Talk:Abu Bakr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removing all reference to Shi'a views

Blingpling arrived and edited out all references to Shi'a views, leaving only a Sunni view. I reverted. This is not acceptable. WP practice is to recognize all notable POVs and there are enough Shi'a to be notable. It makes the article more complicated, but that can't be helped. Zora 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited some grammar, language and deleted some portions that tried to show bias towards either of the major islamic sects, sunnism and shiasm. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for publishing religious sectarian disputes.--Blingpling 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(Moved here from top of page by Rich Farmbrough 13:52 26 February 2006 (UTC).)

Just focus on Enccyclopedia rather then Shai and sunni views. i will remove changes beacuse no other article then this have views life this.

Khalidkhoso 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Secular Readers

I am not Muslim and I am ignorant of Islam.

Please respectfully present all sides of any controverial aspects so that I may learn from all and decide for myself.

When one suppresses another's view, one's own credibility is sacrificed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Economy1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why?

"He was one of the last people anyone would have expected to convert to the faith preached by his kinsman Muhammad." Can someone clarify why this is so? Stoa 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC

Perhaps that needs to be expanded. According to Watt (Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina, still the most detailed studies of Muhammad's life), most of the people who converted to Islam were "little people". Slaves, widows, young men of no standing. But Abu Bakr is said to have been a man of substance in the community.

I can see why you don't like the statement -- it needs to be expanded. I'm busy right now, but I'll try to do it later. Remind me. Or slog through Watt and do it yourself, if you'd like :) Zora 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE POINTS MENTIONED BELOW

Assalam alay kum!

1)can i now why the article has been edited again although i have mentioned that the article is being edited.

2)And can i know why the sects i.e. ( sunni & shaia )are being mentioned reguarly ?

3) And if the answer is that it is a public page THEN has the author have information of all the 41 names mentioned in the main page and if the answer is NO than I kindly request you for the sake of the almigty stop the folowing.

Please note that i am not going to start the editing all the reaming names till i don`t get the reply

Wating desperately for your answer ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.62.74 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 April 2006.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, and that things would go better if we could converse in YOUR language, but unless you speak French or Tongan, I'm of no use. Zora 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My questions are very clear Regarding No.1) Although i have deleted the article and added a message that the ,page is under construction, today the same article has been uploaded.

2)There was really no Need of mentioning about the views of sects, because we are not intrested weather the reader is sunni or seia, this particular articles are for all man kind and there is no need to insert particular sects views or opinions. And our Aim is to spread peace and love for the Almight which our (shaikhs) did

3) This linkage / Chain /silsila is not the property of any one nor it belongs to any one . This are the names of that great people who sacrificed their entire life in the way of ALLAHA the almighty with out any intention or expectations. And hence any kind of disrespect cannot be tolerated. The Article which was not presented in respect- -ful manner and was totally misguiding people. And hence it has been deleted once again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.62.74 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 April 2006.

1. You have to take our word for the fact that your questions really weren't at all clear. They're now becoming a bit clearer.
2. We don't allow editors simply to delete articles and take them over, forbidding other people to edit them. Nor do we allow editorial comments like "this page is under construction".
3. Who is the "we" who are not interested? If you mean that you're not interested, that might well be true — but the article isn't written simply for you. Our aim is not to spread peace and religious beliefs — we're an encuclopædia, and our aim is to present the facts clearly.
4. Your final point is still not very clear, but you seem to be demanding that we edit articles to your liking.
5. If you continue to blank this article, you will be blocked from editing
6. Please sign your comments, using four tildes (~~~~). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After the last comments, I'm guessing that the anon is from a Sufi order that traces its silsila, chain of transmission, to Abu Bakr, and that the anon feels that his order's view of Abu Bakr is the correct one. Zora 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to present the facts in an objective manner. Doing so involves stating all of the notable opinions on a subject, ESPECIALLY a religious subject. Opinions of sects are often the only viewpoints available in such cases, though Abu Bakr is fairly well documented in secular documents. Bakr definitely was the first caliph - and the fact that his succession caused the split between Sunni and Shi'a that has been a major issue for a large part of Muslim history is a very notable fact. While you're correct that Wikipedia isn't concerned with the sect of Islam which the reader follows - or whether the reader is a Muslim at all - the sects are part of "all man kind" and are worth mentioning. If you are part of a sect that isn't mentioned, you're welcome to add that your sect (so long as it is notable enough to talk about - that is, not just a small community mosque) has differing beliefs on Abu Bakr's life/succession to the caliphate/etc. I fail to see where we are being disrespectful towards the great figures of Islam. Rarr 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

references

Under the section titled "Death" there is a reference to (Age of Faith, Durant, p. 187). This book is not under the references though. If someone has the information, please add it formally to the references.

Also, if someone wants to take it on try to convert the references to the ref format. In the text add <ref>source</ref>, and then at the bottom below the "see also" section add ==Notes== <references />

That will make it much easier to follow references, and most pages are migrating over to that format. Cuñado - Talk 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Role at time of Muhammad's Death

Reza Aslan, in his book "No God but God. The origins, evolution and future of Islam" recounts a tradition (based, according to his own notes, on the early Muslim historian Abu Hisham) that, at the time of Muhammad's death, some people including the future Caliph Umar refused to accept that the Prophet was dead, believing that he had been taken to heaven "like Moses" (or Jesus according to Christians, Aslan doesn't add) and would return shortly. Abu Bakr is said to have put a stop to that (this is before he was chosen to be Caliph), saying "If anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal". Does anyone agree that this is quite relevant - in that Islam could have taken a wholly different (and to me, much less appealing) direction if the opposite viewpoint, which has no followers in modern Islam today, had emerged as Islamic doctrine? -Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.8.237 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And this speech should be added to the main article. In fact, this is considerd one of the most important speeches in Islamic history accordind to some historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralmoud (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic spelling of Abu Bakr

I believe that the inclusion of the Arabic spelling of "Abu Bakr" ( ابو بكر ) would improve this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleed al-Maktoum (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(Abu Bakr) Abdullah bin Uthman (Abu Quhafa) bin Amir AlQorashi

will be, his full & correct name with the nicknames in bracket.(Ilaila (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

International consensus regarding the first Caliph of Islam

"International scholarly consensus lists him as the first Muslim Caliph." ... no comments, im not reverting this time... --Striver 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it anyway. AladinSE, There is not a consensus just because you wish it to be there. He is the caliph of Sunni Islam. Those who say that he is a caliph of ISLAM are either Sunnis or people who are ignorant of Shi'a views. --Striver 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AladinES keeps insisting that since most westerners have been ignorant about Shi'a Islam and have not bothered to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, thus writing "Caliph of Islam" instead of "Caliph of Sunni Islam", that this ignorance from non-Muslims should be prove conclusive that he is in fact the "Caliph of Islam". Non-sense. Lets not forget all other things they have been ignorant of. Remeber the term "muhammadan"? Maybe we need to rename Islam to Muhammadanism? --Striver 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now is Truthpedia reverting. Shi'a still do not accept Abu Bakr as their caliph, no matter what Sunnis or some ignorantly formulated western says, so i am reverting the POV. --Striver 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a Shia propaganda website. I have given you multiple academic and journalistic sources illustrating that the international consensus is that Abu Bakr is listed and considered as the first Caliph of Islam. Shia reservations have been CLEARY DENOTED. You may NOT delete material that has been backed up by reliable sources just because of your highly partisan dogmatic crusade. Also, use proper descriptive section titles, do not insert my handle as a title.--AladdinSE 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use any picture showing any Sahaba

It is aganist Islam to use Picture images for Sahaba. so i took it off. Khalidkhoso 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below. Wikipedia is not written by Muslims for Muslims, and is not censored to protect anyone's "sensibilities". Zunaid©® 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

why you are using shia and Sunni views?

Hello every one why in this article 2 views are shown, if this way then every article in Wikipedia should be shown with such way ,but i have not seen this so i will make changes after this if any one have any thing to say then say it.?waiting

Khalidkhoso 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly when it comes to the Caliphate, which is the very reason for the Sunni/Shia split, it is essential to present the two views. Without such a discourse the article could and should rightly be considered incomplete. If there are other articles where the differing views are warranted then please add them, but don't try to present this article from a single viewpoint. It does a disservice to the reader. Having read over it again, the Shia view seems to be reduced to a couple of sentences and should perhaps be expanded to provide balance. Zunaid©® 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 12 January 2007

I restored the depiction of Abu Bakr's death per WP:NOT censored. This is not an encyclopedia for Muslims by Muslims, thus the picture should not be removed on the grounds that it offends anyone's sensibilities (cf. cartoons controversy and its talk page for a similar situation). I've also commented out so long (but did not delete) the extremely long list of sources quoted for the "doors of the mosque" refutation. Such a long list is poor encyclopedic style and looks ugly in the article. Only the most prominent one or two sources should be chosen as examples and presented in the article. Zunaid©® 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cross-posted the following responses from User:Khalidkhoso here from my talk page: Zunaid©® 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zunaid , u knw in Islam ,we are not allowed to use picture for any shahba karam(fallowers of Muhammad(PUBH)).i removed it why have u restored it ?if u allow this picture for any one shahbab (even in movies there faces are not shown.)then why r u using picture images for them.please look forward my request. Khalidkhoso 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

which article ,please lemme know i want to be part of it. (in many movies by iranian many Imam are shown with faces,if u use picture for any one them then it will be for all,u knw wat i am trying to say).please lemme know link to discuss it. Khalidkhoso 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

During Muhram Many Nasori(shia), show man on picture (telling every buddy that is Ali Bin Talib).if u use image for Hazart abu bakur (R.A) then any one can use that iamge for Hazart Ali. Khalidkhoso 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

His Status in Islam

i have added the section "His Status in Islam", it needs citation but all this is common knowledge among muslims.--Rami.b 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to my brother Rami and all contributers, Abu Bakr's official status in Islam is 'first Caliph' and unofficially, he was the 'first adult male' to convert and second male after the young Ali ibn Abi-Talib. Also, he is mentioned in the Qur'an and he is of the Muhajirun. All other attributes are highly questionable, because of the Sunni/Shi'a schism. However, his status as one of the Top Companions in the same league as Umar and Ali can be accepted. The elevation of Abu Bakr to give him highest rank contradicts his and Umar's belief that Ali had greatest knowledge of Qur'an and that Ali was closer to Muhammad according to the Hadith in which Ali's relationship to Muhammad is compared to Harun's relationship with Musa. Also, according to certain Sunni Hadith Collections, the Prophet is alleged to have declared, 'if there was to be a prophet after be, he would undoubtedly be Umar.' This is proof enough that Abu Bakr's status is not as clean-cut as you make it to be. Thank you

There is no Sunni/Shia schism it would be a schism if shia made up some 50% of the muslim population at best they are a small sect making up some 5% of the total muslim population which is enough to note a difference of opinion not some clearly contested view on the matter. Secondly all i have quoted is from authentic and verified sources which must be taken into account if we are to gain a clear picture of the matter. According to most Sunni scholars [and thus worthy of quoting] this is his position in Islam, your pointing out Ali's position is a conclusion you have come up with based on interpreting these quotes for your self, there rank according to Sunni Scholars is Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman then Ali ie the order of there Khalifat. Having the most knowledge of the Quran does not mean your level of Ihsan [moral perfection] is the highest. Al khidr had more knowledge than moses but yet moses was closer to Allah than him. please sign you comment even with a fake name, to many anon posts by different people makes it hard to know who is who.--Rami.b 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the hadith about Umar and thus highlighting the need to look at proper sources for an explanation of these ahadith;

It is related by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ahmad. It is elucidated by the two hadiths in Tirmidhi (which he graded hasan) whereby "Allah has engraved truth on the tongue of `Umar and his heart" and "If there were a prophet after me verily it would be `Umar." Tirmidhi adds to the muhaddath narration that according to Ibn `Uyayna "spoken to" means "made to understand" (mufahhamun), while in his narration Muslim adds: "Ibn Wahb explained "spoken to" as meaning "inspired" (mulhamun)," and this is the majority's opinion according to Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (7:62:#3689) who adds "spoken to" means "by the angels." Nawawi and Ibn Hajar said respectively in Sharh Sahih Muslim and Fath al-Bari:

The scholars have differed concerning "spoken to." Ibn Wahb said it meant: "inspired" (mulhamun). It was said also: "Those on the right, and when they give an opinion it is as if they were spoken to, and then they give their opinion. It was said also: the angels speak to them... Bukhari said: "Truth comes from their tongue." There is in this a confirmation of the miracles of saints (wa fihi ithbatu karamat al-awliya). ^{Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim Kitab 44 Bab 2 #2398.}

The one among [Muslims] who is "spoken to," if his existence is ascertained, what befalls him is not used as basis for a legal judgment, rather he is obliged to evaluate it with the Qur'an, and if it conforms to it or to the Sunna, he acts upon it, otherwise he leaves it.^{Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed.) 7:62-63 #3689.}

Ibn Hajar also stated in his commentary on that hadith. What is meant by the hadith is the perfection of the quality of ilham (inspiration) in `Umar, not its total lack in other Muslims, and Allah knows best.--Rami.b 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brother, Salam Your reply has increased my admiration of you, since it proves you are not ignorant. Also, your reply has no trace of disrespect to me or to any of the subjects in question, which I find helpful. Thank you. To your addition to the article, meaning His Status in Islam which focuses on narrations which, according to your unwritten sources, are related to Abu Bakr, I offered a few objections which you kindly read. Unfortunately, you may have misunderstood me. My opinion was, to be out of the Sunni/Shi'a debate, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali (and also Zayd) have near eequal footing when it comes to status. The Quranic verses quoted in your piece in the article are accepted by some scholars to be related to Abu Bakr. Many Sunni scholars and most if not all Shi'a scholars reject them. So it is not correct in my view to enter them in the article as simply 'His Status in Islam'. Possibly stating whose view you are implementing when it comes to each Hadith or verse is a good way of neutralising the view. Also, your opinion of the Shi'a being only a minority and (forgive me if I misunderstood) not worth mentioning their view is a complete enforcement of one view upon another just because of number. Wikipedia is a site where all views about a subject, as long as they are authentic, can be and better be written. No view of the majority must be represented for the whole community without observing the view of the minority. I also remind you that the Shi'a are still moslems and believe in Islam. The addition 'His Status in Islam' represent all the Islamic Community, Sunni and Shi'a alike. However, we know this not to be true. Except for the fact that Abu Bakr was a Companion of the Prophet, was officially the first Caliph of the Moslems, was with Muhammad in the Cave, and first adult-male to convert, after the young Ali. Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17) Also, a Hadith accepted by both sects: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first. I point to the words, 'whoever' and 'first'. Therefore, the ranking you give is your opinion not any scholar's. Ali believed without ever being a pagan or an unbeliever. Abu Bakr however did have such a history.

The Saqifa meeting is an interesting read which if you have studied, will show that one of Abu Bakr's arguments for the leadership of the Quraysh was their close kinship with the Prophet. This argument of Abu Bakr should have lead him to Ali, cousin, son-in-law and first disciple of Muhammad. Ali was not present in that meeting. Abu Bakr was a man of exceptional quality and I do not doubt that. But the hadith that the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr is clearly propaganda. Muhammad himself, the prophets, the messengers, the angels all have failed - but Abu Bakr who was probably once a pagan, yet he saw the truth and became a Moslem. Therefore, I beseech you to judge what you read or hear with care, especially if you are going to post it for others to read. According to the Holy Quran, those who were first in faith come first in matters of faith. This is in itself, an elevation of Abu Bakr and Ali against Umar and Uthman. As for the fact that ihsan and taqwa are more important in the eyes of God than knowledge, I will agree, But taqwa according to the Quran gives a person their status and rank in the eyes of God. (Inn akramakum ind'Allahu atqakum) I will ask you to look at the article for Ali (since you believe his ihsan is lower than Abu Bakr's) and check the view of the Sunni scholars. You will see firstly that the article is neutral where all parties, even the minority of minorities, have their say. Ten compare all the views on Ali with the views of Abu Bakr. Read what non-moslems say of Ali. Listen to what Ali says of himself, the world, Muhammad, etc. Then compare with Abu Bakr. I hope you will not be blinded, and will be honest and respectful as I have been. I have not downgraded Abu Bakr. Nor have I unnecessarily and untruthfully elevated Ali. All I did was like I am recommending to everyone. Read both articles and compare. In your heart you will know and God knows best. Thank you (Call me Catz)

Regarding who these verses refer to there is some disagreement among sunni scholars but as far as i know his overall status has reached a level of consensus among sunni scholars of this ummah. Certainly shia would disagree they do not accept the first three Khalifah of islam so that is a moot point and not relevant becouse of the fact shia did not exist in the time of Abu Bakr, Umar or even Uthman so anything they have to say on the matter can only be third or fourth hand knowledge based on there own interpretation of these events while the sunni view is not so clearly weak.

Anything the shia have to contribute is nothing but refutation rebuttal and polemics, this page is dedicated to his biography not politics, frankly there group did not exist at the time of the events to dispute anything, thus the conclusion that his biography should be writen from sunni sources which can be verified and traced back to there origions. The shia have nothing but interpretation and no actual primary sources to prove there case as far as i am aware.

Regarding the title "His status in Islam" shia are a sect in Islam while Sunni's are not, i am certain you know what the word shia means. They may disagree with this but by the definition of what a sect is this is there reality. I did not mean to imply the shia are not muslim certainly i believe they are but the title was also a general one which is applicable considering the reality of the two groups. Last official figure on world shia population i saw put there numbers at 8-10%. Shia are primarily a political group the reason why they differ so much from sunni's is becouse they reject an overwhelming number of sahhaba [prophets companions] for political rather than religious reasons thus there entire corpus of ahadith is extremely small when compared to the sunni colection which consequently resulted in a difference in legal matters and more of a reliance on ijtihad [personnal legal reasoning], my point is they have fewer reliable sources than sunni's.

You said:

"Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)" literally you have accused most muslims of being Kufar this clearly is an unorthodox and personnel interpretation of the verse.

"Also, a Hadith accepted by both sects: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first. I point to the words, 'whoever' and 'first'." This goes back to my argument of knowledge verses Ihasn which you have agreed to.

"Therefore, the ranking you give is your opinion not any scholar's." You have already admitted that sunni scholars place Abu Bakr at the head of this Ummah so how can it only be my personnel view?

"Ali believed without ever being a pagan or an unbeliever. Abu Bakr however did have such a history." Your emphasis and personnel interpretation which is limited by not being versed in the Islamic sciences, this is not the place for polemics.

"But the hadith that the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr is clearly propaganda." By stating it is a hadith you have agreed to the words being our prophets are you now accusing our prophet of lying? Again your personnel interpretation of the matter and adding to clear primary evidence what is not explicitly stated in them.

"but Abu Bakr who was probably once a pagan, yet he saw the truth" He was never a pagan prior to islam and one of the few people who did not believe in Idols of his own volition not that it means anything really your are the person making an issue of this and stating it proves something when in reality this is nothing but commentary of events.

"This is in itself, an elevation of Abu Bakr and Ali against Umar and Uthman." no it is not since Umar converted latter and is still considered above many who came beffore him. that verse is referring to the early muslim on a general not explicit basis.

"Ali (since you believe his ihsan is lower than Abu Bakr's) and check the view of the Sunni scholars. You will see firstly that the article is neutral where all parties, even the minority of minorities, have their say." For shia Ali is the main figure and the reason for there existence, anything they have to say about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman is nothing more than polemics or commentary.

"I have not downgraded Abu Bakr. Nor have I unnecessarily and untruthfully elevated Ali. All I did was like I am recommending to everyone. Read both articles and compare. In your heart you will know and God knows best. Thank you (Call me Catz)." even if all the evidance in the world was presented to you no person except a scholar is qualified to understand and interprate a matter, you have presented nothing but your own personnel unqualified view.

Regarding Ihsan [moral perfection] when compared to knowledge "no one will be saved on the Day of Resurrection except him who brings to Allaah a clean heart [al-Shu.ara. 26:89] This verse encompasses all our actions in this life, no one is saying or implying Ali did not have an extremely high degree of ihsan but simply that Abu bakr was higher.

Br it is not to dificult to sign up with a fake email and create a nickname.--Rami.b 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article itself it only states "Abu Bakr’s high rank is indicated, among other signs," so i dont see an issue realy.--Rami.b 07:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Salam Brother, As you have done, I have also analysed your words and I wish to ask you some questions on those matters which I would be grateful if you replied. You said that my views were based on my own personal 'unorthodox' interpretation. I reminded you that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's status as the Companion with most merit one after each other is not a view among all Sunni Scholars. I claim this from your own words: Regarding who these verses refer to there is some disagreement among sunni scholars but as far as i know his overall status has reached a level of consensus among sunni scholars of this ummah. Indeed, the ranking that you propose is totally against the Quran. It is again your personal view that you interpret the Quranic verse وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ {10} as general. In your opinion that verse is referring to the early muslim on a general not explicit basis. Actually, according to the Science of Quran, the verse is probably 'mutashabih' and 'specific'. In the early days of Islam, the number of Muslims was not large enough to be generalised. Each new convert was ranked in merits of the faith after the foremost. Ali was the first male and then possibly Zayd or Abu Bakr. Your 'personal' interpretation does not hold much weight when compared with Yusuf Ali's translation of that verse: And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter). Also, I see you have stressed your uninterest in the Shia view by first degrading them because of their number and second because of their title. First I reminded you that number is not significant. A view may still be valid even if carried by a few. An example is the Christian-Moslem debate over Jesus. Numbers specify that the Christian view should be the only view. Yet we see in wikipedia, Islam's view on the subject, despite smaller than Christianity's, has been included. Second is that the title is as you mentioned Shi'a. This word has multiple meanings and so therefore your assumption that it solely means sect is unscholarly. Shi'a has been used in the Qur'an, in the Hadith and in the words of Ahl-ul-Bayt. In the Quran it has been translated as way, party, follower and also sect. A well known Hadith supported by certain High-ranking Sunni Scholars has been recorded. A narration reports:

“ Muhammad said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your partisians (Shi'a) will be in Paradise." Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, a 16th century Sunni Islamic scholar provides a commentary for this tradition, saying:

“ The Shia of Ali are the Ahl al-Sunnah since they are those who love Ahl al-Bayt as Allah and His Prophet ordered. But others (i.e., other than Sunnis) are the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt in reality for the love outside the boundary of law is the great enmity, and that was the reason for their fate. Also, the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt were al-Khawarij and their alike from Syria, not Muawiyah and other companions because they were Muteawweloon, and for them is a good reward, and for Ali and his Shia is a good reward! [4] A narration attributed to Ibn Abbas reports:

“ When the verse "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation [5]" was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said to Ali: "They are you and your partisians (Shi'a)." He continued: "O Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your partisians (Shi'a) will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. Ali said: "Who are my enemies?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) replied: "He who disassociates himself from you and curses you . And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-'Arsh on the day of resurrection." Ali asked: "Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Your partisians (Shia), O Ali, and those who love you." [6] ”

As for the Ahl-ul-Bayt, From Imam Baqir's, the Fifth Ahlul Bayt Imam and fourth grandson of Muhammad, conversation with Jabir al-Ju'afi

“ O Jabir! How can someone who claims to follow us [Ahlul Bayt] be content with only loving us? I Swear that our partisians (Shia) is one who carries out his duty to Allah and fears him. Our partisians (Shia) are known by their humility, modesty, exceeding remembrance of Allah, fasting, Prayer, being sympathetic and helpful towards the poor, their reading of the Quran, saying nothing about a person except concerning his good actions, and they are the most trustworthy among those close to them... [12]

And from Ja'far ibn Muhammad, the sixth Imam,

“ Our Shi'a are compassionate among each other. When they are alone or when they hold a private meeting, they remember Allah. Verily, the remembrance of us is of the remembrance of Allah. When we are remembered Allah has been remembered and when our enemy is remembered, Satan has been remembered.

So it is clearly not as you have stated: shia did not exist in the time of Abu Bakr, Umar or even Uthman so anything they have to say on the matter can only be third or fourth hand knowledge based on there own interpretation of these events while the sunni view is not so clearly weak.

Now you see that their view is neither weak nor second-hand. In fact, The etymology and origin of the phrase Shi'at Ali is according to both Shi'a and Sunni sources a phrase that was used by the Islamic prophet Muhammad himself, initially used as a title for a group of followers of Ali in praise.

Shah Abdul Aziz, a 19th century Sunni Deobandi Islamic scholar writes:

“ The title Shia was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave Bayah to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face), they were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali’s) khilafat, they remained close to him, and they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali’s commands and prohibitions the true Shia are these who came in 37 Hijri [1] ”

The First Four Companions of Ali are the well-known Companions of Muhammad: Miqdad Abu Dharr Salman Al-Muhamade Ammar ibn Yasir

So your view is completely personal and not well-researched.

Anything the shia have to contribute is nothing but refutation rebuttal and polemics, this page is dedicated to his biography not politics, frankly there group did not exist at the time of the events to dispute anything, thus the conclusion that his biography should be writen from sunni sources which can be verified and traced back to there origions. The shia have nothing but interpretation and no actual primary sources to prove there case as far as i am aware.

The above paragraph is your statement repeated. It did not support your arguement and it did not support your intelligence and tolerance. I was surprised at this biased view that the Shia have nothing to contribute but refutation rebuttal and polemics. However, there was a single statement I fouond true and honest and fair. this page is dedicated to his biography not politics Biography is according to the dictionary of Merriam-Webster, accesible from Internet:

1 : a usually written history of a person's life 2 : biographical writings as a whole 3 : an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)

Therefore, your addition to the article, namely His Status in Islam is unnecessary. It is good for knowledge of the Sunni point of view (not all scholars) but since the man was not historically introduced (religiously rather), we should take into account all views of the man to make a conclusion on who he was. If there a contradicting views, it should be written down. Of course, to be fair, the Sunni point of view should be stronger, but the Shia view should not be neglected. What we should definitely avoid, is representing the whole (especially on such a subtle subject) and writing the view (based on personal and common belief) in an encyclopedia which people use and accept. I say based on personal and common belief because you said so: I have added the section "His Status in Islam", it needs citation but all this is common knowledge among muslims. According to your words, this should be a biography, not common views which does not reflect the whole faithfully.

Now your view on the Sunni. You claimed that Shia were not in existence while Sunnis were. In fact this is a total misconception. If anything, it is the reverse, the total opposite which is true. At the time of the Holy Prophet, all were known as Muslims. However, as I have mentioned, the Prophet titled a certain group (The Four Companions) Shiat-Ali, because of their devotion to Ali. The title Sunni is not given to anyone. Ali was muslim. Salman was muslim. Ammar as well. Abu-dharr too. Miqdad was muslim as well. Also Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and many others. The true title of Sunnis today (Note: I mean who we call Sunnis nowadays) is actually Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h (Arabic: أهل السنة والجماعة) Wikipedia identifies them thus:

They represent the branch of Islam that accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr due to him being chosen by majority, thus elections, or Shurah, in the caliphate being the first distinguishing factor in Sunni Islam. Most Sunni lawyers define themselves as those Muslims who are rooted in one of the four orthodox schools of Sunni law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii or Hanbali).

So, the first and foremost identification, is their acceptance of Abu Bakr as Caliph. This was afetr the Prophet's death and therefore after the creation of the title Shia. Yet, nobody in the days of the Four Caliphs was known as Sunni. The name was purely out of existance. Indeed, check Sunni Islam on wikipedia and the History Section is empty. At the time of my writing, the section is no there. It does not state where the movement began. But in another description, the Sunnis are identified thus: The term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jama`ah applies to all the Muslims who follow any one of the four prominent and sahih Fuqaha (Muslim jurists): 1) Imam Malik ibn Anas, 2) Imam Abu Hanifah 3) Imam Shafi`i 4) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, for these four Imams were the topmost scholars of that time described in the hadith in Sahih Muslim: "The best century is my century, then the one following it, then the one following that."

A problem arises already. Who are these four imams are central to the way Sunnis interpret the Quran and the Prophet's Sunnah? Research shows that 4)Ibn Hanbal and 3)Shafi'i were students of the first two. More research shows us that the first two were students of Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam of the Shia and a grandson of the Prophet. Also, according to the hadith in Sahih Muslim, the generation closer to Muhammad is of better quality. (Of course, this possibly does not mean that individuals in later generations are worse, but the hadith can be said as representing the generation as a whole with no specification in individual terms) According to that hadith, Imam Ja'far, being an exceptional teacher acknowledged by all schools of thought in the two branches (Sunni/Shia) should be better in quality than his students. Yet, he is not a source of madhhah, yet his students are. Also, they are further away from Muhammad and Abu Bakr than Ali and his Four Companions. So, in fact, the Sunnis are followers of a maddhab derived from a later generation, whereas the Shia have had their maddhab established by the Prophet himself.

And also - you reminded me of my quoting of the Quran. I had quoted part of a verse: most people do not believe. (11:17) I brought this as Quranic proof that numbers mean nothing. Most will not believe in God, yet obviously, according to the Quran, most are wrong. Of course all true muslims believe in God. Therefore, God knows best; he who is true is good in the sight of God. We need not argue on that. However, this simple point that I made, you turned into an interpretation of an interpretation which was so far from the truth I felt I had to mention. I had said in the context of 'the insignificance of numbers': Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)

Then you judged. And you judged wrongly. You accused me of accusing others. What a double-accusation indeed!

literally you have accused most muslims of being Kufar this clearly is an unorthodox and personnel interpretation of the verse.

The above is your statement. Where did I say that? You claim that my 'interpretation' is clearly 'personal' and 'unorthodox' and that this 'interpretation' is 'takfir' which as you know most certainly, relates 'kufr' to others. Ironically, I did not give my interpretation - so therefore you can not judge it by labelling it 'personal' and 'unorthodox'. However, I did hint at a possible interpretaion I had made. I said it was about the insignificance of numbers. You said it is 'literally' calling most muslims Kafar. How did you read into that so deep? Your imagination? All I had written was:

Also, the Shi'a are not only 5% but 15%. Numbers are not worth anything because according to the Holy Qur'an most people do not believe. (11:17)

In fact, you made an interpretation of my paragraph. Well, I must say it is clearly unorthodox and personal.

I brought to your honourable attention, the honourable hadith:

I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. Whoever wishes to enter it must pass Ali first.

And I urged you to note the words whoever and first. By your answer I know that you fleetingly passed by it. The reason that I singled out those words will become clear to you. By 'whoever', the Holy Prophet implies everyone and anyone: also Abu Bakr. By 'first', he is establishing Ali as the way to his knowledge and that Ali must be met first, then the Prophet. So, with the death of the Holy Prophet, the wisdom and knowledge of prophethood should be sought through Ali. This is the knowledge of the Quran, of the prophethood, of certain events, of certain key sciences. Surely, with Ali's knowledge and justice and NOT with his Ihsan, one can be an effective and noble leader. That is to say, if Abu Bakr had greater Ihsan.

However, there is no proof that both sides can agree, that Abu Bakr had greater leadership qualities than the rest of the Muslims.

Indeed there are authentic proofs from Sunni scholars, that prove that Abu Bakr and Umar required the knowledge, aid and hindsight of Ali.

From Umar: "If Ali had not been there, Umar would have been perished O Abu'l-Hasan,! I hope I am not alive when you are not among us"

And Abu Bakr and Umar both had angered the Prophet greatly. This should be proof that they were not fit to succeed him.

For example Abu Bark angered Fatima over inheritance. He doubted her truthfulness. The same woman whom the Prophet told:

A narration attributed to Anas ibn Malik reports:

“ The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Sufficient for you among the women of the world are Maryam the daughter of ‘Imraan. Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Fatimah bint Muhammad and Aasiyah the wife of Pharaoh." ” Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sunan al-Tirmidhi[2]

And another hadith is related to this:

A narration attributed to Miswar bin Makhramali reports:

“ Allah's apostle said: The sons of Hisham b. Mughira have asked my permission to marry their daughter with 'Ali b. Abi Talib (that refers to the daughter of Abu Jahl for whom 'All had sent a proposal for marriage). But I would not allow them, I would not allow them, I would not allow them (and the only alternative possible is) that 'Ali should divorce my daughter (and then marry their daughter), for my daughter is part of me. He who disturbs her in fact disturbs me and he who offends her offends me. [1]

Of course Ali did not divorce her, but remained with her until she passed away.

Shia do not agree with the wording of the text but agree with the essence that he who offends Fatima offends the Prophet. Abu Bakr did so.

As for Umar, he is commonly known to be the some people mentioned in the narration.

Ibn Abbas:

"The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet (lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write for you a document, after which you will not go astray ... Some people said that The Messenger of God was talking deliriously". [2]

As for my mistake, I apologise. I did not intend to make you think I had agreed that the following was a hadith of my opinion:

the sun never rose or set on anyone better than Abu Bakr

I do not think it is a hadith. To shia I know it is not. But again, over a little mistake that I made, you have decided to falsely accuse me of accusing the Holy Prophet. I have not and I will not accuse him of such or of any other matter. Yet you wish to accuse me of accusation. I asked for your respect in the last post which I believe you did not observe. You also said:

Your emphasis and personnel interpretation which is limited by not being versed in the Islamic sciences...

I thank you for you pre-judgement. Anyhow, instead of arguing the case for your addition to the article, namely His Status in Islam, you have accused me and you have deemed worthless the words of millions of Shias. You also added the statement:

even if all the evidance in the world was presented to you no person except a scholar is qualified to understand and interpret a matter, you have presented nothing but your own personnel unqualified view.

You are very keen on defining my view. I feel flattered.

The purpose of this post was to answer each of your claims and stand firm on the opinion that His Status in Islam is neither accurate nor scholarly as it should be on a neutral encyclopedia.

I also add that your implication that Abu Bakr had higher Ihsan than Ali or any other of the Prophet's Companions can not be proven. According to the Sunni sources, Abu Bakr is the best of the Prophet's followers, Umar would have been the Prophet after Muhammad if the latter would not have been the last prophet, Ali is the first in knowledge after Muhammad, and also according to the following Hadith,

Hadith-i da'wat-i 'ashirah is a famous Hadith in Islam. According to the hadith, when Muhammad was still living in Mecca with just few followers, he received a Quranic verse:

"come out openly and warn the people of your own clan." (Quran 26:214) He then invited his still-unbelieving relatives of Bani Hashim for luncheon. Forty of them came and ate. After the meal he asked:

"I know of no one who has brought to his people better things than I have brought to you. God has commanded me to invite you to draw toward Him. Who is there who will assist me in this matter and be my brother and inheritor (wasi) and vicegerent (khalifah) among you?" According to the hadith, all remained silent but Ali, still a teenager and the only Muslim among the Prophet's clan, who exclaimed:

"I shall be your deputy and aide." Muhammad repeated the question two more times, with no one but Ali responding each time. Muhammad then said:

"Ali is henceforth my brother, inheritor, and vicegerent (Arabic: Khalif). You must obey him." Then Abu Lahab, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad jokingly said to the then leader of the Banu Hashim, Abu Talib (d.ca.619) another uncle who remained unconverted until his death:

Your nephew told you to obey your son!

So, which to follow, and which to write in Wikipedia? Officially and historically speaking, Abu Bakr IS the First Caliph of the Muslims. Yet His Status in Islam is clearly justifying the view and generalising it to represent the opinion of all muslims around the world. Therefore, change either the title or the content.

I recommended you to read about the Saqifa from all angles and judge with a pure heart. In fact you have not realised that I am only simply saying that the title of your addition is misleading and the contents are questionable, sourceless, and unreasonable - also inaccurate concerning a large proportion of the muslim community.

Thank you - 80.229.185.93 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Catz007

If there is no reply by 6 May, I will delete the addition based on the following reasons:

-Its claim to be representing Abu Bakr's status from Islamic POV is rejected since 15% of Muslims do not agree -It contains no citation, and all sources are vague and ambiguous -It contains texts assuming them to be hadith, yet they are incompatible with Islamic belief (the sun and Abu Bakr) -It is promotion of the man and not a biographical account -The addition is in some places irrelevant -It has no structure and the text appears merely to be a copy/paste addition -It contains texts which it claims to be hadith, and these contradict other major Sunni-accepted ahadith -It contains a text which it claims to be hadith, where it is narrated from Aisha. It is clearly biased and against the Shia cause. This would not have been a problem if the Shia view had been added. -It has no support from Sunni sources and no arguments from the Shia side.

It is therefore considered not suitable and unscholarly and will be deleted if no decent argument is bropught against the above claims.

80.229.185.93 17:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The New article

going to soon replace this article with the new article which will be inshallah more comprehensive. with following headings.

1 Early life
2 During Prophet Mohammad's ear
2.1 Conversion to Islam
2.2 After conversion to Islam
2.3 Persecution of the Quraish
2.4 Last years in Makkah
2.5 Migration to Madinah
2.6 Life in Madinah
2.7 Death of Prophet Mohammad
3 Election of Abu Bakr as a Caliph
4 Reign as a Caliph
4.1 Ridda Wars
4.1.1 Shia view
5 The Qur'an
5.1 Military expansion
5.2 Invasion of Sasannid Persian Empire
5.3 Invasion of Eastern Roman Empire
6 Death
6.1 Family
7 Legacy
7.1 Sunni view
7.2 Shia view
7.3 western historians view

Mohammad Adil 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality of writing

This page seriously needs some proof reading.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 202.216.122.52 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very disappointing

Given the importance of this man, to the history of Islam and therefore to the history of thought, it is very disappointing to see the poor quality of contributions to this debate. As an interested reader of no religious affiliation, I would like to see articles conforming to minimum standards of English (the language of this encyclopedia) and of academic accountability. Really folks, I mean no disrespect, I want to learn. Please turn your attention outwards from sectarian squabbling and give the respectful sceptic a chance to understand. TheSpidermonkey 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this version compare? → AA ^(talk) — 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I think in writing a new article of Abu Bakr i have done enough research and an encylcopedia article cant be writen in hero worship style ! so staying cool in limits of wikipedia this article provides necessary information, (as far as i think), if some one have any request to extend any perticular section of the article, then plz tell, i will try to do inshallah.

Mohammad Adil 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the information (although some academic accountability, i.e. academic citations, have been called for), rather, it is the grammar used in the article. It is of very poor quality and, being that this is the ENGLISH wikipedia site, should be improved. 202.216.122.52 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

4 men and 4 women?

In the "After conversion" section their appears to be a mistake. It says he liberated 4 male slaves and 4 female slaves. Then it says the men are...and it lists 8 people. Can somebody fix this? BCapp 10:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Frequent spelling reverts

I don't speak Arabic and I have no strong opinions about the transliterations of Arabic names, but several people have made changes across the article, changing "Mecca" to "Makkah," for example. I think we should make sure that spellings match with Wikipedia's other articles on these topics, and at the very least that when we make spelling changes, we don't break links. Thanks! Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I am not bothered if it's Mecca or Makkah. There was a consensus at Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Spelling in title and within article and Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah and so the article is at Mecca. There are also a couple of comments at Talk:Mecca#Makkah or Mecca. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The following sentences in the article contradict each other: It is said that he didn't worship idols since his youth and Abu Bakr was an idolater before conversion to Islam. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone didn't worship Idols doesn't mean he wasn't an idolater Malik Al Assad (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm Kulthum (radhi Allah anha)

I am going to delete the part that says she (radhi Allah anha) was the daughter of Asma' (radhi Allah anha) because I've never seen evidence for this, rather she (radhi Allah anha) was the daughter of Kharijah (radhi Allah anha) according to ibn Kathir. Malik Al Assad (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying sources

I have corrected a part of the section regarding the story of forcibly taking Ali's acceptance of Abu Bakr's Khilafa, not to remove it but to mention that this story only exists in the Shia view and that it has no historical proof anywhere for 200 years after the choosing of Abu Bakr to be Khalifa. Also made a minor explanation in the Ridda wars to explain that zakat in Islamic view since Mohammed's days was an integral part of faith and its denial is apostasy as per the Quran. --Sampharo (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems seem to be endless. There are little problems like the fact that Sampharo misrepresents what the Qur'an says about zakat (the Qur'an says the faithful give the zakat - it does NOT assert the converse and the converse does not follow logically - the Qur'an does NOT say that those who do not give the zakat are apostates). But the larger problem is that there is far too much material in this article. Even if there are no more nits to be picked the whole is too big and disorganized to be useful to any people in the street. I suggest paring it away to a minimum AND using al-Tabari's history as the backbone source - adding only a few selected items that missed his collection. I think the entire Shia POV should be relegated to a link to an entry called, say, "Differences between the Shi'ite view of Islamic Origins and the standard view". DKleinecke (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I just spent a half-hour or so archiving the talk page for Umar. I see that this page needs archiving too. Could someone else do it? I'm swamped. Zora 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First man to convert to Islam was Ali

Who sai Abu Bakr was the first man convert to Islam? 94.195.72.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Ali was first child to convert not man, i hope u can differentiate between a child and a man.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The title:Ateeq

In the article it reads: for his beauty he earned the nickname of Atiq. It is true that it was one of the reasons he was given the name Atiq,I have read in other books that he was given the name because: 1.His superior manners and his actions 2.His noble lineage, since he seemed to be with very few or no defects. It was also said that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), gave him that name. Maverick821 (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectiong the verses of the quran

I think that it was Umar who had advised Abu Bakr to collect the verses and put them in one single book. However, I need more references. Maverick821 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

yes he was umar.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Title "Siddiq"

'Siddiq' means 'believer', not 'truthful'. 'Truthful' would be 'Sadiq' or 'Sadouq'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackerlawstudent (talk • contribs)

the Encyclopedia of Islam says: "He was later known as al-Siddīq, the truthful, the upright, or the one who counts true ...", so both meanings are supported it seems. ITAQALLAH 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My friend, the title comes from the story of the Prophet's Night Journey to Jerusalem and then up through the Heavens. As Muhammad recounted the details of his journey, the Meccan pagans would repeatedly scoff and mock him, considering his story to be pure fancy. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, would only reply to each detail recounted by Muhammad about the Journey by saying "Sadaqt" ('you have spoken the truth'). Because Abu Bakr believed Muhammad's story when everyone else did not, Muhammad conferred upon him the title of "Siddiq", the Believer, or He of Great Faith.

Since you consider both meanings to be valid, I suggest including both in the article, which is what I have done (even though I personally believe the Encyclopedia of Islam is incorrect in this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackerlawstudent (talk • contribs)

i think i should complete the quote from EoI: "He was later known as al-Siddīq, the truthful, the upright, or the one who counts true; the last meaning is supported by the tradition that he alone immediately believed Muhammad's story of his night journey (isra)." the last rendering (which i highlighted in bold) basically means the one who believes, the one who confirms as true etc. so there is no conflict between what you are saying and what the EoI is saying. also, when you post on talk pages, please remember to sign using the four tildes ~~~~, which will then put your signature there. ITAQALLAH 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that many people think SIDIQ is the title of Abubakr, there are many references that emphasize Siqid is not Abubakr's title, but Ali's one.

Here I listed some of them (Only Sunni's references), including original Arabic wording:

Ali said: I am the servant of the God, brother of Allah's Apostle, and the Sadiq Al-Akbar; After me except liars no one will call himself Sadiq, and I was offering prayers 7 years prior to others.

عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ أَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَأَخُو رَسُولِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنَا الصِّدِّيقُ الْأَكْبَرُ لَا يَقُولُهَا بَعْدِي إِلَّا كَذَّابٌ صَلَّيْتُ قَبْلَ النَّاسِ بِسَبْعِ سِنِينَ .

Hakim al-Nishaburi is adding this Hadith is authentic according to the circumstances of Bukhari and Muslim.

Ali said: I am the Sadia al-Akbar, I was a believer before Abu Bakr and I accepted Islam before Abubkar.

عن معاذة بنت عبد الله العدوية سمعت علي بن أبي طالب على منبر البصرة وهو يقول أنا الصديق الأكبر آمنت قبل ان يؤمن أبو بكر وأسلمت قبل أن يسلم أبو بكر .

Allah's Apostle Said: Sidiqs are three persons, Habib an-Najjar, Hizghil an-Nabi, Ali, and Ali is greater than the other two.

" الصديقون ثلاثة : حبيب النجار مؤمن آل ياسين ، وحزبيل مؤمن آل فرعون ، وعلي بن أبي طالب الثالث ، وهو أفضلهم .

Note: The last 2 references don't include the last sentence of the hadith (and Ali is greater than the two others).

References that prove the Hadithes that mention Abu bakr is Sidiq is not authentic:

The Hadith is as follow: عن أبى الدرداء عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : «رأيت ليلة أسرى بى في العرش فرندة خضراء فيها مكتوب بنور أبيض : لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله أبو بكر الصديق عمر الفاروق».

Allah's Apostle said: In the night of Miraj, I saw a green board, on which it was written with the white light: There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, Abubkr is Sidiq, and Umar is Farooq.

Several sunni scholars mentioned this Hadith is not autentic, such as Ibn Juzayy, al-Huthaimi, Dhahabi, Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ibn Haban, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Kathir

I think it would be better to add a new section in the article about this matter, or create a new article. Aliwiki (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Title Thani Athnain

This title is related to verse of cave in sura Tawba (chapter 9). the expression thani athnain in that verse is referred to Muhammad not Abubkr. Here I have listed 8 Sunni scholars who uphold this idea (The original Arabic text is provided as well):

Tabari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Ashur, Alusi, Badruddine Ayni, Razi, Al-Baghawi, Mujahid ibn Jabr--Aliwiki (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

The introduction of the article is biased, and sounds strange. Although it is supposed to be about abu bakr, it talks about Umar, Ali, and Fatima!! The intro has a small paragraph on sunni and shia views, which gives the impression that the rest of the intro is agreed upon between sunna and shia! Moreover, the article has 2 sections on sunna and shia views of abu bakr where such comments "might" fit. It is best to keep the intro neutral, which is not the case as it is now. (Ewpfpod (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

The introduction is neutral and suitable for this article, and I can discuss you about each single sentence of it in detail. A I mentioned in your talk page, the article is about a historical figure, not Muslims view on him. So the biography section must be the main paragraph, not Shia Sunni view on him. That the article is about Abubakr, doesn't mean no other name can not be used.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Although it is supposed to be about abu bakr, it talks about Umar, Ali, and Fatima" and "Although it is supposed to be about abu bakr, it mentions Umar, Ali, and Fatima". The sentence i am talking about "By rejecting the ... their house" constitutes 1/6 of the intro and it has nothing to do with abu bakr's biography. (Ewpfpod (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

Abubakr is universally well-known to be the 1st Muslim ruler after Muhammad, so it is important that how he became a rule.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph you added has some problems. I am mentioning only 2 here: First, you can not neglect 10 references and write a paragraph in introduction only with one reference. Second, there is nothing about Ridda wars in that book (just search the word Ridda in it). After several times that I asked you to stop such these behavior, you are still continuing; again I kindly ask you to stop edits which are against Wikipeia policies, and discuss here before further edits in introduction. Thank you. --Aliwiki (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

According to wilipedia policies, there is no problem with that. In fact what you are doing is edit warring. I did not neglect the paragraph with 10 ref's, it is still there. The info i wrote is published and considered a reliable source. All infomation in that paragraph comes from this source, more sources will follow (if quantity even matters). You dont check if something is mentioned about ridda wars in that reference by doing a search! check carefully, and you will find it. Moreover, you ask me to discuss, and you edit without discussing things, you remove my edits completely, and i keep yours, i wonder who should watch his behaviour. I am reverting due to vandalism.(Ewpfpod (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

I made my comments here before reverting your edits. Here I am writing a detail of the problems of your paragraph. Comparing with my edits i which I have provided at least one reference for each sentence, your whole paragraph is based on a name of a book only. your paragraph, which comes exactly after introducing Abu Bakr, is talking about the war he made upon his Caliphate started, while that war occured in the last 2 years of his life, and so it's not suitable for there. You are referreing to those who were refused tp pay tax to Abubakr as apostate, but why? if a muslim stop paying Zakat, he/she is a apostay? the prominent Sunni scholars, DR. Muhammad Hamidullah says in his book Introduction to Islam, (Kuwait, 1977): "...a delegation from Ta'if came to Medinah offering submission. But it requested exemption from prayer, taxes and military service... The prophet consented to concede exemption from payment of taxes and rendering of military service... This act of the Prophet shows that concessions could be given to new converts...". Sir John Glubb says:"...One such party seized Malik ibn Nuweira and his family and brought them in to Khalid, although they claimed to be Muslims. The men of Medina who were with the army protested vigorously against Khalid's ruthlessness, but without avail. The prisoners were placed under guard but, during the night, Malik ibn Nuweira and his supporters were killed in cold blood. Within 24 hours Khalid had married the widow of his victim. Malik ibn Nuweira had been executed while professing to be a believer. Indeed Khalid's marriage to the beautiful Leila gave rise to the suspicion that Malik had been killed with the object of making her available to the conqueror."(ref:The Great Arab Conquests, 1963, p. 112). Don't try to justify your incorrect edits by using the titles of wikipedia policies.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

your paragraph, which comes...not suitable for there: his caliphate lasted 2 years so the wars happened during his caliphate period not before, not after, they started upon the start of his caliphate, and where essential to keep the muslims in a political unity.

You are referreing... is a apostay?: I am not, the book says abu bakr fought those who ceased paying zakat (off course in addition to those who claimed prophethood) it is a reliable source.

the prominent Sunni scholars... to the conqueror."(ref:The Great Arab Conquests, 1963, p. 112): has nothing to do with the discussion.

Don't try to justify your incorrect edits by using the titles of wikipedia policies: thanks for the advice, applies to you too. (Ewpfpod (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

This can be the last time I ask you to stop vandalizing the article. A person can't have 2 different biographies, there should be one. What you are citing is only names of books, which I won't accept for here. I will remove ANY claim without or with weak referenc here.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are citing is only names of books: what else should be cited??

...which I won't accept for here...: no comment. (Ewpfpod (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Read WP:verifiability to understand the problem of your edits. Also, I suggest to have a fast look to my references.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One more point, don't use tag before discussing here.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits cite sources that are reliable and verifiable. By having a fast look at your reference, i notice that you state some sentences from that source, which might help supporting your edits, but is not required as the sources are verifiable and this who wants to check it can find it by himself (and find more perhaps). I dont see a contradiction between my edits and WP:verifiability. And by the way, tags are used to remind people reading this article that there is a discussion going on, and must be added before discussion (and not after the problem is resolved!). (Ewpfpod (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

If your text is verifiable,as you claim, so please verify what you have written from the given references (else I will remove). Only and only as you are a new user, I didn't reprt your vandalisms, instead, I asked for a 3rd person opinion here.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My "claims" are easy to find in the sources i cited. However, as you insist, i'll make it easy for you, here it is:

After the death of muhammad, many tribes believed they should revert to local leadership and break away from Medina's control[[6], pp. 99-100] since muhammad did not specify a political order to take over after his death[[7], p. 97][[8], p. 23][[9], p. 50]. These tribes indicated the end of their alliance with Medina by ceasing zakat payment. Abu bakr and other companions believed the muslims should remain as one community not only morally, but also politically. He was pledged allegiance by the companions of the prophet muhammad, and appointed as the first caliph after consultation with other elders in the community[[10], p. 23]. On his selection as a leader, he dispatched a campaign to the north of Medina that was already planned to dispatch before the death of Muhammad[[11], pp. 99-100]. As the first caliph, he ordered that the rebelling tribes be brought back into the community (by force if neccessary) with the so-called ridda wars[[12], p. 23][[13], pp. 9-10]. By his death, all tribes of the arabian peninsula were brought back to the islamic political orbit[[14], p. 24].

I hope you can find it easily now. Note: quoting phrases from the source and including it in the references is not nice, it makes the list of references look strange (like an essay instead of a list of refs). (Ewpfpod (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Third opinion

A lot of work is indeed necessary to this article. Compared to what it needs, this debate is rather a tempest in a teapot. In this case, the material should be handled like all verifiability disputes—reflect what the sources say, never what you think. If the sources themselves disagree, note that there is controversy over the matter, what different sources have to say on the subject, and what their respective positions are. If there is a clear majority viewpoint, we can note that it is so, but we should never "take a side" so to speak, only note that disagreement exists and the nature of it.

However, the article in general needs a lot of work. It's rambling and includes far too much detail, and could use a trim by half at least. It also tends to jump around a great deal—it doesn't follow a flowing narrative. Sometimes, religious perspective seems to be included without qualification that it is a religious belief—only actual historically proven facts should be presented as such. Religious beliefs should always be qualified "X's believe that..." or the like. Religious texts and works are generally not considered historical proofs.

Finally, a lot of copyediting is required. Proper nouns ("Muhammad", "Islamic", etc.), should always be capitalized. Sentences should always use proper English grammar and syntax. A lot of sections have excessive quotes (generally a quote isn't required if we can paraphrase what it says, and that's almost always possible).

In short, there's an awful lot of very basic work to be done here before we start really digging into exactly what given sources say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One final thing—both of you stop calling one another's edits vandalism. Neither of you has vandalized the article, and using that term in a content dispute is uncivil and inappropriate. Note that edit warring is inappropriate as well, and continuing to revert one another may lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To Seraphimblade: Thanks a lot for your comment. Everything you mentioned is correct.

To Ewpfpod: First of all, accept my apologize to view some (not all) of your edits as vandalism. Now, my suggestion is to start from Introduction together. I suggest that in introduction, mine and your paragraphs be merged together in a chronological order, without using general expressions (for example the word companion is general and include thousands of people, and we must declare who exactly did what). If you have any comment, write here, then we can start together. It would be better if we first write an example of the merged paragraph here, then after complete agreement, place it in the article. what do you think?--Aliwiki (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to thank Seraphimblade for his many useful advices, and to appoligize to Aliwiki for any inappropriate action I have done, your appology is accepted, please accept mine. Now regarding your suggestion, I agree as long as the article is kept neutral, represents different points of view, and clear as for who claims what. Rewriting the intro is a good idea, I am going to try to do that and post it here. We can go through several rounds of review and as soon as it reaches a steady state we can put it into the article. (Ewpfpod (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Seraphimblade can you define religious texts, it is a very general term.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shia bias in the introduction

this sentence is idiotic to say the least,

Shia Muslims view him as doing Coup d'état agains Ali's right to successorship[18], usurping properties of Fatima[19] and being responsible in her death.[20]

the term coup de tat means to overthrow a government as defined by the wikki page the term is linked to, when Abu bakr came into power no government existed for him to overthrow the islamic government began with him as the first leader.

for anyone interested in the sunni view of whether Umar threatened to burn Fatimas house you can read this http://www.scribd.com/doc/15804089/Did-Umar-Burn-Fatimas-House further more since Abu bakr was not accused of this and the most that was ever said about the incident is that umar had a temper rather than going their with the clear intention of specifically burning her house down before finding out her opinion on the matter of leadership it has no relevance to the introduction to the biography of Abu bakr which is supposed to be neutral and about him specifically.

the parragraph "According to other sources, during Muhammad's lifetime he was not assigned to any civil or military authority and responsibility and he wasn't ever distinguished in any of Muhammad's campaigns.[6] anyone who understands language will know that this is only worded this way to arrive at an accusation against him, their is no point for such a comment and is not relevant from a secular point of view. what other reason is there other than to support the idea he wasnt distinguished in any manner and prop up the next line which states "By rejecting the legitimist claims of Ali about his right to successorship,[7][8] Umar imposed Abu Bakr as Caliphate[9][10], which was the beginning of Islam schism.[11] Opponents like Ali and Fatimah were threatened with an attempt to set fire to their house.[8][12] First civil war and Muslim massacre occurred in his caliphate time, when upon the death of Muhammad, some tribes rebelled against him.[13][14]" again what is the relevance of this to the introduction of his biography, if you want to insert this at a latter stage under shia views do so but the introduction should be neutral and not alluding to controversy since the sum of his life and achievements do not culminate in this point, which is what an introduction is meant to sum up.

"Sunni Muslims believe that Abū Bakr was the first man (adult male) to convert to Islam.[2][16]" why is this even mentioned, who was first has no relevance from a non religious perspective, i understand it is meant to allude to righteousness but we are not measuring the level of his piety here we are summing up the events of his life, "The identity of the first male Muslim is of little importance to Western historians of Islam." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_the_first_male_Muslim

if you are wondering why i said shia bias as apposed to bias in general since these comments are sourced it is because a western academic would not be interested in stating these things in the very first lines of a biography to give the impression nothing else mattered or is of worth in the man life. i will again reiterate the introduction should be neutral and not alluding to controversy since the sum of his life and achievements do not amount to this especially from a western perspective its of far more interest to mention the expansion of Islam into other lands and his encounters with other civilizations.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph of Shia Sunni view on Abubakr is only reflecting what they believe according to the given source. But about his biography, paragraph; that Abubakr was not assigned to any autority by Muhammad during around 23 years of companionship is an undeniable fact, in this case, I suggest to have a fast look to the history of this page before my edits, you'll see nothing were written about this, and his biography was starting since he became Calphate; if you read history carefully, you'll se many negative point of him during Muhammad's lifetime, for example, in Battles of Uhud and Hunayn Abubakr was a fugitive. In battle of Trench, he didn't reply to Muhammad, when Muhmmad ask for help and several other examples. The other sentences are historical facts, not Shia or Sunni view. In a historical point of view Ali had claims about successorship (pay attention Shia Sunni have different view about which were these claims). Upon prophet death, when his relatives were busy with his funeral, figures like Abubakr, Umar, Abu Ubaida and ... were absent and busy in Saqifa to choose a Caliphate where only tens of Muslims out of hundred thousands were present. After a dangerous discussion, Umar imposed Abubakr as Caliphate, which is now accepted by Sunni, and rejected by Shia and so is the base of schism in Islam as Bernard Lewis has said. The next sentence is only reflecting Sunni's view, because Sunni's believe Umar had just threatend Fatima's house, while Shia believe Umar set fire there, but for neutrality I used the word Attempt, as the western historian had used in the reference. About massacre of Muslims, i explained details in the above section. If you see any unclear point in the introduction, write here, so I'll answer.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point entirely, from a secular perspective everything you have raised speaks towards his level of piety and is thus irrelevant and petty. since we are not measuring his level of iman whether he took part or not in particular battles is not of any importance, ask your self why you would even want to bring this point up if not to speak about his personnel character and this is something historians would put as a side note latter in a piece not at its introduction which is what you are arguing for, remember i am only referring to the introduction itself not the entire piece.

You said "was not assigned to any autority by Muhammad during around 23 years" whats your point i didn't contest this.

You said "if you read history carefully" why do i need to read between the lines to make a judgment about his personal character, we are summing up the events of his life in a single page his level of piety is not even of relevance in this entire article since secular society separates church from state and all you have mentioned is subjective, opinion and are things drawn as conclusions to events.

You said "The other sentences are historical facts, not Shia or Sunni view" im sorry but if you cant see that they are then your level of English is not up to standard and i can see this from the way you structure your comments, this isn't a personnel attack but something that is plain to see by any westerner reading what you say. every point i have raised speaks about his personnel character, you see it as a fact of history because you believe it as a fact and cant tell the difference between a historical event and a conclusion made about an event.

you said "In a historical point of view Ali had claims about successorship (pay attention Shia Sunni have different view about which were these claims)." please note regardless of these claims you have to understand there place and priority in the grand scheme of this page, not sunni shia beliefs. this is a foot note in his biography not the center piece and shouldn't be mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Br you don't seem to able to understand that from a western point of view sunni and shia differences seem very petty and everything you have raised they would consider minor, it is of far more interest to mention Islams expansion and his activities as the leader of the Muslims rather than spend the majority of the opinion paragraph talking about issues of how he came to power this is how this paragraph should be prioritized, everything else is just a foot note regardless of whether you believe it is a fact.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

i wanted to add you also haven't answered my question about the coup de tat since no government existed to overthrow.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

First, my weak English won't stop me from editing in Wikipedia, so If you see some errors, you can correct. second, about Coup d'état; Coup d'état is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government; when Ali was busy with prophet's funeral, some companions vanished and in Saqifa they chose Abu bakr, which is exactlty sudden and illegal deposition of a government according to Shia. Third, we are writting HISTORICAL FACTS, free from any point of view, including secularism.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

well you seem to have ignored everything i have said about the points themselves being irrelevant to the opening paragraph regardless of historicity so i have to assume you have no answer to this. Your bad English will stop you from understanding English related issues hence your clear shia views throughout the article itself, as i have mentioned a number of times if you where not shia you would clearly see what i am pointing out, that these issues are minor from a western point of view and at times childish. your definition of a coupe de tat is wrong the sentence should be worded "they did not uphold Ali's right to successor-ship as viewed by shia" or some similar a sentence because to say a government existed prior to Abu Bakr forming one would be to essentially say the people where not being governed by prophethood. To deny a right to successor ship is different from deposing him from an already held position of authority whcih is what a coup de tat is and no such authority existed, this is where a strong basis in the English language would help you.

You say "some companions vanished and in Saqifa they chose Abu bakr, which is exactly sudden and illegal" i dont think so, only the family of the deceased have the obligation to take care of the funeral arrangements and this is universal Islamic law. some of the the Ansar [people of madina] not present had already formed to talk about who would lead them and they where about to chose from themselves Saad Bin Ubadahwhen, some other companions called Abu Bakr and Umar who went on to tell them the leader should be from Quraish, if they hadn't the muslim leader would not have even been from the tribe of the prophet let alone mecca and you would be here arguing that the leader should not be from the ansar instead of the leader should not be abu bakr. your view is clearly a shia view not some neutral opinion, i have posted the sunni account of what occurred and clearly you are distorting history.

you say "free from any point of view, including secularism" do you know what the word means, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

we are writing history on a secular web site not free from it.

so once again i will point this out "from a western point of view sunni and shia differences seem very petty and everything you have raised they would consider minor, it is of far more interest to mention Islams expansion and his activities as the leader of the Muslims rather than spend the majority of the opinion paragraph talking about issues of how he came to power this is how this paragraph should be prioritized, everything else is just a foot note regardless of whether you believe it is a fact."...can you tell the difference between challenging a historical account and questing the relevance of something in the opinion paragraph which is what i am doing, All you seem to reply with is this is a historical fact mantra.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1)this shows you need to know more about politics, religions, and Islam history. 2)Wikipedia is not a forum, so if you want to discuss such these matters, you are not in correct place. 3) Here we don't care who thinks what, who believes what, or who points out what; we just care about reliable sources. That's it.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

are you even reading what i am saying, i am not discussing the historicity of something but its relevance in the opening paragraph and still you have no answer to my questions except to say it is a fact, please excuse me if i question your competency in the English language.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My answers were enough and clear.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

you didnt answer anything, the term coup de tat should be removed since it is not in line with its definition in the English language along with any petty issues that are irrationally prioritized and mentioned in the first paragraph.

Ibn kathir (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading in this case: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], also [24].--Aliwiki (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

so you advocate turning this article into a shia website? ill re quote myself here "all you [same goes for this site] have mentioned is subjective, opinion and are things drawn as conclusions to events." who you then go on to state the opinion itself is a fact and not the actual event, can you differentiate between the two because that is the essence of being impartial and neutral that you separate opinion from facts.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The links I posted is related to Shia view on Abu bakr (the last paragraph of introduction); I answered you before about the Abubakr's biography paragraph.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro discussion

This is my suggestion for the intro. I think that all other info does not belong to the intro, it might fit more into another section in the article. Any suggestions, comments?

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) ([undefined] Error: {{Langx}}: invalid parameter: |a= (help)), c. 573 – 23 August 634 AD/13 hijri is one of the main figures of islamic history. He was a merchant from the arabic tribe "Quraysh", one of the first people to accept Islam, and thus was among the earliest companions. He later became Muhammad's father-in-law upon Muhammad's marriage with Aisha. After Muhammad's death, he held the position of the Caliph which makes him the first Muslim ruler after Muhammad.

Although Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted only for two years and three months, many important events in the islamic history occured during his time. During his caliphate, the ridda wars were fought against some arab tribes that rebelled after the death of Muhammad. He started the expansion of the Muslim state towards the Sassanid Persian and the Byzantine Empire by occupying parts of them. He chose Umar as his successor.

(Ewpfpod (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I disagree with this introduction; As I commented before, I suggested to merge the two paragraphs to have one biography, and i suggested to merge the sentences in chronological order, to keep it neutral. your introduction is very short.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the introduction does not have to be long. Moreover, merging the paragraphs is a very tedious task. The two paragraphs we are talking about talk about contradicting things. To have them both in the intro, they must be in 2 separate paragraphs, one reflecting the sunna point of view, and another reflecting the shia point of view. Both paragraphs must state explicitly that this is sunna and this is shia point of view, but this makes the intro too long and i think that these issues should be discussed in the section on sunna/shia views.

I think that my suggestion for the intro is neutral and sufficient. Otherwise, if you have an idea on how to merge the other paragraphs into one paragraph, make this suggestion here. (Ewpfpod (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

It is to somehow neutral (except Ridda war, which we will discuss later after merging), but not enough. As I suggested before, we can merge the paragraph sentence by sentence, in chronological order that they occured.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the sentence i mentioned about the ridda wars is neutral. Look into your paragraph in the intro, you will find a similar statement there, except you call it civil war and massacre, which i didn't mention since it is not neutral. Merging the pargraph as you suggest will lead to a strange result, neither the structure nor the content will be suitable for an encyclopedia. (Ewpfpod (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

two points:1)we will change the wording of the sentences if necessary after meging to make it suitable, so don't worry about it. 2) Ridda is not neutral, because you are calling the people who stopped paying Zakat as apostate. I told you before, they were not apostates, indeed they were Muslim.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Insha allah i can explain this clearly, when these tribes came into Islam they didn't simply convert, they took oaths at the hands of the prophet [may Allah bless him] to perform certain actions of ibaddah [worship], namely pay zakkat, when a new Muslim first enters Islam today there is no such oath to anyone he is simply accountable to Allah. these tribes are not in the same situation as an ordinary person after the prophets time, because they took an oath or made a pact, how ever you wish to express it in English, with the prophet this oath was also with Allah himself as the prophet is obviously his representative so when they broke this oath with the prophet and Allah they became apostates. This standard is similar to Allah saying to a person who asks him for a sign of his existence and Allah saying to that person if i show you a sign and you disbelieve the punishment would be more severe than if i had not shown it to you and in reality this occurred with some people in the prophets own time. Allah showed these tribes his greatest sign the prophet, they took an oath that he was a prophet and this was the truth and then they went back on their word.

The opening paragraph is not suitably worded to match this reality, there was no option to split away and form another community, zakkat is for the poor not for the administration if this was over another khalifah they could of declared it as such but they chose not to uphold the tenants of Islam themselves which they swore an oath to and not simply split and from another ummah like the shia did, did the shia also chose to stop paying zakkat in all forms after swearing an oath to the prophet himself as these tribes did? no

The shia did not exist during this time so they are not subject to the same standards as i explained above.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Any opening paragraph is supposed to sum up what the remainder of the article is about, this one focuses on turmoil and trouble and ignores just about everything else as if to say the entire article is about this. this is just basic essay writing, their shouldn't be issues of conflict in this section especially those of shia and sunni since the shia did not exist during this time and they are not a focus of Abu bakrs life or anything he had to deal with himself.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

see How_to_write_an_essay, you may like to also see, Parts of an essay, especially the section on the Introductory paragraph "You are telling the reader what you think are the most important points which need to be addressed in your essay." we can see from the contents that the ridda wars are a sub point in this article not a main section and so don't have a place in the opening paragraph, if we are going to go ahead and mention each main category of the contents, in the opening paragraph then you may like to talk about his legacy, touching on sunni and shia differences otherwise his legacy is akin to the conclusion and should be left to the end.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make scene. Do you have proof that stop paying Zakat to Abubakr makes someone an apostate? They took oath to prophet, and did all of their duties. Malik ibn Nuwairah confessed shahada some minutes before being killed by khalid ibn Walid. I can tell you an example: If those tribes are considered to be apostates, so Aisha and her army will be in same situation as they fought against the Khalifa Ali, here don't forget that less than hundred persons chose Abubakr in Saqifa, while Ali was chosen by all Arabs votes, and also Abubakr started war with tribes, while Aisha was the one who started. For sure Aisha's case is more severe than tribal's case.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My merge suggestion is as follow, if one has comment about any sentence, ask here.

During Muhammad's lifetime he was not assigned to any civil or military authority and responsibility and he wasn't ever distinguished in any of Muhammad's campaigns. Muhammad did not specify a political order to take over after his death. By rejecting the legitimist claims of Ali about his right to successorship, Umar imposed Abu Bakr as Caliphate, which was the beginning of Islam schism. Opponents like Ali and Fatimah were threatened by an attempt to set fire to their house. Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted two years and three months. First civil war and Muslim massacre occurred in his caliphate time, when upon the death of Muhammad, some Muslims didn't accept his regimen and stopped paying Zakat, believing Ali was the righteous successor and by the selection of Abu Bakr by few companions, they should have reverted to local leadership. Several Arabs who claimed prophet-hood were killed by his order. To consolidate his government, he invaded Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Empire conquering part of the lands of Syria and Iraq. He chose Umar as his successor.

--Aliwiki (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make scene: wrong! the comments by user Ibn kathir are correct and constructive,

Do you have proof that stop paying Zakat to Abubakr makes someone an apostate: We should not be proving whether this who does not pay zakat is an apostate or not. This is not what we do here in wikipedia, we base our statements on references, plus, zakat is not payed to abu bakr but to the poor (among others). Moreover, many accounts state that zakat is as essential as prayer (prayer and zakat are almost always mentioned together in the Quran), and this who rejects zakat becomes an apostate, this is why the wars are called "ridda" wars,

Malik ibn Nuwairah confessed shahada some minutes before being killed by khalid ibn Walid: Malik ibn nuwairah followed the woman that claimed prophethood (nobowwa) whose name was "sajah", moreover, before he was killed, he answered after being asked about the duty of zakat: "this is what your man says", referring to muhammad, which makes him an apostate from khalid's perspective, which is why he killed him. Moreover, the ridda wars are about many tribes and not only one man, malik e.g., your are insisting on the story of malik and forgetting people like "al'aswad al 'ansi" and "musaylima" and other tribes...

so Aisha and her army will be in same situation as they fought against the Khalifa Ali: there is nothing like aisha's army, aisha went to try to stop the war between ali's army and muawiyah's army after being asked to do that by talha and zubair. Indeed she tried to do that but didn't succeed. And moreover, the mother of the believers (as mentioned in the Quran) can't be accused with apostasy by any one who claims to be a believer.

here don't forget that less than hundred persons chose Abubakr in Saqifa: wrong! after the shura in the saqifa, many other companions made "bay'a" in the mosque, including Ali and Zubair.

and also Abubakr started war with tribes: the tribes rebelled, and became a threat to the muslim community, which means they started.

The paragraph that you have merged is pathetic, by reading it you get confused. In fact it is biased towards shia accusation against abu bakr.

During Muhammad's lifetime he was not assigned to any civil or military authority and responsibility and he wasn't ever distinguished in any of Muhammad's campaigns: Should not be mentioned in the intro, sounds negative, he was a distinguished companion, and was assigned religious "authority" which is far more important in a muslim community that civil or military authority.

By rejecting the legitimist claims of Ali about his right to successorship, Umar imposed Abu Bakr as Caliphate, which was the beginning of Islam schism. Opponents like Ali and Fatimah were threatened with an attempt to set fire to their house: I don't see the relation between these lines and abu bakr biography. The phrase "legitimist claims" contradicts with "Muhammad did not specify a political order to take over after his death". How can there be legitimist claims if no political order was specified?

First civil war and Muslim massacre occurred in his caliphate time, when upon the death of Muhammad, some Muslims didn't accept his regimen and stopped paying tax, believed Ali was the righteous successor and by the selection of Abu Bakr by few companions, they should revert to local leadership: that's particularly aweful. Civil war in a muslim community is muslim against muslim. E.g. Ali vs. Muawiyah is a civil war, but abu bakr vs. musaylimah, al aswad al 'ansi, sajah... is not! And what do you mean with "didn't accept his regimen...believed Ali was the righteous successor", does this mean that musaylimah e.g. would have obeyed Ali and would not have claimed prophethood and rebelled if Ali was the first caliph?? And what is "stopped paying tax", do you mean zakat? because that's a different thing. "the selection of Abu Bakr by few companions" is biased, all companions accepted abu bakr as a caliph as i mentioned before.

conquering the lands of Syria and Iraq: not all lands of syria and iraq were conquered during abu bakr's caliphate.

all tribes of the arabian peninsula were brought back to the Islamic political orbit: now this statement is confusing, especially after you say civil war and massacre. If they were brough back, then the were away before that and not part of the islamic political orbit, which does not make the war a civil war anymore!

(Ewpfpod (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

clearly you wont see sense even if it is pointed out you don't know how to write, structure or prepare an essay, man wake up even if what your saying is the utter truth it still has no place in the opening paragraph. its clear your pure intent is to propagate shia beliefs regardless of relevance, Is there any way of reporting this shia vandalism. Maybe the moderators don't fully appreciate the place of the shia point of view in the history of Abu Bakr. The shia did not exist until some 25 years after Abu bakr died, they constitute 5 to 10% of the Muslim population, everything they propose is nothing more than a reinterpretation of history as they have no first hand accounts. they have no place on this page not even the shia sunni view is relevant since Abu bakr never dealt with them so its like writing a history about someone then adding a political section inviting all latter groups and sects to comment on something that occurred prior to their time, if they didn't exist what relevant factual evidence can they contribute....they can only reinterpret.

Or if you like this schism Is akin to the differences between the Catholics and church of England over the King James bible and then asking the Mormons to come and re-interprate history according to their point of view, why is it even relevant on this page when their is limited space for content and it inst some tome that is meant to consider all political points of view. Why don't we also place an Ahmadi, bahai, Nusari [who actually think Ali is God] or the Khawarij [of oman] section on this page as in the name of fairness they all didn't exist in his time and have an opinion regarding him.

Ibn kathir (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't enter detail about aisha's case as it's very clear and obvious to everyone who has a neutral point of view. She fought against the chosen Caliphate, which was not related to her, that's enough. let's concentrate here. About ceasing Zakat and Ridda war, see my comments again in bias section on 23:08, 21 October 2010, in which I clarified this matter. About authority case, I answered this matter in the talk page of user Ewpfpod; Pay attention that many other performed religious practices during prophet's lifetime, for example Salim Abi Hadhifa who led praying in Quba and Abubakr was behind him;also read this narration from Bukhari:Prayer is a mandatory duty for you, and you can offer it behind any Muslim even if he is a fasiq (even if he commits major sins). legitimist claims of Ali were not limited to what you said (being or not appointed as successor by prophet); Ali was one of the five member of Ahl al-Bayt, a member of Ahl al-Kisa, a member of Mubahala, the main figure of Hadith of the pond of Khumm(Madelung writes on the basis of this hadith, Ali later insisted on his religious authority superior to that of Abu Bakr and Umar. ref:The Succession to Muhammad, page 253) and many other things which were giving him right to claim. Wilferd Madelung said:n the Qur’an, the descendants and close kin of the prophets are their heirs also in respect to kingship (mulk), rule (hukm), wisdom (hikma), the book and the imamate. The Sunnite concept of the true caliphate itself defines it as a succession of the prophet in every respect except his prophethood. Why should Muhammad not be succeeded in it by any of his family like the earlier prophets? If God really wanted to indicate that he should not be succeeded by any of them why did He not let his grandsons and other kin die like his sons? There is thus a good reason to doubt that Muhammad failed to appoint a successor because he realized that the divine design excluded hereditary succession of his family and that he wanted the Muslims to choose their head by Shura. The Qur’an advises the faithful to settle some matters by consultation, but not the succession to prophets. That, according to the Qur’an, is settled by divine election, God usually chooses their successors, whether they become prophets or not from their own kin. About land of Syria and Iraq you are correct and I will change it. Also as you insist, I will replace the word tax with Zakat. About Islamic law establishment after his death, this sentence makes scense as he killled or threatened those who were against him, but if you want we can delete it. let me know about this.

To user Ibn kathir: You must read a lot about the history of Islam, you don't know the basic incidents of early Islamic history such as Islam schism, incident of Saqifa and many things else. Abubakr doesn't belong to any group, including Sunnis. Here we write only and only realities of history, and we don't care whether a group like it or not.

let me know if there are further comments or any unclear point in the suggested paragraph.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

let's concentrate here: You were the one who started talking about aisha, so you are the one who should concentrate!!

About ceasing Zakat and Ridda war, see my comments again in bias section on 23:08, 21 October 2010, in which I clarified this matter: you haven't clarified the matter, you have clarified your point of view (the shia one) of the matter. There are many references supporting what i mentioned before about ridda wars and zakat. That's what counts.

By the way, in someone's biography (CV), we don't write things like "I don't know astrophysics" if you know what i mean. no need to mention that he wasnt appointed civil or military authority. biography is about things one is and does, not thinks he didn't do and he doesn't know, otherwise, i suggest we should write many thing that abu bakr did not do!

legitimist claims ... their own kin: I am sure you can find many reasons why you think ali had legitimist claims, others can find many reasons for others' claims. What sould be said is that he was chosen as caliph, sunnis accept that as being his right, shia reject... you shouldn't say "legitimist claims..." and neglect the point of view or hte majority.

I will replace the word tax with Zakat: doesn't work as if you say "they refused to give zakat to abu bakr", as zakat is not to be taken by abu bakr.

Most important, the intro should be neutral. don't state any thing that does not belong to the intro, and don't mention any thing that is not agreed upon between sunna and shia only from one side, both perspectives should be covered. The structure should be good and not confusing.(Ewpfpod (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

Who is we? are you wikkipedia itself? you cant even stick to a basic essay structure which clearly indicates the points you raise don't belong in the intro why do you keep avoiding this point its legitimate and you wave the neutral and impartial banner more than any one else here so you should address this issue.

the groups i mentioned have a similar right as the shia posting their opinions here you cant seem to handle that fact. how would you like it if the nusari hijacked the Ali page and insisted he be referred to as God out of fairness to their point of view. none of what you say changes the fact the shia did not exist in his time and he didn't have to deal with them, therefor your opinions about history is little more than politics and this inst a political site.

Abu Bakr was a sunni lets not forget this point.

Ibn kathir (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Non of you prove that the people were killed by Abubakr were apostate, you are only repeating your beliefs, but I proved they were muslims. I don't understand why you want to relate everything to shia sunni matter, here were are talking about history, not religious beliefs. the last paragraph of the introduction is about this, and if you are interested let's discuss separately. If the incident X has occurred, were are reporting it here, without caring whether shia or sunni agree on it or no, Neutrality is Reality, not the belief of MAJORITY; pay attention that the view point of majority CAN NOT change history. I didn't understand what you mean about Zakat, let me know what you exactly want to be written about Zakat payment.

User Ibn Kathir, you sentence Abu Bakr was a sunni lets not forget this point. is enough for me not to reply any comment for your post.

Summerizing and conclusion till here: Here we don't care who believes what (which is for the last paragraph), now if there is any unclear point about HISTORICAL FACTS of the introduction, let's continue the debate.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why everytime your claims are refuted, you have to state the same thing once again. I wonder if you are really reading the previous comments carefully. You say "Non of you prove that the people were killed by Abubakr were apostate, you are only repeating your beliefs, but I proved they were muslims."!!! We are not doing original research here right? we shouldn't be proving or disproving things. Simply it's references that matter, and many references say the opposite of your statement. I find myself compelled to repeat, the ridda wars were not about one man or one tribe, it's about many. Unless you believe people like musaylima, al-'ansi... were muslim, your statement is incorrect. So what is the reality then? (Ewpfpod (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

I confess you are correct about the case of Musaylima. As we want to be instructive here, let me know what is your suggestion about how to write this sentence.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

stop being so condescending, Abu Bakr was a Sunni by the simple definition of what the term shia means, he was the khalifah of the Sunni Muslims and the shia split away. We have preserved his sayings, teaching and follow them and what he instructed us to do. Are you so arrogant as to even deny this fact of history that not even the orientalists them self challenge.

I will repeat my self again, nothing you have mentioned is relevant in the opening paragraph this is the basic English structure of any essay, report or peace of writing WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS POINT that has nothing to do with sunni or shia differences.

Ibn kathir (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is not the only problem with your suggestion for the merged paragraph. Even if we fix this sentence and all other sentences, this does not change the fact that this paragraph does not belong to abu bakr's biography and shouldn't be a part of the intro. (Ewpfpod (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

Use Ibn Kathir: the paragraph has good standard like many other biographies in Wikipedia. If you want to start any debate about shia sunni view on Abubakr which is related to the last paragraph, you are welcome to start it in a different section, and we will discuss there.

User Ewpfpod: It seems you don't want to be helpful, we have discussed a lot here, and now I see you have turned back to your first point. I will add a sentence about killing false prophets during Abubakr's time as you want. Pay attention that such these people were killed due to false claim of prophet-hood, not due to stop paying Zakat.

I modified the paragraph as you can see in the above. I changed the case of Iraq and Syria and deleted the las sentence as you mentioned.

For me this debate is finished. Let me know your final point of view.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this should be the intro:

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) (Arabic: عبد الله بن أبي قحافة; Transliteration: Abdullāh bin Abī Quhāfah, c. 573 CE – 23 August 634/13 AH)is one of the main figures of Islamic history. He was a merchant from the Arabian tribe "Quraysh", one of the first people to accept Islam, and was Muhammad's father-in-law, one of his Sahaba (companions) and the first Muslim ruler after his death.

Although never assigned to any civil or military authority during Mohammad’s life time, after death of Mohammad, he was pledged allegiance by the companions of Muhammad, and appointed as the first caliph. Mohammad's death had plunged the newly formed Muslim community in the succession crisis, many Arabian tribes ended their alliance with Medina due to its rising hegemony, while several other apostatized. Many self-proclaimed prophets emerged elsewhere among the Arabian tribes. Abu Bakr started a series of campaigns (the Ridda wars) to crush this widespread revolt and united Arabia, first time in the history, truly under a single ruler. Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted two years and three months. During which he not only consolidated his power in Arabia but also invaded neighboring Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Empires. He chose Umar as his successor.

Sunni Muslims and Shia scholars all believe that Abū Bakr was the first man (adult male) to convert to Islam and regarded him as the first of the Rashidun (righteously guided Caliphs).Shia Muslims view him as doing Coup d'état against Ali's right to succeed Mohammad as his political heir, usurping properties of Fatima and being responsible in her death.

I have modified the current intro of the article by skipping of the points which were irrelevant to the intro and some where skipped owing to some wiki policies. If questioned i can explained every skipping, for the above intro i have thrid party sources for the reference (which are by far perfect wiki sources to be used in any article see:WP:VRS).

I would like to have your views on it. suggest if its wording can be made more mature and encyclopedic.

I have removed some shia views from the middle paragraph as they were given undue weight, (feel free to add them in the relevant section of the article) since these were purely shia views and were not seconded by third party scholars in general so i have removed them in accordance to this policy WP:UDW. The last paragraph seems to summarize the shia views perfectly, and structurally this seems to distribute the weight evenly.

As this is an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia for the purpose of accuracy, requires its Users to base their material on third party reliable sources, that can be easily verified. It will be appreciated if thrid party sources will be used for references.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ali Wiki, I think the corrections you made in the paragraph solved some problems but left many open problems (see above). Anyways, I agree on Mohammad adil's intro. I think it is neutral and encyclopedic. (Ewpfpod (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

User Muhammad Adil, first of all thank you for your comment, and I am happy to see someone new in this debate. As it seems you haven't read what we discussed before, I strongly suggest you to read them. Our debate was concentrated about the second paragraph (Abubakr's biography). we will discuss the third later in different section. Your paragraph has several major problems which we discussed in detail and you can read. Also we had some agreement which is completely neglected in your paragraph. I have repeated this many time, but for you information, in this paragraph, we DON'T CARE who believes what, we care only and only about historical facts. If the incident X has occurred (whether it is in agreement with the idea of group A or it's against idea of group B), we will report it in this paragraph.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User Ali Wiki, please don't change untill a consensus is reached. The paragraph you added still has major issues. There is still no "agreement" on this paragraph, and it still has contradictions in it. See above. (Ewpfpod (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I'm stating these again: 1) he was not is not part of one's biography. 2) legitimist claims of Ali this is only the shia side of the story, biased. 3) Umar imposed Abu Bakr as Caliphate shia side of the story, biased. 4) Opponents like Ali and Fatimah were threatened by an attempt to set fire to their house not related to abu bakr's biography. 5)First civil war...local leadership shia story, biased. This is in addition to the bad structure of the paragraph.

If you want to cover these points, the intro has to be rendered unbiased by stating the other (more famous) story (sunni side). This makes the intro too long. I suggest discussing this in the section of shia and sunni views again. (Ewpfpod (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

User Ewpfpod, I can not repeat an answer several times. I am answering for the last time. First of all, read carefully what I have repeated many times which you don't care. In this paragraph, we DON'T CARE who believes what, we care only and only about historical facts. If the incident X has occurred, whether it is in agreement with the idea of group A or it's against idea of group B . I hope you can respect this easy mathematical statement. 4.5 billion non-sunni people live on this planet, and they are not responsible for your beliefs; We can not neglect part of history to satisfy Sunni's idea. Ok??? --Aliwiki (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In this paragraph, we DON'T CARE ... group B: I know, but you have to keep in mind that there are many sources with different historical statements, all of them are considered as historical facts. None knows what exactly happened except if he can travel back in time!! You are covering one side of the story, which makes the intro biased. Different sides of the story MUST be covered, especially that which is considered to be true by the Majority. I hope you can comprehend that. Perhaps you should read this to know how to cover significant viewpoints. Finally I should mention that I will not respond to this discussion anymore, I will pay attention to any changes in the article. I should also say that I feel very sorry that I agreed to discuss with you. (Ewpfpod (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

You are completely wrong about the case of Majority. The idea of Majority can not affect the REALITY. I know what you want to conclude, Sunnis are majority of Muslims, so they can decide what is right and what is wrong. We have article about flatness of earth according to bible, but non of the users has ever claimed that article non-neutral as the majority of the nowadays human are Christians. You said many sources, but where are those? if you have source, why you are only writing claims, and why you are not posting some like what I am doing? why you are not posting a reference that proves Ali didn't have any claim for successorship? I will replace the merged paragraph now, but still I am ready to discuss in detail, sentence by sentence and word by word, about any unclear point. Not only I am not sorry, but I am thankful to you for our debate. --Aliwiki (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wikki said "In this paragraph, we DON'T CARE who believes what, we care only and only about historical facts." you are performing original research, learn what that is. We do care who says what because different historians say different things. Your historians are shia, your view, ours are sunni, our view, then their are the orientalists and the generality of historians. Your personnel individual view has no place on wikki you are not a historian so even if you prove the very existence of God empirically unless you have some qualifications and your work is published you cant post your findings on this sight. Even if you could that is still only one view or opinion on the matter.

WE keep repeating this to you but you don't seem to understand, the structure of the opening paragraph has guideline's it needs to follow which have nothing to do with Sunni or shia views, you don't seem to understand this point or even acknowledge this.

So far me and Ewpfpod are of the same opinion and i can assume mr Mohammad adil is of the same opinion, that is three to one and this is the usual system wikki adopts when coming to a decision regarding issues, so kindly abide by this democratic process.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

user ibn Kathir, what you mentioned is already answered by third opinion [25]. Also historical religious books, both Shia and Sunni are not reliable as there are lots of distortion in them. Here we are dealing with facts, not beliefs. Pay attention that you can not decide for an article by number of votes of persons who have same opinion. Your mentioned democracy is not useful here and can't change historical facts. I will revet the article now for the last time, and If someone revert it without discussing here, I will report him to admins. --Aliwiki (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again friends. I want to add a sentence about testament of Prophet, which was never written as he was prevented from writing it. It's discussed in the book The Mohammedan controversy, Biographies of Mohammed by Sir William Muir. Let me know your opinions.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I should take this opportunity to repeat my self as well...Mr Wikki said "In this paragraph, we DON'T CARE who believes what, we care only and only about historical facts." you are performing original research, learn what that is. We do care who says what because different historians say different things. Your historians are shia, your view, ours are sunni, our view, then their are the orientalists and the generality of historians. Your personnel individual view has no place on wikki you are not a historian so even if you prove the very existence of God empirically unless you have some qualifications and your work is published you cant post your findings on this sight. Even if you could that is still only one view or opinion on the matter.

WE keep repeating this to you but you don't seem to understand, the structure of the opening paragraph has guideline's it needs to follow which have nothing to do with Sunni or shia views, you don't seem to understand this point or even acknowledge this.

maybe what i say will be more believable to you this time around as you seem to think what say makes more sense the fifth time you say it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wikki's self imposed and single handed ban on democracy an oxymoron or just moronic by definition....see wikki policy on consensus...or rather a one man consensus.

Ibn kathir (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Howard.Thomas (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Following note by Howard.Thomas...

I have read the above comments and lament the current poor introduction. Here's my suggestion for an Introduction:

---

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) (Arabic: عبد الله بن أبي قحافة; Transliteration: 'Abdullāh bin Abī Quhāfah, c. 573 CE – 23 August 634/13 AH)[1] was Muhammad's father-in-law, one of his Sahaba (companions) and the first Muslim ruler after Muhammad's death.[2]

After the death of Muhammad, many tribes took the position that their allegiance was not to the Islamic religion, but rather to Muhammad himself; and as such decided to revert to local leadership and break away from being controlled by the Muslims based in Medina l[3] since Muhammad did not specify a political order to take over after his death[3][4][5]. These tribes indicated the end of their alliance by ceasing the Muslim zakat payment formerly paid to Mohamed (ostensibly for redistribution by him to charitable cases). However, Abu Bakr wanted to retain power and political control over those tribes that formerly pledged allegiance to Muhammad.

As the first Caliph, he ordered that the rebelling tribes be forced back into the Muslim community and thus began the the Ridda wars[4][6]. By his death, all tribes of the Arabian Peninsula had been subjugated back to the Islamic fold[4]. His Caliphate lasted two years and three months and by the time of his death his armies had invaded the Sassanid-Persian and Byzantine empires conquering lands including modern-day Syria and Iraq.[16] He chose Umar as his successor.

Dispute over Abu Bakr's accession as the first (rightful) successor to Muhammad was the cause of the main schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims which exists to this day - Sunnis support his accession, whereas Shia take the view that the (rightful) successor should have been Ali, the husband of Muhammad's daughter Fatima. It transpired that Ali became the fourth Caliph.

---

There is no doubt that Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad, what seems to be the issue discussed ad nauseam here is the perceived righteousness, or unfairness, of that outcome. It may be a big issue with respect to righteousness, but not with respect to what actually happened - the veritable pudding as it were. Well, all that can be discussed in the sections 'Sunni View' and 'Shia View', or even better, under a heading called the Sunni / Shia Schism. So much of Islamic history is little more than biased hearsay anyway, so within the introduction we should just deal with actual outcomes, regardless of whether they were fair or not.

I have read an interesting account on this page : http://www.jewish-history.com/Palestine/period2.html and also http://www.tevuot.org/aretz/eng/index.html where Abu Bakr is described as being a Jew - originally Rabbi Shallum of Babel? The passages on those pages contain no references, so I haven't been able to find any corroborating sources. Has anyone here come across this before? The other passages contained on the pages seem to have integrity.

Howard.Thomas (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Howard.Thomas

Howard, very balanced as far as the Shia and Sunni are concerned (but I haven't been involved in this edit war, so...). Another theory about Ridda is that some tribes refused Abu Bakr on grounds that he wasn't from a notable tribe. So perhaps there was an aspect of tribalism involved too. As for him being Rabbi Shallum, it's very interesting, but doesn't look sound to me. By wiki standards, if only a single uncommon source mentions a fact it would be considered under WP:FRINGE, and either moved to a separate article or not mentioned at all. But overall, an excellent introduction. Thanks. Wiqi - talk 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"So much of Islamic history is little more than biased hearsay anyway," as apposed to what other history which isn't biased or hearsay? Islamic historical accounts [as aposed to islamic history] is unparalleled in terms of the work done to authenticate and corroborate accounts when compared to other histories from around the world

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

It should also be clear that Islamic history and the sunnah in islam are two entirely separate things, the histories take a lesser place than the sunnah in terms of their authenticity.

We don't take our religion from historical works as a matter of fact.

i agree with your other statements regarding the introduction.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on this intro, thanks Howard. (Ewpfpod (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't agree with an introduction that focuses on two or three points that have nothing to do with the Man Abu Bakr, the introduction should be about him not the politics after he died.

"After the death of Muhammad, many tribes took the position that their allegiance was not to the Islamic religion, but rather to Muhammad himself; and as such decided to revert to local leadership and break away"

Factually incorrect, the word "some" is more accurate than the word "many"

"from being controlled by the Muslims based in Medina l[3]"

i think a better word than controlled should be used, such as allegiance or alliance, controlled has to many other connotations attached to it.

"since Muhammad did not specify a political order to take over after his death[3][4][5]."

Both sunni's and shia believe that he did we just dont agree on whom.

"These tribes indicated the end of their alliance by ceasing the Muslim zakat payment formerly paid to Mohamed (ostensibly for redistribution by him to charitable cases)."

this is the issue many of these tribes had people among them who declared themselves prophets or prophetesses for political gain, then they broke away declaring their allegiance to these people instead, so this should be reflected in this statement, that this was the cause, they didn't simply decide we no longer want to obey the caliphate these claimants to prophet hood stirred up the local populaces to follow them instead.

"However, Abu Bakr wanted to retain power and political control over those tribes that formerly pledged allegiance to Muhammad."

Factually incorrect, it was only some tribes not the overwhelming majority of muslims, his motivations and intentions where religious not political.

"As the first Caliph, he ordered that the rebelling tribes be forced back into the Muslim community and thus began the the Ridda wars[4][6]."

Factually incorrect he didn't order that they be forced back into the Muslim community he was compelled by Islamic law to fight them as they declared they where no longer Muslims by following these so called other prophets. if they where Christians they could have payed the jizyah tax for example and Abu bkar would have left them alone, when discussing his motivations or intentions you have to know Islamic law.

"By his death, all tribes of the Arabian Peninsula had been subjugated back to the Islamic fold[4]."

Was that the entire aim of his rule to be summing up the introduction in such a manner, it is also factually incorrect "all tribes of the Arabian peninsula" did not break away from the muslim community.

"Dispute over Abu Bakr's accession as the first (rightful) successor to Muhammad was the cause of the main schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims which exists to this day"

Not accurate, this issue the shia claimed at a later stage this was not the cause of the chism initially, Ali was alive for about 30 years after the prophet died they did not choose to break away untill after Ali himself died and clearly not during the life of Abu bakr or when he was chosen as caliphate, so i also question it's relevance in the introduction, i have no objection to it being mentioned in the shia and sunni section which i also question the relevance of since the shia did not exist during his life and wonder as to its historical relevance. Ibn kathir (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice comments user Ibn kathir, would you be so kind to suggest an intro that fits? (Ewpfpod (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

To User:Howard.Thomas, Thanks for your comment. About your question, I have read a lot about Abu Bakr in my life, but I have never seen any report about his Jewish origin in any Islamic historical books, but it's probable that he was as his mother was a famous adulterer which was common for some women in pre-Islamic time, such these women had a red flag outside their houses and were receiving money for adultery and Abu bakr's mother had such flag(ref:RIADH al-Iman). Also Abu bakr was teacher of Jewish children in Mecca (Ref:Masalib Al-Sahaba).

Your suggested paragraph has two main problems and few minor ones, but generally it's good and I am thankful. 1)It says Mohammad didn't choose anyone as his successor, and then it continues reporting what happened in Abubakr's caliphate time. One may ask himself how he became Caliphate and who made him Caliphate. 2) Abubakr lived 61 years. his biography must report all part of his life not only his last 2 years. I don't expect to report his childhood, but we can not neglect the fact that during 23 years companionship of Mohammad he didn't have any significant role. As an example, Abubakr was a fugitive in most of the important Mohammad's campaigns. Do you think we can neglect this part of his life especially for someone who became the so-called 1st Moslems leader upon their prophet death?

By the way, those tribes who became against Abubakr's successorship were Moslem, as I expalined above, so the sentence which says the rebelling tribes be forced back into the Muslim community must be reworded. Also see this incomplete list.

I would like also to inform you that when Mohammad became sick in his last days which led to his death, he immediately ordered his companions in the city to leave Medina and join an expedition and he assigned his step-son Usama as the leader of this expedition. The important point here is that Abubakr and Umar were among those who were ordered to join the army, and they refused and stayed in the city, but Ali and Abbas were excluded by Mohammad and were asked to stay in the city and next day, when Mohammad asked paper and ink to write his testament, Umar refused to give him (Ref:Sir William Muir, The Life of Mohammed, and Betty Kelen, (Muhammad, Messenger of God). --Aliwiki (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To user:Ibn_Kathir, every thing you mentioned have already been answered. You are saying sentence X is not correct and for the reason you are writing your beliefs. You said both Sunni and Shia believe.... . This is a wrong statement and even if were correct it couldn't be mentioned here. Here we don't care what Shia and Sunni believe. Please stop confining Abubakr to Sunnis or Moslems. Here we view him as an historical figure that DOES NOT belong to any group. Disagreement about Abubakr's successorship wasn't limited to tribes, about Medina's situation after Abubakr's accession to Caliphate see List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr; Even Abubakr's father refused to give him pledge of alliance. You said about Islamic law, let me know who defines it? Abubakr? for sure no. That Abubakr put the label of apostate to those who turned back against him, wouldn't turn them to apostates. So try to exclude your ideas from here.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary seperator

Mr Ali Wiki please stop replying to my comments, your claims are erroneous and misguiding Abu bakr ruled by Islamic, sunni Law that is a reality of history regardless of whether Here on this site you view him as a non sunni or non shia, so suspend your own shia beliefs before asking others to forget history itself.

I will sum up shia beliefs for our non muslim friends on this discussion, Any individual who isn't Ali is not trust worthy and will go to hell their is no room for them having made mistakes they where all corrupt individuals. Keep this in mind and you wont have to read to much into mr wikkis comments as they all lead to this eventuality without exception almost. You will find mr wikki will continue to argue about anything that equates this individual [Abu bakr] with Islam until he separates Islam from the life of Abu Bakr itself, this is his under riding belief.

From a historical perspective his opinions are worthless since Abu bakr did not personally deal with the shia so there is nothing historical to report of a Sunni shia nature about Abu bakr and you will find he will automatically reject any minute evidence that does not prop up Ali [meaning anything that praises other individuals or shows they did anything of merit, i don't even think Karl marx received this kind treatment], no historian in their right mind can accept this myopic, tunnel vision, totalitarian view of history, where all individuals not following Ali are wrong without exception, its tantamount to hero worship and revisionist in nature as it is all long after the fact.

"You said both Sunni and Shia believe.... . This is a wrong statement and even if were correct it couldn't be mentioned here"

Ok i stand corrected the prophet did not chose Ali as his successor, we are both in agreement then. if you can not understand basic english how can you edit an english website.

Ibn kathir (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

First, here is not a forum. Second, you can't define ANYTHING by your saying, including what is Shia. As I have repeated several times, your main problem is your lack of knowledge, not only in case of Islamic history, but also about Sunni's books. Read these two about Muhammad's successorship according to Shia and Sunni:

Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic Sunnis book [26]: When Umar asked about his successor, he replied: If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so.

Now see here, which currently consists of narrations involving 76 Companions, 69 Successors, and 626 Scholars in the chains of transmission, recorded in 182 Sunni books that Muhammad chose Ali as his successor. It would be interesting for you to know that this site has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress.

I suggest you to read more about Islamic history before making such unreliable comments.

Till I am present in Wikipedia, I won't allow you or anyone else to confine Abubakr as a Sunni figure and distort history.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Shia distortions of sunni sources, these are basic and simple claims of shia scholars who have no knowledge or understanding of the Islamic sciences, it is a fact most shia rely on their own judgment rather than established scientific methods of analysis. a person can sumerise the same event in a number of different narratives,

for example Abu bakr and Umar left the burial proceedings of the prophet...neutral

Abu bakr and umar sneaked away from the burial of the prophet... added emphasis on modality inciting the imagination to visualize ulterior motives.

Abu bakr and umar walked away from the prophets burial...added emphasis on modality

Abu Bakr and Umar ran away from the prophets burial...added emphasis on modality

Any neutral party will find shia narratives are riddled with this extra emphasis and embellishment in their accounts to incite the imagination rather than taking a neutral analytical approach, its little more than telling a children's tale with extra emphasis for imagination.

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

New introduction discussion

Everything in this introduction is taken from the article itself so their should be no objection to its content unless the article itself is changed. I have kept the original numbers to the sources so these need to be changed.

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) (Arabic: عبد الله بن أبي قحافة; Transliteration: 'Abdullāh bin Abī Quhāfah, c. 573 CE – 23 August 634/13 AH)[1] was The prophet Muhammad's father-in-law, one of his Sahaba (companions) and the first Muslim ruler after Muhammad's death.[2] He was called 'Al-Siddiq'(the truthful')[6] by the prophet and was known by that name among later generations of muslims.

At the age of 18 Abu Bakr went into trade and adopted the profession of a cloth merchant, he traveled extensively to Yemen, Syria, and other regions of the world through which he gained both wealth and experience. He came to be recognized as chief of his tribe and was assigned the office of awarding blood money in cases of murder, an office similar to that of an honorary magistrate.[67]

On his return from a business trip in Yemen, he was informed that in his absence Muhammad had openly declared his prophet hood, founding the religion of Islam. Not long after Abu Bakr accepted Islam and was the first person outside the family of Muhammad to openly become a Muslim. He was instrumental in the conversion of many people to the religion and early in 623, Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha was married to the prophet Muhammad strengthening ties between the two.

During the establishment of Islam in the Arabian peninsula he was involved in the following campaigns, In 625 he participated in the Battle of Uhud, In 627 he participated in the Battle of the Trench and also in the Battle of Banu Qurayza.[81] In 628 he participated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and was made one of the witnesses over the pact.[81] In the year 628 he was a part of the Muslim campaign to Khaybar. In 630 he was part of the Conquest of Mecca and the Battle of Hunayn as well as the Siege of Ta'if. He was part of the Muslim army in the campaign of Tabuk under Muhammad's command and he was reported to have given all his wealth for the preparation of this expedition.

A short time after returning from the farewell pilgrimage, the final pilgrimage of the prophet In 631, the prophet Muhammad became ill. After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr became the first Muslim Caliph.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for a little over two years or 27 months, ending with his death, during which he defeated the rebellion of the Arab tribes in a successful campaign against their Apostasy unifying the entire region and giving it stability. This enabled him to launch successful campaigns against the Sassanid Empire (Persian Empire) and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).

Prior to dispatching his army to Syria he gave them the following commands: “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” [see [4][5] of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war]

This established the conduct during war for later Muslim generations. He set in motion a historical trajectory that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the largest empires in history.

On 8 August 634, Abu Bakr fell sick and did not recover. He appointed Umar as his successor upon his death. Though the period of his caliphate covers a little over two years it included successful invasions of the two most powerful empires of the time a remarkable achievement in its own right.

Sunni Muslims consider Abu Bakr as one of the ten Sahaba (companions) for whom the prophet Muhammad had testified that they were destined for Paradise. The Shi'a have an unfavorable view of Abu Bakr believing he did not uphold Ali’s right to succession, who they view as having been appointed by Muhammad as his successor at Ghadir Khumm while Non-Muslim Historians generally have an equitable view of him.

further links need to be added which are present in the article.

Ibn kathir (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good intro, a bit lengthy however. I agree on that, but would be good to shorten (summarize) it. (Ewpfpod (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

we could probably summerise the campaigns he was involved in and leave out the last few lines regarding various scholars opinions of him, is their a guideline on length i have seen similar lengthy introductions elsewhere. I was trying to give an overview of his life and not simply focus on one or two points which gives distorted image.

Ibn kathir (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a guideline on length. But this intro is too detailed. I think details should be stated in the body. E.g. At the age of 18 Abu Bakr went into trade and adopted the profession of a cloth merchant, he traveled extensively to Yemen, Syria, and other regions of the world through which he gained both wealth and experience. He came to be recognized as chief of his tribe and was assigned the office of awarding blood money in cases of murder, an office similar to that of an honorary magistrate.[67]. Here I think it is enough to say At the age of 18 Abu Bakr adopted the profession of a cloth merchant, started gaining wealth and experience, and recognition as a chief of his tribe. (Ewpfpod (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

I have changed the introduction see below...

Ibn kathir (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) (Arabic: عبد الله بن أبي قحافة; Transliteration: 'Abdullāh bin Abī Quhāfah, c. 573 CE – 23 August 634/13 AH)[1] was The prophet Muhammad's father-in-law, one of his Sahaba (companions) and the first Muslim ruler after Muhammad's death.[2] He was called 'Al-Siddiq'(the truthful')[6] by the prophet and was known by that name among later generations of Muslims.

At the age of 18 Abu Bakr adopted the profession of a cloth merchant, he travelled extensively to various regions of the world through which he gained both wealth and experience, eventually He came to be recognized as the chief of his tribe. On his return from a business trip to Yemen, he was informed that in his absence Muhammad had openly declared his prophet hood, establishing the religion of Islam. Not long after Abu Bakr accepted Islam and was the first person outside the family of Muhammad to openly become a Muslim. He was instrumental in the conversion of many people to the religion and early in 623, Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha was married to the prophet Muhammad strengthening ties between the two.

During the establishment of Islam in the Arabian peninsula he was involved in the following campaigns, In 625 the Battle of Uhud, In 627 the Battle of the Trench and the Battle of Banu Qurayza.[81] In 628 he participated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and was made one of the witnesses over the pact.[81] In 628 he was a part of the Muslim campaign to Khaybar. In 630 he was part of the Conquest of Mecca and the Battle of Hunayn as well as the Siege of Ta'if. He was also part of the Muslim army in the campaign of Tabuk under Muhammad's command and he was reported to have given all his wealth for the preparation of this expedition.

In 631 the prophet Muhammad became fatally ill and after his death Abu Bakr became the first Muslim Caliph. Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for a little over two years or 27 months, ending with his death, during which he defeated the rebellion of Several Arabic tribes in a successful campaign against their Apostasy unifying the entire region and giving it stability. This enabled him to launch successful campaigns against the Sassanid Empire (Persian Empire) and the East Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).

Prior to dispatching his army to Syria against the Roman Empire he gave them the following commands: “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” [see [4][5] of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war]

This established the conduct of war for later Muslim generations. He set in motion for the Muslim nation a historical trajectory that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the largest empires in history. Though the period of his caliphate lasted a little over two years it included successful invasions of the two most powerful empires of the time, a remarkable achievement in its own right.

i think any shorter and we would loose the sense of time i have attempted to portray, it would turn into into a point form introduction which would be weak.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't spend too much time for this intro. It conflicts the intro debate till now. You can write anything you like here, but be sure I won't allow you to transfer it to the main article as you proved your lack of knowledge in basic concept of Islamic history. A third person like Howard Thomas must decide for the final one.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is their someone we can report mr wiki to, all points in the introduction are from the article itself [points that people have agreed to be in their] so essentially he is advocating changing the article. Their is nothing factually wrong with it but i fear his hate and blindness to the english language have stopped him from even reading the introduction.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is in addition to the offensive tone. (Ewpfpod (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

User Aliwiki was blocked due to edit warring on Uthman bin Affan's page. I think we should already take action to change the (now awful) intro of the article on Abu Bakr. If user Aliwiki refuses to cooperate he should be reported. (Ewpfpod (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

what are the procedures we can take to report someone, or who do we report to?

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of grammar and sentence structure can any one improve on what i posted? its near final and only the links/sources that are already present in the article need to be added and corrected.

Ewpfpod, you may like to re-read the intro above i have made some minor changes to phrasing, let me know what you think.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Review:

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa) (Arabic: عبد الله بن أبي قحافة; Transliteration: 'Abdullāh bin Abī Quhāfah, c. 573 CE – 23 August 634/13 AH)[1] was The prophet Muhammad's father-in-law, one of his Sahaba (companions) and the first Muslim ruler after Muhammad's death.[2] He was called 'Al-Siddiq'(the truthful')[6] by the prophet and was known by that name among later generations of Muslims.

At the age of 18 Abu Bakr adopted the profession of a cloth merchant, he traveled extensively to various regions of the world through which he gained both wealth and experience, eventually he came to be recognized as the chief of his tribe. On his return from a business trip to Yemen, he was informed that in his absence Muhammad had openly declared his prophethood. Not long after, Abu Bakr accepted Islam and was the first person outside the family of Muhammad to openly become a Muslim. He was instrumental in the conversion of many people to the religion and early in 623, Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha was married to the prophet Muhammad strengthening ties between the two.

During the lifetime of Muhammad, he was involved in several campaigns such as: Uhud, the Battle of the Trench, the Battle of Banu Qurayza, Khaybar, the Conquest of Mecca, the Battle of Hunayn, the Siege of Ta'if, and Tabuk where he was reported to have given all his wealth for the preparation of this expedition.[81] He also participated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and was made one of the witnesses over the pact.[81]

In 631 the prophet Muhammad became fatally ill, and after his death Abu Bakr became the first Muslim Caliph. Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for a little over two years (or 27 months), ending with his death. During his rule, he defeated the rebellion of Several Arabic tribes in a successful campaign, unifying the entire region and giving it stability. This enabled him to launch successful campaigns against the Sassanid Empire (Persian Empire) and the East Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) during which he established the conduct of war for later Muslim generations [see [4][5] of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war]. Though the period of his caliphate lasted a little over two years it included successful invasions of the two most powerful empires of the time, a remarkable achievement in its own right. He set in motion a historical trajectory that in few decades would lead to one of the largest empires in history. (Ewpfpod (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

I think it is important to mention that quote, it is one thing to talk about it and another to actually quote it for people to read, see and learn from. not just from a historical point of view and matter of record but as a source of knowledge for current Muslim generations who don't know their own religion, the merit of his words are self evident. Abu bakrs commands in Islam are considered law [shia excluded] and have been taken as such among Muslim legal experts for the past 1400 years, this command is seen as key for Muslim combatants on the battlefield a far cry from the current terrorist organizations present in the world today so it has extra relevance for the time we live in.

I also think the introduction is not that long, i agree with your wording for the last paragraph mostly, but i think it needs a break in the flow as you currently read it in one breath without stopping. what about this...the spacing is deliberate as it is easier on the eyes.

In 631 the prophet Muhammad became fatally ill, and after his death Abu Bakr became the first Muslim Caliph. Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for a little over two years (or 27 months), ending with his death. During his rule, he defeated the rebellion of Several Arabic tribes in a successful campaign, unifying the entire region and giving it stability. This enabled him to launch successful campaigns against the Sassanid Empire (Persian Empire) and the East Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).

Prior to dispatching his army to Syria against the Romans he gave them the following commands: “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.” [see [4][5] of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war] This established the conduct of war for later Muslim generations.

Though the period of his caliphate lasted a little over two years it included successful invasions of the two most powerful empires of the time, a remarkable achievement in its own right. He set in motion a historical trajectory that in few decades would lead to one of the largest empires in history.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, i agree, you're right. (Ewpfpod (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

i don't know how to add the links and sources so someone will have to do that?

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the introduction and added the sources as much as i can, if i have missed anything please point it out. I also made a slight change to the structure, i re arranged one sentence and added a phrase about the nature of his death.

Ibn kathir (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

please add references to intro. (Ewpfpod (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

can you quote them here, im not certain which ones, thanks. i want to point this out regarding the nature of what an introduction is suposed to be about WP:LEAD and WP:RS.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)