View source for User:Striver/strivers version

Hi and peace everyone!


I call my self "Striver" and have "82.182.140.199" as IP.



I regard Ali as [[muhammad]]'s choosen succesor and his most beloved friend.

I also regard [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] as a egoistic, violent, uneducated and uninteligent usurper. I try to make the resons i came to those conclusions to be represented in Wikipedia. Not claim them as facts, just have them represented.


As you can see, i usualy dont spell correctly, niether is my gramma very good. English is not my native language, but i try me best.


Im a very active editor. I have dedicated myself on some issues, in this order:

#make the shia pov represented in WP
#make the muslim pov represented in WP
#have a article for most events and personalities in WP



Number one has putten me in conflict with some co-editors. The same is true for number two. But what the heck, this is WP, revert war ar a part of it. for example:



:'''''Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs


:Should this substance be called '''gasoline''' or '''petrol'''? See the talk page for a debate about the total number of English speakers in the world, the relative utility of search engines and claims that UK-wikipedians are set to re-establish the British empire by moving pages to British spellings and that Americans who want "gasoline" are being their usual nationalistic/imperialistic selves. This seems to have been resolved to a consensus on Gasoline, but as of 15 June 2005, there are still rumblings of conflict... 


:'''''Main Page


:''What April Fool's jokes should be mentioned on the Main Page, if any? This protected page, editable only by admins, normally goes unedited for days—all content is included from templates, so there is no need to edit the Main Page directly. On April 1, 2005, it racks up more than 60 revisions of varying seriousness before finally being reverted to a days-old version. This does not even include all revisions of the templates the Main Page includes.


:'''''Cat 


:''34 reverts in just over an hour. The pressing issues: Should one unremarkable photo be included? Is the cat depicted really smiling? Both users were blocked for 30 seconds—"a suitably lame block for a remarkably lame edit war"—after protection of the page had halted the reverts. One user resumed after protection was lifted the next day, leading to further 12 reverts over the same photograph. Another page protection put a stop to the lameness.




([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever ref])



For the third of those points, i have had peace of mind.


Manny of the articles that are linkt to in [[Shia ranking of the Sahaba]] are made by me.

I also made almost everything in [[Battle of Badr]], exept for the box and introduction.

and i did all of this [[Family tree of Muhammad ibn Abdallah]] and the same for other [[sahaba]]



Ok for now, it seems like i made [[User:Zora|Zora]] and [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] uppset.


They made a "[[Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver]]"


Here i will go through what they accuse me of.



== unsourced/unsourceable ==

They wrote in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18460989 here]:


'''''Striver frequently places unsourced/unsourceable material in articles''' as though this material were factual. 


=== I do source ===


I do not "frequently places unsourced/unsourceable" That is evident for enyone that follows my editions. Actualy, i will claim that '''''i am among the one doing the most sourcing''''', most of my claims are either directly linkt to the source in on of the four following ways:


 *(ref)
 *(ref 1,2,3)
 *something  said [http://www.dösfjghdsgf.com in random] book
 *Add a link to the "External link" section 


Anytime you see one of the first two, you can asume its me that made it. And they are plenty of them in the Islamic articles. Here are som examples: 


*2005, January, 27 : added book ref ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha&diff=9715293&oldid=9712462 ref])
*2005,January, 27 : added 18 links to source.  ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha&diff=9712222&oldid=9710077 ref])
*2005, July 5 : a total of 40 (!) sourcing external links are made by me ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umar_ibn_al-Khattab&oldid=18221162 ref]]
*2005, July, 8 : 11 of the external links are done my me ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muawiyah_I&oldid=18427227])
*2005, July, 9 : Gave 30 (!) external links to validate a claim ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mustafaa&oldid=18459975#Better_Proof ref])

and so on... If you take a closer look, you will see that in the articles i have putet much time on, im the one doing 90% of the external link sourcing.



Now, it could be argued that the above five examples are some of the few of my hundred articles that are sourced and that the rest are poorly or not sources.


That is not true either. 


For every article i have edited, that does not contain a link to a external source (added by me), i can bring 9 other articles that do have a external source added by me. 

I feel compeled to say 20, but i'll settle to say 9.

===My conclusion ===


'''The statement ''"Striver frequently places unsourced/unsourceable"'' is a not factual, its false, its a baseles lie.'''





Now, whether the sources are valid or not, that is another question.
If you do not agree with my conclusion, please feel free to write in my talk page :)

== as though this material were factual ==



They wrote in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18460989 here]:

''Striver frequently places unsourced/unsourceable material in articles '''as though this material were factual'''. 

=== undisputed events ===


Now, this is a tricky one!

How does one proove that a historical statement is factual? 

Its very hard to be sure about it. For example, whe can say that the pyramid existed for in the year 600 ce, but how about "Muawiya poisoned Hasan ibn Ali" in the year 600 ce? 

My gues is that its very hard, if not impossible to know for ''sure, sure, sure'', in the same way that some building existed. 

So, what to do? 

The problem is even wider than  that. You see, everything we know about the early Muslims life is trough hadithes. Yes, we do have [[sira]] and so, but even those are based on hadithes, only diffrens being that unlike [[Sahi Bukhari]], somoe have not bothered to say their chain of narration in [[sira]].

So what to do? It could be all dissmised as non-sens, but then again, why not delet the [[muhammad]] article.


This is my aproach: I see what the experts say. I let the experts make the browsing and sifting of the [[hadith]] and [[sira]], and i'll report their conclusion.


If one website that seems somewhat educated makes a claim, and it is not disputed, ill put it in the article as a fact.


Exaple:

*[[Muhammad]] existed. 
*[[Aisha]] was married to [[Muhammad]]
*[[Umar ibn al-Khattab]]] was the second Caliph.


Since nobody disputes those claims, i insert them in the article as facts. So far, all is fine, no problem.

=== disputed events ===

Sometimes, a claim is diputed. For example:


*[[Muawiya]] poisoned [[Hasan ibn Ali]]

[http://syd.dubaijamaat.com/imam_hassan.htm This site] reards it as true:

:''To gain certainty that the Khilafat will remain in his house hold, Muawiya hatched a plot to kill Imam Hassan (A.S). To accomplish his devilish plan, Muawiya '''poisoned the son of Hazrat Zahra [hasan] (SA) on four occasions'''.


:''On the fourth occasion, '''he made Imam Hassan (A.S) drink poison and was effective in the Shahadat of Imam Hassan''' (A.S).




[http://www.ansar.org/english/hasan.htm This site] regards it as false.

:''In light of the above we fully endorse the statement by Ibn Kathir that '''none of these reports is authentic'''. We hope that this demonstration— of how the words of a bereaved woman, a report by unknown reporters, and a forgery by a known liar came to be regarded as factual history— will bring to light the need of critically examining historical sources before levelling accusations against anybody.





Actualy, the webb is filled with referens to that Muawiya poisoned Hasan (sa) ([http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=muawiya+poisoned+hasan&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta= ref])


So what to do? Do i give that majority of the sites precedens and say the majority is factual?

I simply contended that "'''''Shia claim''' that Mu'awiyah later poisoned Hasan through his wife.''" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muawiyah_I&oldid=18427227#Hasan_ibn_Ali ref]).


=== Unpopular undisputed events ===

Ok, so what more?

Well, regarding som topics, i have seen claims in sites that have never been refuted. For example:

* Umar frobade the use of [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/003.smt.html#003.0718 tayammum], even though its [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/003.smt.html#003.0716 in the Quran] and he was reminded of it by Ammar ibn Yasir. 


Well, thats a totaly undipiuted claim. But of course, sunnis dont like to see that their "wise" and "respectable" "Caliph" made laws and regulations that whent strait against the Quran, even thogh reminded. 

Does the disliking of the sunni make that this undisputed claim should not be presented as a fact?

No, of course not. Its in their most authentic source, according to sunni faith, it would be heretical to dispute its factuality! Shias dont dispute it either, we use it as an evidence to prove Umar's incopetense. So according to the "undiputed facts" section, i insert it as a fact, as in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shia_view_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khattab&action=edit&section=8 this edition]. As you can imaging, sunnis dont like it.

Is it relevant? Well, if Bill Clinton makes a misstake, then it might not be a big deal. But when the supposed succesor to God's messanger enforces a verdict that contradicts the Quran, well, then its worth reporting. Then its relevant.

Actually, you take [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khattab another look], you will se that i inserted it in the "shia view" section, when it should be in the "general view" section. Still, the sunnis didnt like it.


Now back to the issue, does it matter where i find one "Unpopular undisputed event" ? 

I say no. As long as its undiputed, it goes as fact. As said earlier, otherwise we can just as well stop claiming [[Muhammad]]'s existence as factual

Here is as example of a "Unpopular undisputed event" that i found i a Shia site:

*''Muawiya also poisoned [[Abdul Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid]] through his physician [[Ibn Athaal]] because the [http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap2.php people of Syria liked him], thus becoming a threat for [[Yazid I|Yazid]] becoming his succesor.

Now, as goes for this event, i have never found it to be disputed. therfour i added it to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muawiyah_I&oldid=18427168 article] according to above said principle.

Now, guees what? Sunni's dont like to see that Muawiya poisoned [[Khalid ibn al-Walid]]'s son.

Do they dipute it? Not what i have seen. 

Do they say that he was killed in a diffrent manner? Not what i have seen. 

Do they say that he did not die then because he participiated in a later event? Not what i have seen. 



But that didnt hinder them to remove it.

[[User:Mustafaa]] is a admin. I have nothing but good to say about him. Hi has been polite and much more objective than any other the user's that started this [[Smear campaign]] against me. 

I consider [[User:Mustafaa]] as my dear brother in Islam and humanity.


as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muawiyah_I&diff=18429997&oldid=18427227 her],  [[User:Mustafaa]] deleted that part from the article. Here is his motivation:

*''every one of these sources is specifically Shia polemic against Sunnis. You can't state them as if they were uncontroversial facts; indeed, many are quite obviously false.


Now, it is true that they are "Shia polemic against Sunnis". Does that matter? No.

Something can not be deleted simply because a group use it as polemic against another group. that is self evident.

If something is to be detet, it must be either disputed, denied or sourceless.


What i preseted had ha source and is not disputed or denied anywere i have seen. 

The question remains, if he was not killed by Muawiya, when did he died?


The truth is that Muawiya is a serial killer. Its nearly imossible to refute all people that he killed. For example, in the "muawiya poisoned Hasan" part, the part that i agreed to say it was a shia claim, the refutation to it is not in the form of not acceptiong the event due to some other event. No, it was disputed to due to that they did not like the narrators - They did not have a alternativ theory. But its fine.

But regarding to the poisionning of Khalids son,  my dear brother Mustafaa did not present a alternativ event, nor did he present a source that qeuestions its autenticity. He just deled it since its his pov that they are "indeed, many are quite obviously false" 


If that is the  case, i invite him to bring a source that says so, and we shall change it from a factual claim to a disputed event. But personal objetion is [[POV]], and personal argumentations is [[original research]]. Either a link to a third party, or it stands as a fact.


I Hope my dear brother [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] is not offended.


The reason i choose him as an example is that i have a good and respectfull relations with him and whan to show that this problem exist even then.

=== My conclusion ===


'''The statement "''...as though this material were factual.''" is a not factual, its false, its a baseles lie.'''


I never bring a claim and presented as facts if its disputed, to my knowledge.


If it is disputed in a proper off-site article, i wont claim it as a fact. I will say that "In Shia view..."


However, if the claim is not disputed, i claim it to be a fact.


Of course, one group not LIKING the event is totaly irrelevant. If they officialy dispute its accuracy in a off-site and profesional article like [http://www.answering-ansar.org|answering-ansar] , then thats valid. Individuals [[POV]] disputing my sourced materials accuracy is [[original research]] and does not belong in Wikipedia.


The material being used as polemic by one group is irrelevant for Wikipeidia. 

It does not matter if some group uses a claim in polemics or not.  


If you do not agree with my conclusion, please feel free to write in my talk page :)



== disrupts every page ==

They wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18460989 here]:


*'''''He disrupts, as near as I can tell, every page in which he participates'''''. 



=== Defining "disrupt" ===


Well, that is not even a Wikipedia term.

Wikipedia does have [[Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism]]. However, i did'nt see how that applies to me. 


Im have been a VERY active user lately. Maybe among the top 3%.


I have a sett agenda. I will not tolerate Shia POV representation to be deletet from Wikipedia.

And i will not tolerate undisputed Muslim belifes to be deleted. Among those is that Somebody was born in the Ka'ba and that Muslims belive there was more than 100 000 companions. For some strange reason, [[User:Zora]] does not wants that to be represented in Wikipedia. She feels that i have no right to have undisputed Muslim belifes to be represented. I reject that and revert her delitions most adamanty. She labels me as "disruptive". I see her labeling me as a [[Smear campaign]].
 


=== My conclusion ===


'''The statement "'''''He disrupts, as near as I can tell, every page in which he participates'''''" is simply [[POV]] in a [[Smear campaign]].'''



If you do not agree with my conclusion, please feel free to write in my talk page :)



== strongly sectarian bias ==

They wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18460989 here]:

*Many of his edits and comments and even his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr&diff=17978616&oldid=17962108| edit summaries] have '''a strongly sectarian bias'''



=== Whats wrong with bias? ===


Seriously?


I started my whole presentation by introducing myself as somebody that does not like Umar.


That is my right. Im entiteled to it. Im am also entiteled to only make editions that agree with my "bias". I am not required to contribute to [[Nazi view on Jews]], and nither am i required to contribute to [[Sunni arguments for Abu Bakrs greateness]]. Yes, i do have the right to only aim to make the Shia point of view represented.



Acctaully, the truth is that Brandon is just as biased as me. The only diffrens is that his point of view is already represented, and therfor he does not need to activly expres his bias. Me, on the contrary, see a great lack of Shia representation on Wikipedia and therfour have lots of editions to to so that my bias is represented.


The only thing that Brandon can hold against me is that he i demand Shia POV to be represented. 

And im entitled to it, just as he is entitled to have the Sunni POV represented.


With this i want to establish my rights. 

I have the right to:


#''only contribute to articles i want
#''only controbute to the part of the articles i want
#''introduce only things that i agree on
#''only represent my pont of view


For example, i am not required to state the belife of every other group that exist just because i state the belife of my group.


It would be nice of me to do it, but im NOT required. 


Just in the same way that Sunni never bother to report the Shia view and only report the Sunni view.


I reapet it: ''Sunnis are equally bias'ed as Shia's, Brandon is equally biased as me. '''And its ok!'''''


It is only a problem if whe start to edit to include POV as a truth. Thats is not ok.

=== I do represent other views as well ===


Now, as it happens, Brandon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18468737 wrote here]:

:''Many of his edits and comments and even his [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr&diff=17978616&oldid=17962108| edit summaries]] have a strongly sectarian bias


He refers to me writing:

:''"Now, lets see the day a sunni does a similar thing..."


So, what did i mean?

I you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr&diff=17978616&oldid=17962108| look closely] you will notice that in that edition i made the following two changes:

*Added a list of captives that [[Abu Bakr]] was nice enogh to set free from slavery.
*Added his first speech.

As you see, both parts are beneficial for the Sunni POV. 

It portrays [[Abu Bakr]] in a good manner. As you know, Shias belive that Abu Bakr is going to hell. For sure. And we also belive that the Sunni are mistaken to hold him in a high esteem. Notheless, i added those beneficial editions to the article. 

Why did i do that? Because it is the truth. I am convinced that Abu Bakr freed those people, and even though i think he is going to hell, he should get credit for the good deed he did.


My comment is very accurate: 

:''"Now, lets see the day a sunni does a similar thing..."


It is extreamly rare to se a sunni make a claim that is against their general POV and is in favor of the Shia general POV. Trust me, i am NOT exaggerating. I really know that it sound bad, but its  a fact of my life. I have not seen a sunni admit that Ali opposed Umar and Abu Bakr, even thuogh their most authentic books claims so. 


:''"Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us" ([http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817 ref])

Except for once.


It was a harsh statement, i agree. But it was not inaccurate, nor false.



Another example of me representing the Sunni view is found in the [[bilal]] article. I practicly wrote the whole article myself. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilal_ibn_Ribah&action=history&offset=0&limit=500 ref])

Now, is that article biased shia POV in you opininon? Remeber, no sunni have bothered to chek i, so i could have feasted in anti-Sunni POV statements. But i did not.

Take a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilal_ibn_Ribah&oldid=18472154#Sunni_view look at this], i even added a Sunni view part!


As i will show below, Brandon cant even stand to see shia pov in a part of the article dedicated to expres Shia pov.

=== My conclusion ===


'''The statement "''Many of his edits and comments and even his edit summaries have a strongly sectarian bias''" is non-sens. Its true, but its still non-sens. Everybody is guilty of the same "crime" Truth is, im less sectarian biased than my accuser.'''


[[smear campaign]]


My comment on the edit summaries was harsh. I agree. But it is not false.




If you do not agree with my conclusion, please feel free to write in my talk page :)


== how best to achieve NPOV  ==


Now, as it happens, Brandon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comments/Striver&oldid=18468737 wrote here]:


:''Many of his edits and comments and even his [edit summaries] have a strongly sectarian bias, '''and the persistent chaos he has brought to discussions of how best to achieve NPOV in articles related to Islam have been notable (and exhausting). See, for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaba&diff=14025836&oldid=14025809]''' 


=== persistent chaos ===


As for the "persistent chaos" i have two words: [[smear campaign]]



=== NPOV  ===


As for NPOV, i will refer to a talk i had with the admin [[user:Mustafaa]]. It was regarding if "Both Shia and Sunni agree on that someone was was born inside the Kaba" was true. He said:


:'' If this statement is correct, you should be able to back it up with authoritative sources and then put it in. If it is merely folklore, then it probably doesn't belong here anyway. By "source" I mean an actual scholar's work. A quote from Sahih Bukhari or Nahjh-ul-Balagha, for example, '''would do nicely'''; a '''couple of websites don't prove anything'''. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC) 


As for proving it from a actual scholar, we did not find anny. But after both of us having made som research, he concluded:

:'''''As regards Shia, I'm convinced'''; I did a search in Arabic as well, which found '''many Shia sites''' (and only Shia sites) making this claim. As regards Sunnis, I am definitely not convinced. Witness-pioneer.org is a broken site, and it's not clear what ideology it reflects or what sources it's based on. Madeena.s5.com is even worse, illiterate and unprofessional. Hakim and Ibn Sabbagh I have already addressed

He added this to the Ali article:

:''Shias believe he was, uniquely, born inside the [[Kaaba]].

([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib&diff=18433471&oldid=18433447 ref])


this results in a principles:

#First, we go to the authorative sources to establish something
#Second, if it can not be found, whe go to online sites. If ther is a undisputed consensus, it is accpeted.



Both me and my sunni brother Mustafaa agree on this: authorative sources have precedens over websites.


When i came to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&oldid=14025986 old Sahaba] article, it claimed:


:''Sahaba are different from Ahlul Bayt (translated as "People of the House") because Sahaba are companions, '''while Ahlul Bayt are the wives of Prophet Muhammed''' and his grandchildren through his daughter Fatima (who married Ali, the Prophet's cousin).


Now, as Mustafaa hade already pointed out, Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim override anything found in anny Sunni site. However, some sunnis keep claiming "Ahlul Bayt are the wives of Prophet", wich makes me furious - they know its not true, they do it only to degrade the real [[Ahl ul-Bayt]]!


In the second most authorative Sunni Hadith collection, Sahi Muslim, this can be found:

:''Who are amongst the Ahl ul-Bayt? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst his Ahl ul-Bayt? Thereupon he said: '''No, by Allah''', a woman lives with a man for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the Ahl ul-Bayt include his ownself and his kith and kin and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

([http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5923 ref])

You see why i got angry? Some sunnis go as far as say that the hadith narrator lied when he '''sweared to Gods''' that wives are not included. That would also make Sahi Muslim not 100% authentical as they claim.


I have see sunnis do that a lot of times. For example, [http://www.ansar.org/english/ahlbayt.htm  ansar.org] claims:

:''it is cleared that the household of Prophet Muhammad are his wives, the family of Ali (Hasan, Hussain, and Fatima), the family of Aqeel, the family of Abbas, and the family of Jaffar.


Now, as this lyng site has no dignity at all, the site further quotes this hadiths:


:'' Zayd who narrated Hadeeth Al-Thiqalyn says: “his wives are among his household, '''but his household are those who charity is forbidden upon them'''.” One asked: “and who are they?” Zayd answered that they were the household of Ali, household of '''Aqeel''', household of '''Jaffar''', and household of '''Abbas'''. The first person asked again: “Upon all of them charity is forbidden?” and Zayd answered by a yes”

And concludes: 

:''it is cleared that the household of Prophet Muhammad are his wives, the family of Ali (Hasan, Hussain, and Fatima), the family of '''Aqeel''', the family of '''Abbas''', and the family of '''Jaffar''.


Now, guees where they found that hadith? From the same chapter where he sweared to GOD they are not a part of Ahl ul-Bayt, only three hadithes apart! look one is number   [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5920 5920] and the other is number [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5923 5923] !

:'''''No, by Allah'''

Do you see how thees lyng decievers knew that they are not a part of Ahl ul-bayt, but anyhow made a whole article about it? In doing so they must discredit Sahi Muslim and also claim the [[sahaba]] that narrated the hadith to be a liar for swearing by God. And they still use his hadith as a argument in their article! In my view those who wrote [[http://www.ansar.org/english/ahlbayt.htm the article] are totally unscrupulous in their aim to oppose everything Shia stand for.


Ok, so now you know why i got so angry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaba&diff=14025836&oldid=14025809 that i wrote]:


:'' ==Angry :@ ==

:''God dammit,why do sunnis keep sayin that the wives of the prophet are included in Ahl ul-Bayt when your most authentic book CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY sais THEY ARE NOT?!?!?!


Oh, by the way, in case you think this is a trivial issue, its because you are not well versed in the Muslim belif. No offense meant.


So, what did i do? I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahlul_Bayt&oldid=18430727 wrote it down]. What did Zora do? She [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahlul_Bayt&action=history started a revert war] because i wanted to represent what the second most authorative Sunni collection has to say about it.

Man, i dont get it, sometimes i need to teach sunnis muslims what Sunni Islam teaches... its sad..


As Mustafaa said, you go to the authorative books first, not to random websites. Specialy when [http://www.ansar.org they] lie.

*sad face*


If you want to see more about censuring Shia, you can take a look att Zora refusing me to write that  shias belive that Ali was born in the Ka'ba.



Her is a bit more about it:

:''I don't know how wikipedia can consider the arguments from small cults like the shia. Its like letting Mormons write something about Catholicism or a Christan to write about Muhammad. Wikipedia should know shia are very small cult that have very '''different''' beliefs than '''the''' muslim. They don't have any significant number to clime representing islam. 90% of shia are Iranians who historically have hatred for Arabs and as such they cannot be neutral about islam which originated from arab land. If wikipedia persist on letting small sects who are like the Mormons to write about islam '''we the muslims''' will boycott wikipedia. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaba&oldid=18437975#wikipedia ref])


See? People cant even stand that shia pov is expresed in Wikipedia.

It is noteworthy to mention that the reson the above said threat to boycot wikipedia came after i reported shia pov in the "shia view" section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&oldid=18147075 ref]). Such persecution and censure of belife is hard to macht.




=== My conclusion ===


'''The statement "''and the persistent chaos he has brought...''" is a part of the [[smear campaign]]


'''The statement  "...to discussions of how best to achieve NPOV in articles related to Islam have been notable (and exhausting). See, for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASahaba&diff=14025836&oldid=14025809]''' " is true. I hade to write notable AND exhaustingly long talk page answears.

For example this one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaba&oldid=18437975#100.2C000_or_.22tens_of_thousands.22.3F] 


Its '''''totaly incredible''''' that after all that evidence, they stille refuse to add:


:''There is broad agreement among Muslims that there were, under this definition, more than 100,000 Sahaba.
 

Something that brandon wrote! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=18336321&oldid=18336234], you know the guy that started the [[smear campaign]]?




If you do not agree with my conclusion, please feel free to write in my talk page :)









<nowiki>{{</nowiki>inuse}}