Talk:Succession to Muhammad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Refimprove template

@HCPUNXKID: I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with the policies or if you think the cited source says something else than what it actually does. If you follow the link in the ref, you'll see that the source clearly supports the statement. This satisfies WP:V, so the Refimprove template is inappropriate here. Based on your edit summary it seems that you have some concern about WP:NPOV. If you do, you're welcome to find a WP:RS that gives an alternative account of the views of Western historians, if such a source actually exists. Then we can change the article to reflect the alternative perspectives. Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased point of view

The POV template has been added in response to the obvious bias of the text on the Shi'a side, take for instance the part that the article invalidates the western academic consensus in favor of Wilferd Madelung who is paid by Institute for Ismaili Studies funded by Karim Aga Khan NetBSDuser (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it may be beneficial to remove the "Western academic views" section altogether, as a historical account is provided in the "Historical viewpoint" section. Are there any other sections that you think are biased? If not, then the NPOV tag could be moved down to the "Western academic views" section (unless we decide to delete that section, which should hopefully remove any POV concerns). Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Best approach is to always use RS+NPOV+DUE Weight. And cherrey picking is not meant by RS. A thorough coverage of literature is expected. Historical Viewpints should be based on non-partisan reliable sources. That's is the meaning of RS. If modern academic historians' views are removed, then what remains will be bunch of religiously motivated, non-critical works. They are no RS. In brief, Historical Views section should contains modern historical views, based on published works of most academics who have published their work on this topic, keeping in mind that minority views be represented as such.AhmadLX (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Read section 4.2 and you'll see an obvious disrespect of neutrality. Lots of other parts of the article violate neutrality and need to be re-written. 99.19.70.223 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Section 4.2 is in the "Sunni view" section, so it's supposed to describe the Sunni view rather than be neutral. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph on this article was recently changed to the following:

The succession to Muhammad is the central issue that split the Muslim community into several divisions in the first century of Muslim history, thus forming the Shia and Sunni branches of Islam. Shia Islam holds that the Islamic prophet Muhammad designated Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor. After the death of Muhammad, effective political leadership of the community transferred to Abu Bakr on the basis of oaths of personal allegiance given to him by a number of community leaders. Sunni Islam holds Abu Bakr to be the first rightful leader of the community after the Prophet.

However, this has a number of problems:

• It goes into more detail than is permitted by MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH.
• It gives reasons for why Sunnis consider Abu Bakr to be Muhammad's successor without giving the same amount of detail to the Shia POV.
• "A number of community leaders" implies that Umar and Abu Ubaydah al-Jarrah were "community leaders", which they were not at the time they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Therefore, I am changing it to the following:

The succession to Muhammad is the central issue that split the Muslim community into several divisions in the first century of Muslim history, thus forming the Shia and Sunni branches of Islam. Shia Islam holds that the Islamic prophet Muhammad designated Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor at Ghadir Khumm. Sunni Islam, by contrast, holds Abu Bakr to be the first leader of the community after the Prophet on the basis of the decision at Saqifah.

Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Succession to Muhammad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I posted a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Requesting_outside_input_on_succession_to_Muhammad to request additional feedback on whether this article is neutral or not. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose looks good, follows MoS WP:MOSISLAM close enough.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See below, just a couple reference issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In my opinion, does not comply with WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below, I'd like another image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm gonna place this article on hold until the issues below are resolved. I'm worried that the article tilts too much to the Shia side. I don't know too much about this topic, but reading it I get the overwhelming impression that Ali should have been Muhammad's successor, and that Western scholars pretty much agree with that. Maybe that's the case, but if not please try to better represent the Sunni view. I know I'm being vague, the comments below have my specific concerns. See User talk:Snowsky Mountain. The author requested to withdraw the nomination, unfortunately by the time I saw the request I had already conducted the review. I am therefore closing the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: The last sentence says there are "many other opinions" about the succession, but unless I'm missing something the article only covers the Shia and Sunni views. Please either remove that sentence or add the other views.
• Images: I'd like to see at least one more image, there's plenty of space for it before the Saqifah one. Can you think of anything that would be appropriate?
• Historiography: The sentence about Leone Caetani falls under GA criterion #2.b (published opinion), so it needs a citation.
• Feast of Dhul Asheera: Consider removing the Burton quote, I'm not sure what it adds besides a rhetorical emphasis on Ali's importance.
• Expedition of Usama bin Zayd: I would remove the clause beginning with despite Muhammad's teachings, it strikes me as unnecessary and almost religious in tone, like Wikipedia is taking Muhammad's side. It's also weakly referenced (no page numbers).
• Saqifah: The phrase violent and possibly bloody recurs here in two successive sentences, consider revising.
• Position of Ali: I think we should qualify the claim that Ali was born in the Kaaba, as far as I can tell academic sources tend to say something like "Many sources record" that he was born there ([1]).
• Ali in the Quran: This verse tells Muhammad to announce Ali as his successor at the event of Ghadir Khumm - need a source for this controversial claim.
• Length: The "Shia view" section is about 1200 words long. The "Sunni view" section has about 700 words. Why such a disparity?
• Sunni view: The statement believe Muhammad did not make 120,000 people wait in the desert for three days only to tell them to support Ali seems a little tendentious to me and I couldn't find it in the cited source (#111), please either remove it or provide another source.
• Sunni view: This section doesn't really explain why Sunnis believe Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph. What sort of arguments do they use? Are there any hadiths or Quranic verses they cite?
• Attitude towards Ali: This strikes me as biased; what about the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali? I don't have any sources to back me up, but I find it hard to believe that no Sunnis have anything bad to say about Ali.
• Western academic views: Every scholar mentioned here seems to support the Shia view. Is that really representative of all scholars? Seems tendentious.
• Citations: There are a few citation errors, please take a look at them. Reference #99 also has a "full citation needed" tag. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Article re-write

Due to a pervasive narrative bias, I felt it was necessary to do a considerable re-write of the article. It had previously been written in a manner which heavily favoured the Shia viewpoint, giving very little weight to alternate views. In addition to this, I've had to make other major changes. I don't know if anyone will view my edit as controversial, so just in case, I wanted to give a breakdown of my more prominent modifications.

My edit has resulted in the removal of a fair bit of content. Much of this was because I needed to cut down several of the subsections, which had previously been composed of complete copy-and-pastes of other articles (e.g. Saqifah, Hadith of Warning). Aside from the fact that this basically negated the need for these articles, the copy-and-pastes had also resulted in the inclusion of much irrelevant information. I tried to correct this by writing an abridged version of the content from the respective articles, including only what was directly related to the succession to Muhammad.

I have also removed sections which only had tenuous links to the article subject. One was the "Expedition of Usama bin Zayd", which spent a considerable amount of time discussing Abu Bakr and Umar's opposition to joining a military expedition ordered by Muhammad. This sections inclusion in the article was only justified by the final sentence, which stated that Muhammad's desire for them to leave on this expedition was "proof" that he did not want them involved in his succession. This seems like conjecture at best, especially considering that the source used was a religious Shia text which did not seem especially reliable.

Another was the "Attack on Muhammad's family", which does not seem to have any impact on the succession, and certainly not one which justifies a four-paragraph discussion. I included a brief mention of the event as well as a link to the main article. I don't think anything beyond this is really necessary. I also removed "Ali in the Quran" since again, nothing here seemed particularly relevant to the succession. The "Hadith" subsection under "Shia view" was similarly removed since all the relevant hadiths are extensively discussed in my revision of the article. Finally, I removed the "Western academic views" section. My reason for this is that I don't really see the purpose of its inclusion. Ignoring the fact that the section wrongly suggested that current academics have a single inflexible opinion that only the Shia viewpoint is correct, the addition of an unbiased version wouldn't really add any substance to the page, as it would essentially just rehash arguments which had already been stated. Also, given that I have already included the views of several "Western" academics throughout the article, the section would be pretty redundant.

I added an overview of the succession in subsequent decades and centuries. I felt this was needed as much of the Shia-Sunni split in regards to the succession only occurred long after Muhammad's death. The fact that the previous lead discussed this without any mention in the main article made this discussion seem especially necessary. I also added the views of the Ibadi and Zaydi sects, as well as a discussion of a number of other hadiths.

My edit included content partially copied from Saqifah, Hadith of Warning, Hadith of the pen and paper, Caliphate, Zaidiyyah and Ibadi.
Alivardi (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Succession to Muhammad/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is good. For the layout, see the comment below about article structure.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Great job with the references, you corrected the issue of over-reliance on ancient sources. Please just check the Harvard citations, see the comment below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes, I'm glad you added info on Zaydi and Ibadi views.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This was the biggest issue in the old version, and in my opinion you've completely corrected it with your rewrite. You give equal weight to both sides of the dispute.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Awesome work on this article, you fixed all of the problems from the previous review. I left a few comments below, please take a look and let me know what you think. For the structure, I'm open to discussion on if it should be kept as is or revised. I'll put the article on hold for now. Perfect, I'll pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you! Alivardi (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Structure: My biggest concern is that the division into the "historical overview" and "hadiths" sections puts events out of chronological order. I think it might be better if those two sections were combined, it could help readers follow the events more easily. What do you think?

I was actually going through a similar thought-process while working on the article. The reason I went for this format in the end was that I wanted to make a distinction between disputed and non-disputed histories. The "Historical overview" discusses events which are accepted by most, if not all parties. "Hadiths" however, covers incidents which are contested, with belief in them tending to be matters of faith as opposed to historical evidence. This results in parts which are completely contradictory to each other. I'm concerned that grouping the two sections together may just end up confusing the reader.

But I completely understand your thoughts about the chronology. As an alternative suggestion, I was thinking it might be better to just swap the placements of the two sections? This should result in a chronological layout, since the hadiths all occurred during Muhammad's lifetime while the overview section covers the events following his death. Plus, given how heavily "Historiography" discusses hadiths, it makes sense to have "Hadiths" be placed immediately after. What are your thoughts? Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)1

@Alivardi: Yes I think your suggestion makes sense, let's go with that. Cerebellum (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Done.[2] Alivardi (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Historiography: I recommend removing the phrase his biography is perpetuated by community memory for its guidance, I don't think you need it.

Done.[3] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• References: There's an issue with the Harvard citations, when I click on the wikilinks nothing happens. Is it the same for you? I'm not too familiar with the harv template so I'm not sure why, but Template:Harvard_citation#Wikilink_to_citation_does_not_work might help.

Fixed I think.[4] The annoying thing is that I've been using this format for over a year without realising I've been doing it wrong. Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Feast of Dhul Asheera: Reading this, I didn't realize until the last paragraph that this event occurred at the beginning of Muhammad's ministry. I recommend adding something towards the beginning to that effect, since the other events discussed occurred soon before his death.

Added an approximate year for the event.[5] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shia view: The last sentence is really long, consider revising.

Done.[6] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• External links: Some of the links, to witness-pioneer.org, don't seem to work. Also, there's some overlap between the further reading and external links sections, you might be able to combine those two. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Added alternative links where possible. Also combined the two sections as suggested.[7] Alivardi (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-RS additions

Albertatiran You have added following sources, none of which qualifies as an RS.

• Kamil fi tarikh
• Tarikh Dimashq
• Tafsir Tha'ili
• Kunzul A'imal
• al-Ghadir
• Musnad Ahmad
• Sahih Muslim
• Nahj al-Balagha
• Jami'a Ahadith
• Sahih Bukhari
• al-Msutadrak al-Sahihain
• Ismat ul-Anbiya
• Tanziyah al-Anbiya
• Tanziyah al-Anbiya ama Nasab...
• Khulasa Aqbat al-Anwar
• Sirat al-Halbiyah
• al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya
• al-Thawaiq al-Mahriqah
• Tarikh Khulafa
• Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran
• Qur'an (direct citation)
• Musnif Abi Shaiba
• Tafsir Tabari
• Mosooah Tafsir al-Mathur
• Tafisr al-Awsi
• Tasfir al-Mawrdi
• Al-Kabir al-Tabrani
• Sunan Tirmadhi
• Sunan Nisai
• Fadhail Sahaba
• Tarikh Baghdad
• Majma Zawaid
• Tafisr Abi al-Saud
• Al-Bab fi Uloom al-Kitab
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir
• Fath al-Kadir
• Tafisr al-Razi
• al-Amali
• Al-Kuni wal-Isma
• Sharah Madhhab ahle Sunna
• Al-Sunna
• Nazm al-Munathr
• Ma'rifat al-Asahab
• Asab al-Ghabah
• Tarikh Isbahan
• Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq
• Marat al-Jinan
• Sunan Ibn Maja
• Khasais Ali
• Sharah Mushkil al-Asar
• Al-Thaqat al Ibn Haban
• Jamia al-Usool
• Tarikh al-Madina
• Sharah Sahih Bukhari
• Sharah Muntahi al-Iradat al-Bahuti
• al-Mabsut al-Sarkhsi
• Bihar al-Anwar
• al-Akhbar al-Tawal
• Sirah Ailam al-Nabla

You should read the pages a I linked in the edit summary. Please revert your additions, and explain how your sources are RS. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

As for your assertion that "There doesn't seem to be any rule against using primary sources", see WP:Primary. I linked it in the edit summary but you clearly didn't read it. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything on these pages (WP:RS and WP:Primary) that prohibits reliable primary sources. With a couple of exceptions, the sources I used are primary Sunni sources that have been published and are accessible to all. For more information, please see https://shamela.ws/ These seem to pass the reliability criteria.

I also didn't "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material" in any of these sources. Instead, I referred to the page number where the exact claim is made in each source. (I can perhaps improve this part by adding direct quotes from the sources...) So it's not clear to me if you have an issue with using primary sources or the way I'm using them (or both) and what exactly your objection is.

I'd be grateful if you could clarify yourself. Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:Primary states primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Now tell me, which of the sources you have added are published by reputable publishers? A couple examples of primary sources published by reputable publishers would be Tabari's History published by SUNY Press, and Baladhuri's Futuh published by Columbia University Press. Also, when secondary sources exist, which they do in this case, primary sources published by reputable sources are also to avoided. The website you linked above is User Generated Content. For it see WP:RS. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

These books have Arab publishers. They are also widely accessible. The software is a central and searchable platform to use the books. I'd be happy to add the publisher's info for every book. We are not limited to Western publishers and to books with ISBN, or are we? I can also see your clear preference for secondary sources but there is no rule against using primary sources in conjunction with secondary sources. If I have missed that rule, I'd appreciate it if you could specify it. Thank you. Albertatiran (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reputable publishers means publishers with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", according to WP:RS. The sources you add are partisan sources expounding the views of religious groups. Hadiths are explicitly dismissed by historians as reliable sources of information. For their usage see MOS:ISLAM. Primary sources are to be used when secondary sources don't exist. The article already has over a dozen secondary RS. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is no rule to use Primary in conjunction with secondary, if the information in secondary is limited. Quoting WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." This is the case here. Secondary sources exist, cover the topic in through detail. The article passed GA review on the basis of the information in secondary RS.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regarding the definition of primary sources, a practical example I found might be that "The works of Al-Ghazali are secondary sources for an Asharite perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for the Al-Ghazali article." I think the only primary sources I have used are the Quran and the Nahj ul-Balagha. Aside from that, it seems pretty subjective whether there are enough modern sources on the topic or whether other sources are limited in the article, etc. To me, it's clear that the available modern content is not nearly enough, at least behind the paywall for academic papers. (If you'd like, I can give specific examples of why that is the case.) You also mentioned that "The sources you add are partisan sources expounding the views of religious groups." However, there is no rule against using biased sources. (Such a rule would have been next to impossible to impose in the context of religion.) In fact, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Albertatiran (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Another concrete suggestion I could find was that "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is precisely how I used my non-modern sources (even though they are not primary sources to begin with). If there is a specific place where I haven't followed this guideline, please bring that to my attention, and I'd be happy to revise the text. (I've already started working on improving this aspect of the new content.) I'd also be happy to add the publisher info for all books. I'd also be glad to complement my content with more modern sources. (I don't think I removed any of the modern sources in the previous version.) I'd also be happy to exercise more caution when citing the Quran and the Nahj ul-Balagha. Lastly, I'd be glad to add a footnote that the link to the popular Shamela software facilitates verification. (It provides searchable and free access to main Sunni texts.) This should address your concern about user-generated content.

To summarize, I don't think our preferences or our subjective understanding of these matters form a basis for purging my content, considering that I have not violated the existing guidelines. Instead, I hope you consider providing specific feedback about where the text needs improvement, in your opinion. Of course, you're also welcome to add counterviews anywhere in the article. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For Islam, the above sources are all primary. Ghazali didn't adhere to the Ash'arite position, whereas Islamic history, and topics like this, are of interest to all of the early documents. Even Tabari is a primary source. The issue here is not accessibility and verifiability (although important, they come after reliability). So it is not asked of you to add ISBN etc. These sources are written from religious point of view, lack historical analysis, objectivity, and neutrality. Primary sources can be used, I think I am saying this fourth or fifth time, for providing the straight position of religious groups when secondary sources are not available or do not discuss the positions of various groups. Which is far from the truth here. I think it is futile for me to argue with you further. Perhaps some admin will be in a better position to explain it to you. @El C and Al Ameer son: kindly look into this. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not have much more to add to what Ahmad has stated, this is an accurate assessment of the policy. Primary sources are to be used sparingly and ideally just to complement material supported by secondary sources. With a subject like this, the succession of Muhammad, there is more than enough secondary source material written in the past few decades by peer-reviewed scholars and published by reputable houses. We have very little to no need for the multitude of those above-referenced sources. Certainly, the recent, massive introduction of these sources is extreme overkill and is not acceptable. It only diminishes the encyclopedic quality of the article, which currently is a Good Article. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Al Ameer son What, precisely, is considered a secondary source here? What is, precisely, the definition of a reputable house? Do the publishing house or the journal have to be Western? Your answer would help me update my sources and revise my material. Lastly, what is the unbiased Wikipedia authority that can formally resolve conflicts like this one? I do feel that the minority view is misrepresented on this Wiki page and that the article reinforces and prefers the majority view. This can range from the subtle choice of words by the Wikipedia editors all the way to misrepresenting the minority view. Thank you. Albertatiran (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be the best choice. None of the above would be considered secondary sources. All of them are centuries old and many, if not most, are religious works. You will not be able to use hadith compilations and the Quran and interpretive works (tafsirs) of these as a source here, just as you could not use the Torah or the Gospels. If you want to cite Ibn Asakir, Ibn Athir, Baladhuri, etc. it should be with great care and ideally only to fill small gaps left by the secondary sources. Journals and publishing houses certainly do not need to be Western. And the publisher being reputable is a plus, not a requirement. My point was we have so many modern, reliable secondary sources that there is no justification or need for the widespread, direct citing of original sources from many centuries ago. Their sparse use, if any, ought only to be complimentary. Al Ameer (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Thanks for the info.