common term.
Alivardi (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See #Reply to above discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we look at uniformity, we can see that "Sunni Islam" follows the same premise as this article, so moving would not be necessary. I believe the current title fits and should not be changed. Wretchskull (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Ngram searches

One has to be very careful attempting to demonstrate frequency when using Ngram searches. There are many pitfalls in constructing queries, and then in interpreting results. Certain queries are almost always an invalid comparison, such as comparing a unigram with a bigram (e.g., "Shiism :: Shia Islam". In particular, this Ngram search (listed as "Google Ngram analysis) is invalid. The assumption here is, that "Shia Islam" is the alternative form of "Shiism" and so they may be directly compared. This is false. In fact, a regular web search for Shia Islam (unquoted) demonstrates that there are all sorts of variations, often (but not exclusively) with interpolated words, such as "branch of", "version of" and so on. So as a first approximation, you would have to find all of the most common synonyms, and sum their frequencies, and then compare that sum to the unigram Shiism. Ngrams does permit summation, but the number of items is limited by the size of the input field. Here is one such comparison of Shiism to a summation of Shia Islam plus as many of the top aliases matching the template Shia * of Islam as I could fit in the input field (but not enough of them):

• compare 'Shiism' to 'Shia * of Islam'; a first approximation of a valid Ngram comparison (but not good enough)

We can see that the line graphs are now much closer, with Shiism still in the lead but not as much as before. However, this comparison is *still* not valid; you would have to substitute in other keywords into the '*' field, if they contributed any significant amount of information to the query, but the input field is already maxed out in that one, and I wasn't able to add more. (You could do it with two or more queries, manually summing the results at the end, and creating your own curve.) And even this only deals with the 4-gram template, "Shia * of Islam", and not any other 4-gram models or trigrams.

There is another factor which makes the original query invalid. Shiism is a unigram, and my guess is that it would provide very high precision in searching for the topic, and moderate recall. I think Shia Islam would also provide high precision, but lower recall; for one thing, it would miss articles about Shia Islam which were titled differently, for example: 'Shia and Sunni Islam', 'Differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims', 'Shi'i | History & Beliefs', not to mention unigrams such as 'Shia | Definition of Shia by Merriam-Webster'.

There are other factors as well, but these two factors should be enough to point out that a great deal of care needs to be taken, when constructing Ngram (or web search) queries, and in interpreting the results. The numbers so far, shows the "Shiism" vs. "summation of a whole lotta 'Shia Islam' aliases" still in favor of "Shiism", but they are closer than before. It's possible that "Shiism" would still be the most common, in a perfectly constructed query, but I would say that we don't know that for sure yet, and more research is needed to determine that. My hunch is that they will turn out to be pretty close. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

HyperGaruda makes a good point above, and so to the Ngram comparison in the bullet item above, one would have to add various Shii variants as well. Based on the fact that Shii Islam seems to be about 1/15 to 1/10 as frequent as Shia Islam (graph), as a quick guess, the Shii variants might add another 5–10% to the lower curve in the bulleted search. This is exactly the kind of thing that underlay my "hunch" above; whenever you have a unigram-to-ngram comparison, people start finding other contributory variants of the n-gram query that add a few percent here, a few percent there, and after a while, the numbers are much different than they at first appeared. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I appreciate your imput; this is obviously something that I had not considered. I do want to highlight though that my proposed move had been to "Shi'ism". You however had been inputing "Shiism" into your searches (minus the apostrophe). Including the missing punctuation shows a significantly larger difference in the line graphs than would otherwise be apparent.
Alivardi (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alivardi:, I'm not claiming that the search I added is definitive, in fact it is not. I merely wanted to point out, and then to illustrate by example, some of the pitfalls. By all means come up with better searches including the apostrophe. You may have to do multiple queries and carefully sum the results if they don't fit in the input field, which they likely won't. I didn't want to go the extra mile and do that here, because I've done this a number of times before, and this is not a major interest area of mine; just wanted to help steer it in the right direction, so regulars will be armed with the right data to make a proper decision. If you decide to go further along those lines, I know that ngrams interpets "foo-bar" as two words, equivalent to "foo bar"; not sure what it does with apostrophes, and you might want to look into that. (And let me know, when you find out .) Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I understand that. I just wanted to point out that since a mistaken spelling had been used in the examples, the numbers may not be as close as you had suggested in your final hunch. Nevertheless, I really appreciate your suggestions and I will try to follow them. And of course, if I do figure out the effect of apostrophes, you'll be the first to know.
Alivardi (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ngram searche adjustments

From what I can see in the "Shia * of Islam" queries that Mathglot had used (now with corrected spelling), the added wording variations actually contribute very little to the "Shia Islam" curve, something which becomes obvious when they are separated. Trying to substitute in more keywords doesn't make much of a difference; see this wildcard search for the top ten keywords, the sum of which (as seen by right-clicking on the line) is pretty tiny. Similar results are shown when using the alternative "Shia" spellings.[21][22] Also note that the majority of the results don't actually refer specifically to the ideology so the actual result would be even smaller.

I've also tried searching for other variations of "Shia Islam", but nothing is coming up in meaningful enough numbers so as to show up on Ngram. Most of everything else that I'm finding doesn't actually refer to the ideology, but rather the people that follow it (à la the articles Mathglot had referenced: 'Differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims', 'Shi'i | History & Beliefs' and 'Shia | Definition of Shia by Merriam-Webster'). And after all that, "Shi'ism" is still returning nearly double the number of results. I therefore believe it's pretty clear that this is the more common name.
Alivardi (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia as influencer

What if the reason that "Shia Islam" is more common, is because people use Wikipedia's nomenclature, even if it may have been wrong all this time? You would have to look at results before this article started, i.e. 2004. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem, and is systemic to Wikipedia, which is why it's so important to get these titles right. This is a much bigger problem than just this article as Wikipedia does not lead; it follows and should be addressed at a higher level, and link to it from here, and use this as an example. (I took the liberty of adding a subsection title above your comment; feel free to revert.) Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Further: if you are referring to web search, then I agree with you. If "people use Wikipedia's nomenclature" even if it's wrong, then presumably those people would not be historians or academics; their career would be over, if they used Wikipedia's term rather than the academically accepted one. That's why ngrams offers better numbers; ngrams results come exclusively from published books, which can be presumed to be reliable sources in most cases, rather than web search results, which often are not. If we believe that there are published books indexed by Google that are unreliable (such as self-publishing) and that may affect the numbers in a properly designed ngram search in unequal measure, then additional means should be sought to help bolster the conclusion.

One possibility would be to use tertiary sources as a proxy for the set or reliable secondary sources in order to evaluate WP:DUE WEIGHT, which is essentially what we are trying to do here with respect to title. For an example of how this was done in an Rfc on another topic, see Talk:French Revolution#Survey of 3ary sources. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous moves

Evidence of some previous moves can be seen here.

Hopefully this RM will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply to above discussion

Replying here to this edit as such discussion does not belong in the survey.

Shi'ite and related terms were unknown to most outside of Islam until the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when suddenly the term Shi'ite was in the papers on a daily basis. It explicitly and unambiguously refers to a particular form of Islam and to its followers.

When I google Shi'ite I get more than two million ghits. Now that means nothing, as do raw Ngram figures (as discussed above). But it is easily interpreted by looking at the first few hits. Are they relevant? And they all seem to be. So now I Google Shi'ism. I get about 320,000 hits. There is no need to go further. Whether or not these are all relevant, Shi'ite is the winner by a significant margin. And this is as would be expected from the history above.

Another reason to avoid Shi'ism is that it's easily confused with schism, a related term. That would not be an overriding consideration but it makes it even less recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

​That would be an invalid comparison. Again, "Shiite" does not refer to the ideology, but it's followers.[23][24][25][26] With such logic, you could argue that Judaism should be moved to "Jew" since they have a similarly proportioned difference in relevant Google search results.[27][28]
Alivardi (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because Judaism is far more recognisable than Shi'ism. We use a certain amount of commonsense. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

​If we're gonna start nitpicking analogies rather than addressing the main point, I'd rather stop this discussion here. I can see the page move is going nowhere anyway.
Alivardi (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title grammar of Shi'a vs Shi'i

As currently written, isn't "Shia" functioning as an adjective to "Islam". Considering that "Shia" technically is a noun, should it not be written using the adjective form "Shi'i", i.e. Shi'i Islam? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Negative, “Shi’a” refers to who (group), and Shi’i refers to a singular Shi’a. JasonMoore (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

True if used as a noun: both Oxford and Merriam-Webster define "Shia"/"Shi‘a" as a noun exclusively, not as an adjective. In these, might I say, authoritative dictionaries, only Shi'i and Shiite/Shiite are (also) used adjectivly. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Shiite is not only not necessary but simply incorrect as Shi’i is more correctly appropriate for referring to an adherent of Shia Islam, and Shia is the plural derivative. I.e “Shia Muslims” “Shi’i Muslim.” JasonMoore (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

Change "Husayn is the last imam following Ali whom all Shiah sub-branches mutually recognize.[182] The Battle of Karbala is often cited as the definitive break between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam, and is commemorated each year by Shiah Muslims on the Day of Ashura." to "Husayn is the last imam following Ali whom all Shia sub-branches mutually recognize.[182] The Battle of Karbala is often cited as the definitive break between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam, and is commemorated each year by Shia Muslims on the Day of Ashura." LopingLeopard (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)