Talk:Abu Bakr

The following is really problematic:

After the hard-won victory over Mosailima, Umar ibn al-Khattab (the later Caliph Omar), fearing the complete loss of the sayings of the prophet when those who had listened to ...

Not because I think that the Qur'an is not the words of The Prophet, but of God; but because it creates a confusion between the Qur'an and the Hadith.--iFaqeer 01:45, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Since Caliph apparently meens "sucessor" shouldn't Muhammad be listed as the preceeding ruler of Abu Bakr? User: Dimadick

No, Caliph means successor of the prophet. Muhammad was not a "successor" and Abu Bakr was not a prophet. Abu Bakr was the first Caliph. Search "first Caliph" on the internet and you will find Abu Bakr. How can there be a predecessor of the first? OneGuy 03:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. interesting idea. Maybe in parentheses: (The Prophet)—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

{{attention}}?

Anyone mind if I put a {{attention}}, since this article needs both clarifying how the history is seen by different groups and copy-editing of the language.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:26, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I keep meaning to get to it, and being distracted. Zora 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sunni/Shi'a and NPOV

Aladdin,

You restored most of the material you had added, material that I had excised because it was so Sunni-centric. We MUST give Sunni and Shi'a equal space here, and NOT write the article in such a way as to prejudge the issues at stake. It is not NPOV to give the Sunni view, then the Shi'a view, then detail the Sunni rebuttal. That is giving the Sunnis the last word and more space. Other turns of phrase that I cut out and you restored are Sunni-centric.

I'm tired and cranky and this is probably not the best time for me to deal with your edits. I will come back to it and try again to NPOV the article. Please try to put yourself in the place of the Shiites and consider how best to write the article so that there is nothing in there that they would find UNTRUE. For example, it is the Sunni belief that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph. If the article says that "Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph", we've taken sides. But if it says "Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph", then both Sunnis and Shiites would have to agree with that. When there's controversy, we step back and present both sides. Zora 05:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I responded to the clean up request for this article, it was replete with Shia-centric POV material, as were several articles on Shi and Sunni figures. Nevertheless, in response to your concerns, I reread the article and revised the election paragraph so that the Shia rebuttal "has the last word". The other reverts were for the explicit removal of shia-centric POVs, as well as the factual health of the article as a whole. If you believe me to be in factual or NPOV error, I will be happy to discuss it with you at length in this Talk section, when you have had leisure to revisit the issue.--A. S. A. 03:30, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, good work on the Sunni/Shia parts. I just added some para breaks (humongo paras are daunting) and deleted one sentence, re all sects accepting the four rightly guided caliphs. I'm not at all sure that that's true. A citation from a Shi'a source would help.

I also changed much of the para on the Ridda wars. I didn't really discuss the problems I saw with that para, and I should have. Basically, when you call Ibn Hanefi a "pretender", or describe the rebels as "pagans" and "apostates", you're taking the viewpoint that Abu Bakr was absolutely right in beating them into submission. I disagree vehemently, and I think many other people would too. Didn't Muhammad at one point say that religion was not a matter of compulsion? Wikipedia cannot endorse a Muslim triumphalist viewpoint, in which the military expansion of Islam is a GOOD thing. It happened. Some people think it was good, some people think it was bad. That's the NPOV stance, I think. Zora 04:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The no compulsion in religion precept is accurate, nevertheless apostasy was a capital offense. In the context of the seventh century, just as in the Crusades, there is no need to revise every sentence for 21st-century political correctness. They did what was natural to them at the time, and it is reported as such. Also, regarding pagans, I linked to the Wiki article about paganism, where it clearly states that while it has been used pejoratively, especially by the monotheistic religions, the word has been rehabilitated and even romanticized in modern day encyclopedic usage, and is not intrinsically derogatory or POV. If you prefer, we can replace paganism with "idolatry" but we have to have something, because those tribes did not just abandon Islam, they went back to their previous worships. I changed the wording for the First Four Caliphs from universally accepted to just respected, but nevertheless I will research the issue for citations because I do believe it is accurate to say that their Caliphates were/are universally accepted because Ali himself submitted to them--A. S. A. 19:24, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some people proudly proclaim themselves as "pagans", but when you apply it to people who didn't choose the term and who can't fight back, it's pejorative. It would be less pejorative to say that the tribes returned to their traditional religion, or tribal religion. Using the word "relapsed" is also pejorative, as one "relapses" into an illness, or an addiction. The sentence on the end is also subtly biased, by using the word "nation" (a modern concept, and most people think nations are good) and by insisting that Abu Bakr HAD to do what he did to preserve the community. My Zen group doesn't go out and conquer people to preserve its community. Yes, I do have a personal viewpoint here -- I'm one of the pagans who are to be converted by force. Hence I have some sympathy with the folks Abu Bakr was busy suppressing. Obviously I can't rewrite the article to say that his actions were wrong; that would be POV. All I can do is make sure that the article doesn't endorse them.

I'll accept the use of "respected" for now, unless a Shi'a arrives to tell us that it's unacceptable. Zora 20:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They didnt "relapse" to paganism or idolatry or nothing of that sort, they just didnt want to give Abu Bakr monny. look:

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483: Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.483

As is evident from the hadith, the renegades *did* indeed pray. they differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat, in other words, they did one and not the other.

As Umar points out, Abu Bakrs oppinion was contrary to the Prophets (as), "'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.'", and in no case is the punishment for not paying zakat death.

Thats goes for showing what greedy man Abu Bakr was, he started killing mulims that didnt want to give him zakat and started to call them apostates. Of coures that was not a valid claim.

As you can see, even the translator is baised by inserting " some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) ", as if renegading against Abu Bakr was equall to aposatcy.

I argue that its Abu Bakr POV to claim that they where apostates. Its not up to Abu Bakr to decide who is apostate.

From "and then i was guided":

Nor indeed can we explain the Qur'anic verse with reference to Malik Ibn Nuwayrah and his followers, who refused to pay Zakat (alms) in the time of the caliph Abu Bakr, for many reasons. They refused to pay al-Zakat (alms) and give it to Abu Bakr because they wanted to wait and see what happened, for they had accompanied the Messenger of Allah on his farewell pilgrimage, and voted for Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib at Ghadir Khum after the Messenger of Allah appointed him as Caliph after him, and indeed Abu Bakr himself voted for Ali. Therefore, they were astonished when a messenger from the caliph came to tell them the news of the holy Prophet's death and at the same time asked them to pay Zakat in the name the new caliph, Abu Bakr. It is a case in which history does not want to go too deep, for the sake of the Companion's honour. Furthermore, Malik and his followers were Muslims according to the testimony of Umar and Abu Bakr themselves and other Companions who disapproved of Khalid ibn al-Walid's killing of Malik. History testifies that Abu Bakr paid compensation for Malik's death to his brother Mutammem out of the Muslim's treasury, and apologized for his killing. It is well established that the apostate must be killed, and no compensation be paid out of the Muslim's treasury for his killing, and no apologies issued for killing him. http://www.al-islam.org/guided/17.html

The examples that I have cited in this study - besides many that I have not mentioned - are enough to refute this saying, because there are elements in the Sunnah of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman which contradict and negate the Prophet's Sunnah, as is so apparent. ....

The second incident that involved Abu Bakr during the early days of his caliphate, which the Sunni historians recorded, was his disagreement with the nearest of all people to him, Umar ibn al-Khattab. The incident evolves around Abu Bakr's decision to fight those who refused to pay Zakat [alms] and kill them, but Umar protested and advised him not to fight them because he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying: I have been ordered to fight the people until they say, "There is no other god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." And he who says it can keep his wealth to himself and I have no right to his [blood], and he is accountable to Allah.

This is a text cited by Muslim in his Sahih: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave the flag to Ali on the Day of Khayber, and Ali said, "O Messenger of Allah, what am I fighting them for?" The Messenger of Allah replied, "Fight them until they testify that there is no other god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and if they do that then they will prevent you from killing them and taking their wealth, except by justice, and they will be accountable to Allah." [98]

[98] Muslim, Sahih, vol 8 p 151 But Abu Bakr was not satisfied with this tradition and said, "By Allah, I will fight those who differentiate between the prayers and Zakat because Zakat is justly charged on wealth." And also said, "By Allah if they refuse me a rope which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah. I will fight them for it." After that Umar ibn al-Khattab was satisfied and said, "As soon as I saw Abu Bakr determined I felt very pleased. " I do not know how Allah could please somebody who is preventing the tradition of the Prophet. This interpretation was used to justify their fight against Muslims although Allah had prohibited making war against them, and Allah said in His Glorious Book:

O You who believe! When you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer." Do you seek the goods of this world's life? But with Allah there are abundant gains, you too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation surely Allah is aware of what you do" (Holy Qur'an 4:94) .

Those who refused to give Abu Bakr their Zakat did not deny its necessity, but they only delayed it to investigate the matter. The Shiites say that these people were surprised by the succession of Abu Bakr, and some of them had been present with the Messenger of Allah at the Farewell Pilgrimage and had heard the text in which he mentioned Ali ibn Abi Talib. Therefore they decided to wait for a while until they obtained a clarification as to what had happened, but Abu Bakr wanted to silence them lest they spoke the truth. Because I do not reason with nor protest against what the Shiites say, I will leave this issue to somebody who is interested in it.

However, I should not forget to note here that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had an encounter with Tha'alabah who asked him repeatedly to pray for him to be rich and he promised Allah to give alms. The Messenger of Allah prayed for him and Tha'alabah became so rich that his sheep and camels filled al-Medinah, and he started to neglect his duties and stopped attending the Friday Prayers. When the Messenger of Allah sent some officials to collect the Zakat, he refused to give them anything saying that it was a Jiziah [head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule] or similar to it, but the Messenger of Allah did not fight him nor did he order his killing, and Allah revealed the following verse about him:

"And there are those of them who made a covenant with Allah. If He gives us out of His Grace, we will certainly give alms and we will certainly be of the good. But when He gave them out of His Grace, they became niggardly of it and they turned back and they withdrew"(Holy Qur'an 9:75-76).

After the revelation of the above Qur'anic verse. Tha'alabah came to the Messenger of Allah crying and asked him to accept his Zakat, but the Messenger of Allah refused to accept it, according to the story.

If Abu Bakr and Umar were following the tradition of the Messenger why did they allow the killing of all these innocent Muslims just because they refused to pay the Zakat?

As for those apologists who were trying to correct Abu Bakr's mistake when he interpreted the Zakat as a just tax on wealth, there is no excuse for them nor for Abu Bakr after considering the story of Tha'alabah who with held the Zakat and thought of it as "Jiziah". Who knows, perhaps Abu Bakr persuaded his friend Umar to kill those who refused to pay the Zakat because otherwise their call would have spread throughout the Islamic world to revive al-Ghadir's text in which Ali was confirmed as successor [to the Messenger of Allah]. Thus Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted to fight them, and it was he who threatened to kill and burn those who remained in Fatimah's house in order to extract the acclamation from them for his friend.

The third incident which took place during the early days of Abu Bakr's caliphate in which he found... (about Kahlid ibn Walid raping the widow of the man that didnt want to pay taxes)

http://www.al-islam.org/guided/23.html

--Striver 13:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First male to accept Islam?

An anon editor added a sentence saying that Abu Bakr was the first adult male to accept Islam and Ali the first "boy". I removed the sentence. I had scoured the Sirat Rasul Allah for just that point and found two accounts. One of them said that Ali was the first male convert, one of them said that Abu Bakr was first and Ali second. Ibn Ishaq does that a lot, give two accounts. Both were written down at the time the Sunni/Shi'a schism was deepening. That schism made the question, "Who was the first to adopt Islam?", of great importance, as being the first could be an additional argument for being the rightful successor. Ibn Ishaq supplied ammo for both sides. That was why I originally wrote "one of the first".

The formulation that Abu Bakr was the first adult male and Ali the first boy evades the question. Or perhaps gives it a Sunni tinge, as an adult male presumably outranks a boy. In any case, I think it's misleading to put that there without going into some detail re the controversy. That's why I removed it. We may want to footnote this, so that the article isn't broken up by yet another controversy, but so that the info is there. In fact, we may want to footnote the whole "first caliph" controversy too, as the article might flow better without it. Zora 01:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the Talk discussion trim

Firstly, please take care not to bloat the talk pages with massive amounts of text. A brief quotation and a hyperlink to whatever you want to cite will suffice. I have just completed a revision of the article. I find Striver's attitude towards Abu Bakr to be inexplicably bitter and it may be clouding NPOV judgment. Extrapolations from the Hadeeth and other "sources" are not logical at all. What's more, the sentence in the article clearly says that the Ridda Wars were because of a combination of apostasy and Taxes. And the Caliph does have the authority by the very nature of the office to declare apostates. Just as the Pope has the right to excommunicate or declare heresy. Most of what you referenced above is a confusing hodgepodge of badly translated and incoherent text that in no way collates to prove a point or support a position. Nevertheless, I have modified much of my editing to take into account may of Zora's points and concerns, but I have left what I deem to be legitimate NPOV and standard encyclopedic-style descriptions of the man and the events of his Caliphate. Idolatry is the worship of idols. It is not insulting. Some tribes apostatized and returned (changed that form relapsed) to idolatry. Simple fact. Apostasy is a capital offense under Shari'ah law. Withholding taxes is cause for war in any State in the seventh century. It's normal. Also, had he not fought the Ridda wars, there would be no world-wide Islamic religion today. For better or for worse, that is an awesome contribution. You cannot go around depriving historical figures of the credit for fighting and winning battles because you do not agree with their policies. What's next, are we to go to every Roman emperor's article and remove any mention of the lands they seized and the frontiers they expanded? I believe that there has been substantial compromise here and the article is better of for it. If these points continue to be reverted, then we should begin Dispute Resolution and solicit outside opinions.--A. S. A. 05:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, idolatry is a term of abuse. It is Islam's term of abuse for followers of Arab tribal religions. It is not a term of science. I have several degrees in anthropology, have read widely in anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, history of religion, etc., and nowhere is the term idolatry used as a description. It is inherently POV.

As for your assertion that the Ridda wars were necessary to the continued expansion of Islam, that also is inherently POV. Are you really saying that Islam can only expand by conquering people? And what does that say about Islam if that's true? And yes, I'd correct any article about the expansion of ANY empire that assumed it was necessarily a good thing for the empire to expand. That's taking the viewpoint of the conqueror. What about the viewpoint of the conquered? Perhaps this would make sense to you if we were talking about, say, the Mongol invasions. Wow, lookit those Mongols go! Great! Pyramids of skulls! Cities destroyed! Sure tromped those Abbasids, didn't they?

Well, an article wouldn't be that blatant, but you could use language that suggested that everything that the Mongols did was perfectly natural and right and praiseworthy. Wouldn't that upset you? Zora 18:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is much in the Wikipedian spirit to boast of degrees and accomplishments. You are an equal here, and have as much right and indeed qualifications to edit as a janitor with no degrees at all. I have read your last post most carefully, and I detect a certain pacifist bias that while admirable in general, has no place in an encyclopedia. Suppressing revolts and beginning foreign conquest was simply reported without comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of war or religious freedom. Like I said before, for better or for worse, what he did had a tremendous, incalculable affect on the whole world. As for idolatry, we simply disagree utterly on it being POV. I did see, however, how "relapsed" has an association with the medical word which means degenerating back into illness, and I am grateful for that change.--A. S. A. 03:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Degrees don't matter, but expertise does. I don't have as much as some people, but I have some. Why are you so attached to the word idolatry? Told that it's offensive to non-Muslims, you persist in using it. I revised the sentence to avoid using ANY word for their tribal religion, and you inserted "idolatry" again. Zora 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humble POV

Why is saying that:

Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with safeguarding the expansion of the nascent Islamic empire.

a problem? I might just drop replace "safeguarding the expansion of" with something like "keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come" or something. What say?

About:

It is generally credited that while Khadijah was the first person to accept Islam, and Ali is the first boy to accept Islam, Abu Bakr was the first adult male to accept Islam.

I grew up a pretty mainstream Sunni in Nothern Nigeria and Pakistan, and that is what we were told. And I bet the Shi'as would like to agree with it even more. We could qualify it to say that some Sunni groups don't agree and present what their belief is. No?

On the use of the "idolatory" terminology. How about we put in something that describes all the characterizations. This is an encyclopedia, after all; it is supposed to give a complete view. And whether Abu Bakr had the right to declare someone an apostate or not (which is debatable--he WAS officially the Head of State and Head of the Religious Community; this wasn't post-revolution France, you know), the fact is, he did. Maybe something like:

Trouble started soon after Abu Bakr's election, in the form of threats to the unity and stability of the new community and the state. Various Arab tribes of Hejaz and Nejd raised issues that challenged the new leader and there recently-berieved religious community. The most prominent in history have been the refusal off some to pay Zakat, the poor due. Others outright apostatized and returned to their pre-Islamic faiths and traditions to different degrees. They claimed that they had submitted to Muhammad and that with Muhammad's death, they were again free. Abu Bakr insisted that they had not just submitted to a leader but acceeded to the Muslim religious community, of which he was the new head. Apostasy is a capital offense under Islamic law, and Abu Bakr declared war on the rebels. This was the start of what is known to history as the Ridda wars, Arabic for the Wars of Apostasy. The severest struggle was the war with the Ibn Habib al-Hanefi, who claimed to be a prophet and Muhammad's true successor. The Muslim general Khalid bin Walid finally defeated al-Hanefi at the battle of Akraba. Abu Bakr's swift action in suppressing these revolts is credited with keeping the nascent Islamic state together and laying the foundation of the empire(s) to come.

What say?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

IFaqeer, your edits are OK. I realize now that it was the term "safeguarding" that was triggering my POV detector, as "safeguarding" is usually deemed a good thing. Saying that X made Y possible is more like a statement of fact.

Please insert them for now, if you would. I am, however, meditating a reorganization of the article that would take the flashpoints we've identified (first to adopt Islam, election to caliphate, Ridda wars) and set them off as separate sections. This is what was done with the Aisha article, and it seemed to work fairly well. First you get a history, which has a good narrative flow, and then you have the controversies. This allows you to spread out more on the controversies and give more space to the various arguments.

BTW, as to the first to adopt Islam, the "generally accepted formulation" avoids the whole question of priority, which is crucial to the two accounts given in the Sirat Rasulallah. Regardless of the ages of the males involved, who was first? One account has Ali first, one has Abu Bakr. Zora 08:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was never attached to the "first male to embrace Islam" description, and raised no objection when Zora removed it entirely. This compromise paragraph proposed by IFaqeer is promising, but needs some encyclopedic polishing, in addition to the glaring fact that we are omitting a historical fact that some tribes returned to the worship of idols, because of a convoluted fear of NPOV. You can't just say "they returned to pre-Islamic faith" without mentioning what that was. This is an encyclopedia, for the love of Pete. I will revise the paragraph presently, hoping to capitalize on IFaqeer's fresh perspective but preserving the necessary reference to idolatry/idol worship, the intrinsic insult of which I reject utterly. As for the subdivision of the article, I have been mulling that myself lately, but I came the the conclusion that the article was too short to display the change gracefully. --A. S. A. 03:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see you also substituted my reference to the "state" founded by The Prophet to a "system". You don't think the community he headed was a nation-state? It had a leader, an army—it even had a written constitution, fercryingoutloud!—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

In political science the term "nation state" is reserved for a much later innovation. Nation states are based on ethnic/linguistic criteria. See the articles on nationalism and Ernest Gellner. I'm not sure I've seen this used in the literature, but in the era in which Islam was founded, many of the states were "confessional states". That is, it was assumed that it was necessary to the good order of the state that everyone under the control of the state share a religion. Islam was somewhat of an innovation in that it allowed dhimmi status (hence, I think, its success at the time).

As for your insistence that "idolatry" is appropriate: it's inherently pejorative. It is not used in current academic works. It is only used by Christians or Muslims to denigrate other religions. It's as if I insisted on writing an article about Islam and calling it Mohammedanism. If you object, I tell you that you're PC and absurdly sensitive. Zora 06:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will not belabor our disagreement on the word "idolatry." I believe we have stated our peace on that score. Nevertheless, the recent collaborative revision continues to evolve, and I believe is reaching a consensus. As for nation-state, I did not change that in the spirit of disallowing that status to the early Caliphate, but simply as a redundancy rewording, since "community" and "sate" were used in the preceding sentence. I like the paragraph explaining the different versions regarding the first male convert, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it under a separate heading. Perhaps eventually the article will grow sufficiently to facilitate the subdivision of the entire essay. In any case, see what you make of the changes I just made.--A. S. A. 07:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the capitalization of "state". Since contemporary English usually capitalizes only proper nouns, the capitalizaton looks capricious, or even pompous. I'll change it. I am glad that you left my compromise wording, with idolatry included as a "Muslim classification". Zora 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my experience "State" in that context is often capitalized, and in this case helps to delineate the emerging Islamic nation, the religious term called umma in Arabic. Nevertheless, de-capitalizing it is not a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned; the meaning survives. As for idolatry, it is essential that it is mentioned by name, because obliterating all reference to the word left a gaping hole that would have made the reader ask..."well, what faith was it that they return to?" Fretting over the perceived pejorative nature of idolatry is understandable, but since idolatry, paganism, and worship of idols were all rejected in turn, I persisted in my attachment to that description until "classified as" evolved as a compromise. It's certainly better than having no description at all of pre-Islamic Arabia, no? At any rate, good work all round.--A. S. A. 09:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Tribal religion" or "traditional religion" would be academically acceptable and do not constitute "no description". It's true that they don't describe the religion in any detail but then, neither does "idolatry" -- and they lack the pejorative overtones. Zora 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. Readers reading "returned to traditional religion" would still wonder what on earth those traditional religions were. Easpecially since they apostatized a major Abrahamic faith to return to them. I hope you can recognize your own bias here in resisting any description of the worship of idols. It's an apt academic description. "Traditional" and "tribal" mean diddley by themselves.--A. S. A. 03:19, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't an academic description. It is NEVER used in academia. An academic description of pre-Islamic tribal religion would be something like "polytheism, a creator god (Allah) and subordinate deities, divine forces believed to inhere in certain stones". If you want to say that the tribes reverted to polytheism, that would be academically acceptable. It's not at all clear that the tribes worshipped actual physical, carved idols -- I've never seen pictures of any. The stones part is documented. The strange thing, IMHO, is that Islam carries on the worship of a stone.

After all of this, it would seem like a good idea to write an article about Religion in Arabia before Islam. Zora 05:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There comes a point where discussion dead-ends into utter disagreement. I've heard your viewpoint, you've heard mine. I shan't tax your forbearance by repeating myself.--A. S. A. 11:56, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Zereshk's addition

Zereshk, I'm sorry to have to be difficult, but I deleted your section of references "proving" that Ali was the first. First of all, it unbalances the section. If we're to have those, then we need a section of Sunni references too. Second, it would seem that those are Arabic sources, and inaccessible to non-Arabic speakers. Not only that, we have no way of knowing when they were written and exactly what scholarly weight to attach to them. At least with the Sirat Rasulallah, we know it's the earliest work to survive and we have an English translation to consult. Anyone who wants can get a copy of Guillaume's translation from a library, or order one on the net, and check the article's accuracy. Zora 22:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)