Talk:The Twelve Imams/Archive 1

Archive 1

I recorded the spoken version of this article a while back

If anyone can give any future pointers for my recordings and pronunciation I would appreciate it. And I am sorry I talk like a surfer. --Enzuru 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If I can get it to work I will... don't worry, I sound like someone crossed a Canadian with a speed freak. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Depiction

Seeing that other depictions of the Imams are nowhere to be found on the internet, or at least on renowned sites or those of high religious authorities, it is clear that their depiction is seen by the overwhelming majority as unacceptable and these depictions, which are particularly ugly and unrepresentative, are not considered encyclopedic and should not be added here because 1. Depiction of the Imams, though perhaps permissible by some religious authorities, is largely avoided and 2. These depictions in particular are taken from a blog, and have not achieved any kind of recognition as even remotely representative or appropriate. En Ne talk 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive and against consensus above. Given your past history with me, I will not revert them but I reckon someone else will. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this issue is not under discussion, it has been finalized for various reasons. Please see those discussions. Second, the Alevi movement is part of of the Shi'a movement. Third, non-Ithna'Ashari Muslims such as the Nizari Ismaili use pictures freely, please see [1]. Fourth, there is no evidence of controversy considering all major sources of emulation allow it. Finally, this issue has been discussed and these points as well as others have been made. We will not tolerate this, period. Please see those discussions, instead of bringing up the same points over and over and over. I can play this game forever. --Enzuru 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And I can't resist. Sixthly, this is an encyclopedia not a religious organization, Wikipedia does not condone censorship and will put up pictures of the Prophet (AS) if it needs do. Seventhly, even if these pictures were not allowed by most Ithna'Ashari and Ismaili (they are allowed by the majority of them, and are common in Ismaili places and more recently Ithna'Ashari places), Alevi, even if you don't consider them Shi'a, believe these 12 individuals are their imams too, so at least Alevi can put up pictures of them for this article, since they believe in the same individuals. Your argument is weak, the issue is decided. That ends that, period. --Enzuru 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about censorship or not, it's whether it is simply TRUE or not.

All depictions of Jesus are not true, should we take every picture of Jesus off Wikipedia? According to the Eastern Orthodox depictions of him are even holy! --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These "modern day depictions" are misleading and incorrect because first there are literally hundreds of different depictions in the extremist and ghulaat Pakistani and Indian Shi'i communities (which one cannot really call Shi'i as they are so extremist) and at the same time depictions in their very essence are incorrect because there are no clear sources as to what the Imams looked like.

Actually, there are around three different kinds of depictions, Turkish, Iranian, and South Asian. --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No verifiable and sahih or even hasan source can be found except for one which states that Imam Hassan r.a. looked like the Prophet s. So it's not about censorship, it's about accuracy. You are misleading the public.

I am pretty sure in Shi'a books we have sahih hadith about how many of them looked. Either way, according to most Shi'a sources of authority, we are allowed to have depictions. --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, for those that think these images are allowed, in Iran, Iraq and Azerbaijan all of which I visited this past summer I saw posters depicting these fallacies being torn up by the police.

Why would they be torn up if almost all marja allow them? That is a ridiculous statement. And oh, I don't see them being torn up here, in you know, Karbala the third holiest city in Shi'a Islam... --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Arbaeen.JPG

This is Karbala, these are not South Asians. Sorry.

Simply because the South Asian extremists have deviated and continue this nonsense doesn't give it a place on Wikipedia as a representation of the entire Shi'i world.

Why are you so utterly racist against South Asians? Did you meet a Shi'a who blamed everything on South Asians? First off, the extremists (Malaangs) you speak of are limited to ethnic groups such as Punjabis, Seraikis, and Sindhis. Groups such as Muhajir who came from India are overwhelmingly Usuli, and in fact, in India Usulism is overwhelmingly infuential. You have created a monster out of nothing. And also, almost all the depictions we have on Wikipedia are Turkish depictions, not South Asian. You need to do research, kid. --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And lastly to the user who claimed "consensus", what are you talking about? This is wikipedia, look through the articles, there's a maximum of five or six authors penning most of the major articles. There's no consensus here, it's just the luck of the draw as to which people have access to the internet and good enough English. Unfortunately that seems to be the heretical South Asian population.Umar99 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, you are horribly racist, and racism is against Islam. You imply that all or almost all South Asian Shi'a are extremist, without having any statistics or facts to back anything up. Second, do we need to take a vote on the entire Shi'a population to see if we should have pictures? And FYI? I am a Pashtun from Afghanistan (we did settle in Pakistan for a while), and the other major Shi'a editor is a Persian from Iran. We had a third person before, but I don't know where they were from. The person who posts underneath me, Emily, is white. Where are all the South Asians? No where, sorry. And lastly, you are a Sunni, and you do not know anything about our faith as you have made very clear. These articles are to represent Shi'asm, and you have only confirmed my suspicions that most of the people taking out the pictures from Shi'a articles are not Shi'a, but are Sunni and in some cases pretend to be Shi'a. Your post has literally damned your cause forever, because the voice of opposition is not even from our own branch of Islam, it is from a branch which rejects pictures and therefore wishes for us to reject pictures. At least you could have signed with a fake Shi'a name. --Enzuru 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Umar, all the literate Shi'a are ghaalii? Um. I don't think so. There is a wide variety of editors, and none of them are ghaalii. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on a lastly ironic note, the actual minor Shi'a editors (not major ones like me and the Persian) who were against the pictures, were almost all South Asian. God, you have such a horrible argument. --Enzuru 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)