Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changes to the Sunnah made by the Rashidun

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 15:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver created this article as part of his new strategy -- instead of facing community criticism of his changes to the "established" Islamic articles, he's just going to write his own Shi'a POV articles and then link them to the main articles.

This article can't be kept because even the TITLE is a Shi'a indictment of the first three caliphs -- they say that the first three caliphs made law and changed custom, whereas the community should have adhered strictly to the sunnah, or custom of the time of Muhammad. There is no way that a traditional Sunni Muslim can argue that any changes were OK -- the Sunni Muslim is going to have to deny any changes whatsoever. At which point the article just becomes a catalogue of "did" and "did not".

There is a secular, academic argument to be made about the extent of the authority ceded to the first caliphs -- best exemplified in Crone's book, God's Caliph -- but it should be made at Caliph or Sharia or possibly Ulema. Not in this abortion of an article. Zora 09:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunnis believe that the words and deeds of the Prophet, who is, according to the Quran (XXX, 21), the uswah hasahah (noble paradigm), must be followed in every walk of life, as they were followed by his sahabah (companions), tabi'un (followers of the companions), and atba' al-tabi'in (followers of the followers of the companions). "It is incumbent upon you," said the Prophet, "to follow my Sunnah AND the sunnah of the righteous caliphs (al-khulafa' al-rashidun) (ref)

Why do you think Ali did not get choosen as the second Khalif?

After such consultation, Abdur Rahman formed the impression that the majority of the people favored the election of Othman. Contacting the two candidates separately he put to them the question whether they would follow in the footsteps of the previous Caliphs. Ali said that he would do so as far as possible subject to his best judgment in the light of the Quran and Sunnah. Othman replied to the question in the affirmative without any reservation. Thereupon Abdur Rahman gave his verdict in favor of Othman who was acclaimed as the Caliph, and the people ordered the oath of allegiance to him. (ref)

Notice the Sunni twist to it. Ali refused to Follow Umar's changes, hence Uthman was selected.

Zora, you really know how to annoy me. Why did you start a vote for deletion when you only meant to change the name of the article?

All Sunnis that are going to vote, could you also include in your vote you view on what the Sunni schol says about the issue, Did Umar change anything in the Sunnah, Are Sunnis expected to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (sa) AND the Sunnah of the four caliphs?

Do Sunnis regard triple talaq permisible, yes or no?

--Striver 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep --Striver 23:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The title does need changing but there is nothing wrong with the article.--Ya Ali 19:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is ridiculous. It doesn't even explain how many of the items are related to the sunna to begin with (is it sunna to exile Marwan ibn al-Hakam, or to not exile Abu Dharr Ghifari?) It also makes incorrect claims about Sunni belief (for instance, with remarkable chutzpah, it claims that "Umar took the solitary prayer of the month of ramadhan and changed it to congretional] prayer. (Muslim, Bukhari)" when just 3 hadith down from the Muslim citation (by Abu Hurairah) is a hadith via Aisha confirming that congregational prayer was indeed practiced in Ramadan by the Prophet. I suppose it could be NPOVed, but given that the topic is scarcely encyclopedic to begin with, why bother? Delete. - Mustafaa 00:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - somewhat NPOVed now, but still unencyclopedic (and POV magnet.) Possibly it could, to some extent, be merged to sunnah. - Mustafaa 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Mustafaa. JamesBurns 08:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If Zora thinks it is just "two shias insisting that Wikipedia be their soapbox", I challenge her to bring in any other Shia that would be fundamentally opposed to Striver and YaAli. Why is it OK for "the establishment" to say Shi'as deviated? Soapboxes should not be discriminatory. keep.--Zereshk 22:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone like you should be allowed to even edit Wikipedia considering your extremely aggressive and uncivilized behavior as best exemplified in Ray, Iran article (where you aggressively disallowed another contributor's correct information into the article, and even his explanation in the discussion area wasn't enough for you) and in Talk:Afghanistan where you have behave dishonorably beyond belief. --Paul Chiu

Fortunately, that decision is not yours to make. At least Zora has the integrity not to personally attack other editors. I'm just waiting for you to make that slip and attack me with a racial insult one more time so that I can have your IP address blocked for good.--Zereshk 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with sunnah. Zora, I feel you need to accept that articles can include religious POVs as well as "academic" ones. So long as those POVs are sourced and are not the personal opinion of contributors, there's no problem with that. Grace Note 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't want to have the Shi'a view represented. I want it represented WELL, and readably. I have incurred the anger of the three Shi'a working on Wikipedia (Striver, Zereshk, and Ya Ali) by objecting to arguments that consist mainly of hadith dumps, copyvios, and misspellings. For an example of an Islamic-related article that I rewrote recently, trying to do justice to the Shi'a view, see Fatima Zahra. Zora 05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coment

• To exile Marwan ibn al-Hakam is Sunnah, simply because Muhammad (as) did it. But if you dont agree, we can move it down to the shia view. And of cource, in shia view, its Sunnah to not exile Abu Dharr, Muhammad (as) called him the most truthfull man betwen heaven and earth!

• About the solitary prayer, that is why its under Shia view and not Sunni view. We Shia belive that it is not Sunnah, and Ali dispersed those who did it during his Caliphat. As goes for Muslim, whe dont consider all of it as Authentic.

There is no pov problem, except for maybe Marwan. Ill toss down Marwan to the Shia view. Is there any more POV issues left after that?

And by the whay, POV is not solved by deleting the whole article, its solved by NPOVing or in worst case, deleting. I know that Sunni dont like to see that list. But not liking the list does not warant a deletion.

--Striver 00:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we've got here is two Shi'a insisting that Wikipedia be their soapbox, that they get to have articles devoted to their "personalistic" view of history, in which everything is reduced to piety and personality. The good pious Muslims followed Ali, and were persecuted for it; the bad worldly Muslims followed the Sunni path. Anyone who did not choose Ali was a bad person, which is to be shown by oral traditions (possibly folktales or bazaar gossip) collected hundreds of years later, showing the Sunni leaders as monsters of depravity and hatred. Really -- this is history as comic book material. It IS possible to present history from a Shi'a viewpoint without turning it all into personalities. I was quite impressed with Reza Aslan's 2005 book No God But God, which is based on extensive academic research, and shows the early Muslims as making choices based on conflicting interpretations of Islam, views of how the political process was to be managed, etc. Aslan presents a Shi'a POV without turning it into hagiography/demonology.

The insistence on stuffing this material into a frame which ASSUMES that innovation is bad is also inherently POV. This is the POV of current traditionalist Islam, of "fundamentalis", of Wahabi, Salafi, and Islamist Muslims -- but it is not the POV of non-Muslims, or of Muslim liberals and reformers. Part of the material in the article could go into the Shi'a Islam article, as describing Shi'a belief, and part of it could go into Caliph, discussing early Muslim views of the authority of the caliph.

Crone makes a good argument that current-day Muslims fail to fully understand the fluid situation in the early days of the Islamic empire, in which the caliphs believed themselves to be entitled to deliver legal judgements and set precedents just as Muhammad had -- because they were his successors, and wielded his authority. Crone also points to the tremendous challenges faced by the new Islamic empire, in dealing with situations that were completely outside anything faced by Muhammad and raised questions not easily or quickly answered. The response, as many secular, academic scholars have observed, was to grant the early caliphs a great deal of legal authority, and also to adopt customary Byzantine and Sassanid law.

Crone is not the ultimate authority, and there are many academic historians who would disagree with her, but there is a dimension of this argument of which Striver and Ya Ali seem to be unaware. The article is basically a traditionalist Shi'a indictment of the first three caliphs. It deserves to be presented in Wikipedia, but in context, and in articles where alternate POVs can be presented. Zora 23:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you it, go ahead and add all that to the article. But fact stands: Shia and Sunni agree that Umar reinstituded Triple talaq, fact stands: Shia belive he banned Nikah Mut'ah. Fact stands: That belife have the right to be represented. And since they are related, in a list.

You want to bring a socio-thoelogical-political-Crone-Zora aspect to it: Be my guest. But the list stands.

--Striver 23:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coment actually, i now also oppose to change the name of the article. SeeTalk:Changes to the Sunnah made by the Rashidun, it proves that Umar was acting beliving that he was in charge of the Sunnah. So the name of the article is accurate.

--Striver 02:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.