This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ahmadis, Ibadis, and Zikris in a manner of speaking are non-denominational, as well. The reason for this is that of their persistent attire not to be classified under Islam: sunni or shia. If they are like babi and Bahais which are not a part of {{islam]], this implies that a new religion has been created. 68.100.172.139 ( talk) 16:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If people describe themselves this way, do they go indifferently to Shiite or Sunni mosques? Or do they have their own? etc -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in this article in category of "Notable Ghair Muqallids" that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was one of them. This is not true. Please research about Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi and check that he was, Sunni 'Hanafi', Sufi. So, I request to remove his name from this article as calling him Ghair Muqallid. Because Ghair Muqallids means ' Wahhabis' in fact. ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI ( talk) 06:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Inconcievable that Turks are "nondenominational". There are traditionalists (Sufis) and both modernist (Anakara School) and conservative (Nurcu, Gulen movement) reformists among the Sunnis but clear numbers aren't known. However, a 2006 survey by KONDA (a Turkish survey agency) called "Social structure survey" (which can be downloaded in either in Turkish or English) reveals that 82% of the population is Sunni Hanafi and 9,06% of the population is Sunni Shafi'i. The Shi'a people, mostly of the Alevi variety presumably make up the remainder 9,7% of the people (99% is Muslim), but only 5,73% declared themselves to be Alevi. Some specialists think the Alevis make up as much as 11% of the population (i.e. some Alevis declare themselves either Hanafi or Shafi'i or "just Muslim"). But the fact that Hanafis are in excess of 80% is beyond doubt and in fact the government's religious "Presidency" (Diyanet) which oversees pretty much almost all of the mosques in Turkey is explicity Sunni Hanafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Here are links for the KONDA survey:
http://www.konda.com.tr/en/reports.php
more specifically: http://www.konda.com.tr/en/download_report.php?file=2006_09_KONDA_Social_Structure&rapor=Who%20Are%20We?%20Social%20Structure%20Survey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
ALSO: Something has to be wrong with the numbers for Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina (widely known to be Sunni Hanafis in overwhelming majorities) as well as Azerbaijan (mostly Twelver Shi'as with a Sunni minority) also. But I can't find sources now quickly. Something must be terribly wrong with the study that said that Turks, Kosovar Albanians, Bosniaks and Azeri are "nondenominational" since this flies in the face of LITERALLY every other demographic study ever made ever, plus national censuses, etc. It seems very likely there is some sort of a methodological bias in these studies which show such large numbers of "nondenominational Muslims". Especially in former Ottoman territories with not-very-religious populations, where identifying as "Sunni Hanafi" is more of an ethnic marker. So in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania Muslims tend to view themselves as either "Sunni" (i.e. Hanafi) or "Bektashi" (who are a kind of Alevis). 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT 2: For instance in the Wikipedia page "Islam in Indonesia" there is this phrase about the Muslim population there: "The vast majority adheres to Sunni Islam mainly of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence (99%). [1] [2] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
All figures for Shia and Sunni subgroups within countries are based on self-identification in response to a multi-part survey question that first asked if an individual was Muslim (Q28 and Q28b), and if yes, if they were Sunni, Shia or “something else” (Q31). The percentage of Shias and Sunnis identified by the survey may diverge from country estimates reported in the Pew Forum’s 2009 report “Mapping the Global Muslim Population,” which are based on demographic and ethnographic analyses, as well as reviews of frequently used estimates.
In Albania, for example, the 65% non-denominational Muslims -- mostly, not entirely -- mean people of Muslim descent who are irreligious. In many other countries this is not the case. In these countries "non-denominational" means religious, but neutral as to the Sunni/Shia distinction. Something in this regard should be added to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.135.44 ( talk) 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this is the Arabic term for a non-denominational Muslim, especially since the link to ar-wiki leads to a completely different phrase. The sources used to "support" the statement are all South Asian. After a quick search on Google books, it seems that "ghayr muqallid" is used within the context of Sunnism, and more specifically to refer to Ahl-e-Hadith, Wahabbists and other Sunni movements not adhering to a (traditional) madhhab. I'm really inclined to delete the whole section about "ghayr muqallids". - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Septate has added some WP:OR by an unsourced claim of how to correctly interpret the Pew study. I was going to remove that per said convention, but after Septate's post on JamesBWatson's TP I realised that the entire designation "Non-denominational Muslim" is pretty much OR. I tried searching the term on Google books and scholar, but neither Non-denominational Muslim nor Non-denominational Islam seem to exist. Septate is correct in that the Pew study merely speaks of "just a Muslim", so I think we should delete the page altogether, moving the statistical stuff to some appropriate section, like demography, in Islam and Islamic schools and branches. This would also solve the paradox of Non-denominational still being a certain group and the fact that this page was created by a sock puppet. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"! I prefer the term "just a Muslim" actually, because that is how I self-identify. I didn't start this article, and would much rather there be an article titled "Just a Muslim" instead. The "non denominational" title is mostly influenced by Judaic/Christian demographic studies anyway. In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that. Keep in mind, the Pew study shows this is a significant demographic, and as such the page has a potential for serious growth in the future. I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet... cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We can't create an entire new article based on your personal beliefs. My parents are also Muslims (Sunnis) and identify themselves simply as 'Muslims' when asked but that doesn't mean they belong to an entire new denomination. Looks like its your POV not the pew's!
I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"!
You are the main person behind creating an entire new section on article Islam out of nothing!!!
In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that.
Why should we do that??? There is already an article on Muslims and Muslims by nationality.
I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Because there are no sources out there!
In the end I just request you to stop promoting this group on Wikipedia. It is creating a lot of contradictions on 'Islam by Country' articles! Septate ( talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
And I am not saying that Wahhabis only claim to be simply Muslims as evident from my statement! Septate ( talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Septate first of all, calm down. Secondly, I don't have any problems with merging the relevant data here with the Muslim page and deleting this page. I'm actually completely in favor of that =) Because right now the Muslim page is ridiculously biased with sectarian ideas, when in fact that page should (by definition) contain only the original technical definitions of a "Muslim" which exists in the Quran (which clearly prohibit denominations.) So if everyone agrees, you can move the Pew data to the Muslim page and delete this page. Then I'll start to collect sources regarding non-sectarian definitions of "Muslim" to add to that page. I think it's about time this happened, it was long over due. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What you mean by that???. Quran prohibits denominations??? Again this is your own POV as we are not here interpret the Quran! Wikipedia doesnot hold the responsiblity of promoting unity among the Muslims! You should face the reality that Islam is split into various denominations with each having its own defination of being a 'Muslim'. By the way please explain where and why should we place all this poorly sourced material on Muslim. I don't feel the need to keep this material on Wikipedia unless you find some sources! Regards. Septate ( talk) 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just wanted to explain some changes and lay out a possible future expansion solution. So I've created sub categories within the overview. I've split some of the existing content into the "Academia" and "Immigrant Muslims" categories. I also added a historical synopsis of sectarianism, as the missing category that I plan on adding will require it. The key category that is missing here needs to be "Development of non-denominational Muslims" or something like this, which explains how the recent surge in the numbers of non-denominational Muslims, as well as a historical trend for anti-sectarianism. If you have any concerns/suggestions etc. please post them here cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Eperoton: You claimed the "history of sectarianism" section wasn't reliably sourced? How so, exactly? Look above on this TP, it was inserted due to consensus and also please justify why you think it is not reliably sourced in your edit summary. The material you inserted (some of it sourced using an encyclopedia) can also be added if you wish, but we have to integrate it together with the rest. For now I've re-added the original text and kept your contribution as well. cӨde1+6 TP 11:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that ever since this article's creation in 2013 it has relied upon an unsupported piece of original research which is the conflating of "Just a Muslim" and "Nondenominational Muslim". The Pew study which forms the basis of this article never once mentions the word nondenominational, and never specifies that those who self report as "Just a Muslim" actually practice a nondenominational form of Islam. There is nothing in the Pew study that precludes the possibility that people may actually practice Sunni or Shia Islam and still self reports as "Just a Muslim" without actually belonging to a nondenominational mosque or practicing a form of nondenominational Islam, much in the same way that many Catholics and Protestants both self identify as "Just a Christian" while still being a member of a Catholic or Protestant church and practicing Catholicism or Protestantism. To say that someone self identifying as "Just a Muslim" is the same thing a practicing nondenominational Islam is completely Original Research without reliable secondary sources making that same assessment, and it appears that most reliable secondary sources do not make that connection. As a matter of fact, of the citations being used to say that "Nondenominational" and "Just a Muslim" are the same thing, none of them use the word "Nondenominational", most saying "Responded 'Just a Muslim' without specifying a sect". Just because they don't choose to specify does not mean that they do not actually belong to one. Unless there is a source that specifically states the connection and uses the word nondenominational, this is completely unsupported original research. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@ UnequivocalAmbivalence: If we apply your standards to Sunnis and Shias many of them would fail to qualify as such. I can equally claim that not every Shia/Sunni takes their denominational distinctions seriously or is even aware of them. So by your argument, we can say that they aren't "truly sunni" or "truly shia." cӨde1+6 TP 08:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No not everyone, but a 'large percentage' of these people are deemed ignorant by your argument (and your argument rests upon this 'large percentage of ignorance'), as per your quote here: "it explains why self-reporting polls have a large percentage of "Just Muslim"s, and yet reliable sources discussing demographics from an academic perspective do not have similarly large "Non-denominational" categories." You have equated the 'large percentage' in the first set, with the same 'large percentage' in the second set, thereby implying ignorance/confusion in the former. It is equally possible that the trend towards non-denominationalism is increasing with time, given the geopolitical situation the Middle East has been going through over the last half century. I wouldn't be surprised if onlookers are turning away from sectarian mindsets, given the chaos it has fostered in the region that is now obvious for all. This goes back to my suggestion that the dates of the different polls and studies be taken into account. If the Pew poll is more recent, it should be given additional weight. With that said, I believe a search for additional sources on this issue is in order. Perhaps we can find studies conducted in recent times to confirm/deny any shift in outlooks. That would be much more fruitful an effort than arguing between the three of us. cӨde1+6 TP 10:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done a bit of literature review which has amplified the specific concerns I share with UnequivocalAmbivalence, as highlighted in our recent replies. I still think that the current title of the article is the least bad choice, but it doesn't look like anyone is insisting on changing it. So, I'm happy to see that we seem to be closing in on a consensus. Here are the details of what I found.
First, regarding the use of "non-denominational" in the title. Since you have a background in linguistics UA, I can express the argument more precisely in technical language. The term "non-denominational" uses derivational morphology with productive compositional semantics. Using it in this way with a specifying definition would be problematic if the resulting semantic field was restricted by an established lexical idiosyncrasy. So, the goal of this exercise is to determine if there is an established restricted meaning of the term (using descriptive rather than prescriptive methods). I don't see a consistent usage of the term "non-denominational" with reference to Christianity in RSs. It may mean not specific to Christianity, unaffiliated Christian, or unaffiliated Protestant, depending on the context. Like UA noted, the usage stems from organizational labels, but it's being widely used to identify individuals. Sources which use personal identifications "non-denominational" and "just Christian" side by side (e.g., when analyzing surveys offering both choices), generally don't make a distinction between them. The very notion of non-denominational is controversial and is treated inconsistently. Some authors talk of non-denominational (or post-denominational) identities, while some sociologically-oriented studies simply subsume both responses under "evangelical". There is even less terminological usage for Islam, and I don't agree that we can use the People's Mosque and Tolu-e-Islam as reference points. For the former, we don't have much except a slogan. For the latter, I don't see the term in their literature, and their platform is largely based on Iqbal's legacy of refusing to be associated with any denomination (they say that they follow the Five Pillars in the same way as mainstream denominations, who follow them in different ways... what are we to make of that?). That's my argument for using "non-denominational" as an explicitly defined umbrella term.
Now, for the shared concerns. Explanations of why people may identify as "just Muslim" (or "just Christian") in RSs differ greatly. The literature for the Islamic context is very sparse, and it's hard to know how much of the difference reflects genuine regional variations rather than different theories of the authors. Even if I don't think that using the term "non-denominational" misidentifies "just Muslim" respondents under some established category, we need to be very careful not to treat the term, well, as a denomination, implying a commonality of attitudes or beliefs. I'd like to help updating the article to address these concerns, but it may be a few days before I get to it. In the meantime, here are links to some of the sources I'm relying on. For Christianity: [2], [3], [4], [5]. For Islam (some of these may duplicate material already cited in the article): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Eperoton ( talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is contradictory. It describes Jinnah as both a Shiite and a non-Shiite. That's like saying you are both a virgin and sexually experienced; or you're bald and long-haired at the same time. 92.10.230.31 ( talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Islam is made up of 5 different "Ma'dhabs". These are the madhabs that are the sub-sets within Islam. PRoposal for deletion. Please do not remove tag unless discussion is carried out first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:41e0:5af:7141:62b:43cb:6dc4 ( talk • contribs)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi
It is not an organized movement. In some case, shia or sunni muslim claim that to avoid the fitna or to claim that their movement is the true islam. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I was accused of advocacy, but I do not belong to this grouping so thats false; further, i merely repeated what a reliable source (Pew) said. 79.67.91.32 ( talk) 00:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Soyouy553: the source is about "just a muslim" not about "Non-denominational Muslim". See WP:OR. And it is not a religious group. This article is an OR. Panam2014 ( talk) 20:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
However, many Muslims do not identify with either sect but rather see themselves as “just a Muslim.”. Seeing oneself as "Just a Muslim" should by default mean that a person does not identify with any denomination (the source expresses it) and is thus a non-denominational Muslim. I often try to prevent myself delving into heated arguments for the sake of my own peace but since I was pinged twice, I came here to just give my opinion. Perhaps editors like Iskandar323 and Apaugasma can weigh-in in a more better manner. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead are:
First, I have two questions:
Second, I propose to rewrite the beginning of the first sentence like this:
-- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Wikiedit01995, JorgeLaArdilla, AmirahBreen, Idell, Flamealpha123, Zimi09, NZDF1985, and Ak131001: @ AccordingClass, TheAafi, TheEagle107, Janjua Rajpout, M.k.m2003, and MezzoMezzo: @ Assassin's Creed, Starkex, Wiki id2, Sa.vakilian, Ed Poor, and Alarob: @ Imagine Wizard, Arteyu, Nostalgia of Iran, and Technophant: @ Owais khursheed, అహ్మద్ నిసార్, Masum Ibn Musa, and FrederickII: @ Naila Khan, VenusFeuerFalle, Resnjari, Umairsy, and Bkerensa: @ Saff V., Lazy-restless, Imtiaz ahmed rifat, F5pillar, and Ahendra: @ Jushyosaha604, Cplakidas, SacredSunflower, and Ghazi Malik: @ Chongkian, Kamilalibhat, AliAhmed111, IronManCap, Ulubatli Hasan, and Melofors: @ Hamza Ali Shah, M.Nadian, Ready12hope, MartinPoulter, and Captain1044: @ KhanQadriRazvi, GoldenBootWizard276, and Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia:
I am pleased to ping you to suggest a solution for the multiple issues of the article.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ahmadis, Ibadis, and Zikris in a manner of speaking are non-denominational, as well. The reason for this is that of their persistent attire not to be classified under Islam: sunni or shia. If they are like babi and Bahais which are not a part of {{islam]], this implies that a new religion has been created. 68.100.172.139 ( talk) 16:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If people describe themselves this way, do they go indifferently to Shiite or Sunni mosques? Or do they have their own? etc -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in this article in category of "Notable Ghair Muqallids" that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was one of them. This is not true. Please research about Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi and check that he was, Sunni 'Hanafi', Sufi. So, I request to remove his name from this article as calling him Ghair Muqallid. Because Ghair Muqallids means ' Wahhabis' in fact. ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI ( talk) 06:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Inconcievable that Turks are "nondenominational". There are traditionalists (Sufis) and both modernist (Anakara School) and conservative (Nurcu, Gulen movement) reformists among the Sunnis but clear numbers aren't known. However, a 2006 survey by KONDA (a Turkish survey agency) called "Social structure survey" (which can be downloaded in either in Turkish or English) reveals that 82% of the population is Sunni Hanafi and 9,06% of the population is Sunni Shafi'i. The Shi'a people, mostly of the Alevi variety presumably make up the remainder 9,7% of the people (99% is Muslim), but only 5,73% declared themselves to be Alevi. Some specialists think the Alevis make up as much as 11% of the population (i.e. some Alevis declare themselves either Hanafi or Shafi'i or "just Muslim"). But the fact that Hanafis are in excess of 80% is beyond doubt and in fact the government's religious "Presidency" (Diyanet) which oversees pretty much almost all of the mosques in Turkey is explicity Sunni Hanafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Here are links for the KONDA survey:
http://www.konda.com.tr/en/reports.php
more specifically: http://www.konda.com.tr/en/download_report.php?file=2006_09_KONDA_Social_Structure&rapor=Who%20Are%20We?%20Social%20Structure%20Survey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
ALSO: Something has to be wrong with the numbers for Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina (widely known to be Sunni Hanafis in overwhelming majorities) as well as Azerbaijan (mostly Twelver Shi'as with a Sunni minority) also. But I can't find sources now quickly. Something must be terribly wrong with the study that said that Turks, Kosovar Albanians, Bosniaks and Azeri are "nondenominational" since this flies in the face of LITERALLY every other demographic study ever made ever, plus national censuses, etc. It seems very likely there is some sort of a methodological bias in these studies which show such large numbers of "nondenominational Muslims". Especially in former Ottoman territories with not-very-religious populations, where identifying as "Sunni Hanafi" is more of an ethnic marker. So in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania Muslims tend to view themselves as either "Sunni" (i.e. Hanafi) or "Bektashi" (who are a kind of Alevis). 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT 2: For instance in the Wikipedia page "Islam in Indonesia" there is this phrase about the Muslim population there: "The vast majority adheres to Sunni Islam mainly of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence (99%). [1] [2] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 ( talk) 07:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
All figures for Shia and Sunni subgroups within countries are based on self-identification in response to a multi-part survey question that first asked if an individual was Muslim (Q28 and Q28b), and if yes, if they were Sunni, Shia or “something else” (Q31). The percentage of Shias and Sunnis identified by the survey may diverge from country estimates reported in the Pew Forum’s 2009 report “Mapping the Global Muslim Population,” which are based on demographic and ethnographic analyses, as well as reviews of frequently used estimates.
In Albania, for example, the 65% non-denominational Muslims -- mostly, not entirely -- mean people of Muslim descent who are irreligious. In many other countries this is not the case. In these countries "non-denominational" means religious, but neutral as to the Sunni/Shia distinction. Something in this regard should be added to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.135.44 ( talk) 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this is the Arabic term for a non-denominational Muslim, especially since the link to ar-wiki leads to a completely different phrase. The sources used to "support" the statement are all South Asian. After a quick search on Google books, it seems that "ghayr muqallid" is used within the context of Sunnism, and more specifically to refer to Ahl-e-Hadith, Wahabbists and other Sunni movements not adhering to a (traditional) madhhab. I'm really inclined to delete the whole section about "ghayr muqallids". - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Septate has added some WP:OR by an unsourced claim of how to correctly interpret the Pew study. I was going to remove that per said convention, but after Septate's post on JamesBWatson's TP I realised that the entire designation "Non-denominational Muslim" is pretty much OR. I tried searching the term on Google books and scholar, but neither Non-denominational Muslim nor Non-denominational Islam seem to exist. Septate is correct in that the Pew study merely speaks of "just a Muslim", so I think we should delete the page altogether, moving the statistical stuff to some appropriate section, like demography, in Islam and Islamic schools and branches. This would also solve the paradox of Non-denominational still being a certain group and the fact that this page was created by a sock puppet. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"! I prefer the term "just a Muslim" actually, because that is how I self-identify. I didn't start this article, and would much rather there be an article titled "Just a Muslim" instead. The "non denominational" title is mostly influenced by Judaic/Christian demographic studies anyway. In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that. Keep in mind, the Pew study shows this is a significant demographic, and as such the page has a potential for serious growth in the future. I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet... cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We can't create an entire new article based on your personal beliefs. My parents are also Muslims (Sunnis) and identify themselves simply as 'Muslims' when asked but that doesn't mean they belong to an entire new denomination. Looks like its your POV not the pew's!
I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"!
You are the main person behind creating an entire new section on article Islam out of nothing!!!
In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that.
Why should we do that??? There is already an article on Muslims and Muslims by nationality.
I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Because there are no sources out there!
In the end I just request you to stop promoting this group on Wikipedia. It is creating a lot of contradictions on 'Islam by Country' articles! Septate ( talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
And I am not saying that Wahhabis only claim to be simply Muslims as evident from my statement! Septate ( talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Septate first of all, calm down. Secondly, I don't have any problems with merging the relevant data here with the Muslim page and deleting this page. I'm actually completely in favor of that =) Because right now the Muslim page is ridiculously biased with sectarian ideas, when in fact that page should (by definition) contain only the original technical definitions of a "Muslim" which exists in the Quran (which clearly prohibit denominations.) So if everyone agrees, you can move the Pew data to the Muslim page and delete this page. Then I'll start to collect sources regarding non-sectarian definitions of "Muslim" to add to that page. I think it's about time this happened, it was long over due. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What you mean by that???. Quran prohibits denominations??? Again this is your own POV as we are not here interpret the Quran! Wikipedia doesnot hold the responsiblity of promoting unity among the Muslims! You should face the reality that Islam is split into various denominations with each having its own defination of being a 'Muslim'. By the way please explain where and why should we place all this poorly sourced material on Muslim. I don't feel the need to keep this material on Wikipedia unless you find some sources! Regards. Septate ( talk) 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just wanted to explain some changes and lay out a possible future expansion solution. So I've created sub categories within the overview. I've split some of the existing content into the "Academia" and "Immigrant Muslims" categories. I also added a historical synopsis of sectarianism, as the missing category that I plan on adding will require it. The key category that is missing here needs to be "Development of non-denominational Muslims" or something like this, which explains how the recent surge in the numbers of non-denominational Muslims, as well as a historical trend for anti-sectarianism. If you have any concerns/suggestions etc. please post them here cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Eperoton: You claimed the "history of sectarianism" section wasn't reliably sourced? How so, exactly? Look above on this TP, it was inserted due to consensus and also please justify why you think it is not reliably sourced in your edit summary. The material you inserted (some of it sourced using an encyclopedia) can also be added if you wish, but we have to integrate it together with the rest. For now I've re-added the original text and kept your contribution as well. cӨde1+6 TP 11:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that ever since this article's creation in 2013 it has relied upon an unsupported piece of original research which is the conflating of "Just a Muslim" and "Nondenominational Muslim". The Pew study which forms the basis of this article never once mentions the word nondenominational, and never specifies that those who self report as "Just a Muslim" actually practice a nondenominational form of Islam. There is nothing in the Pew study that precludes the possibility that people may actually practice Sunni or Shia Islam and still self reports as "Just a Muslim" without actually belonging to a nondenominational mosque or practicing a form of nondenominational Islam, much in the same way that many Catholics and Protestants both self identify as "Just a Christian" while still being a member of a Catholic or Protestant church and practicing Catholicism or Protestantism. To say that someone self identifying as "Just a Muslim" is the same thing a practicing nondenominational Islam is completely Original Research without reliable secondary sources making that same assessment, and it appears that most reliable secondary sources do not make that connection. As a matter of fact, of the citations being used to say that "Nondenominational" and "Just a Muslim" are the same thing, none of them use the word "Nondenominational", most saying "Responded 'Just a Muslim' without specifying a sect". Just because they don't choose to specify does not mean that they do not actually belong to one. Unless there is a source that specifically states the connection and uses the word nondenominational, this is completely unsupported original research. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@ UnequivocalAmbivalence: If we apply your standards to Sunnis and Shias many of them would fail to qualify as such. I can equally claim that not every Shia/Sunni takes their denominational distinctions seriously or is even aware of them. So by your argument, we can say that they aren't "truly sunni" or "truly shia." cӨde1+6 TP 08:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No not everyone, but a 'large percentage' of these people are deemed ignorant by your argument (and your argument rests upon this 'large percentage of ignorance'), as per your quote here: "it explains why self-reporting polls have a large percentage of "Just Muslim"s, and yet reliable sources discussing demographics from an academic perspective do not have similarly large "Non-denominational" categories." You have equated the 'large percentage' in the first set, with the same 'large percentage' in the second set, thereby implying ignorance/confusion in the former. It is equally possible that the trend towards non-denominationalism is increasing with time, given the geopolitical situation the Middle East has been going through over the last half century. I wouldn't be surprised if onlookers are turning away from sectarian mindsets, given the chaos it has fostered in the region that is now obvious for all. This goes back to my suggestion that the dates of the different polls and studies be taken into account. If the Pew poll is more recent, it should be given additional weight. With that said, I believe a search for additional sources on this issue is in order. Perhaps we can find studies conducted in recent times to confirm/deny any shift in outlooks. That would be much more fruitful an effort than arguing between the three of us. cӨde1+6 TP 10:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done a bit of literature review which has amplified the specific concerns I share with UnequivocalAmbivalence, as highlighted in our recent replies. I still think that the current title of the article is the least bad choice, but it doesn't look like anyone is insisting on changing it. So, I'm happy to see that we seem to be closing in on a consensus. Here are the details of what I found.
First, regarding the use of "non-denominational" in the title. Since you have a background in linguistics UA, I can express the argument more precisely in technical language. The term "non-denominational" uses derivational morphology with productive compositional semantics. Using it in this way with a specifying definition would be problematic if the resulting semantic field was restricted by an established lexical idiosyncrasy. So, the goal of this exercise is to determine if there is an established restricted meaning of the term (using descriptive rather than prescriptive methods). I don't see a consistent usage of the term "non-denominational" with reference to Christianity in RSs. It may mean not specific to Christianity, unaffiliated Christian, or unaffiliated Protestant, depending on the context. Like UA noted, the usage stems from organizational labels, but it's being widely used to identify individuals. Sources which use personal identifications "non-denominational" and "just Christian" side by side (e.g., when analyzing surveys offering both choices), generally don't make a distinction between them. The very notion of non-denominational is controversial and is treated inconsistently. Some authors talk of non-denominational (or post-denominational) identities, while some sociologically-oriented studies simply subsume both responses under "evangelical". There is even less terminological usage for Islam, and I don't agree that we can use the People's Mosque and Tolu-e-Islam as reference points. For the former, we don't have much except a slogan. For the latter, I don't see the term in their literature, and their platform is largely based on Iqbal's legacy of refusing to be associated with any denomination (they say that they follow the Five Pillars in the same way as mainstream denominations, who follow them in different ways... what are we to make of that?). That's my argument for using "non-denominational" as an explicitly defined umbrella term.
Now, for the shared concerns. Explanations of why people may identify as "just Muslim" (or "just Christian") in RSs differ greatly. The literature for the Islamic context is very sparse, and it's hard to know how much of the difference reflects genuine regional variations rather than different theories of the authors. Even if I don't think that using the term "non-denominational" misidentifies "just Muslim" respondents under some established category, we need to be very careful not to treat the term, well, as a denomination, implying a commonality of attitudes or beliefs. I'd like to help updating the article to address these concerns, but it may be a few days before I get to it. In the meantime, here are links to some of the sources I'm relying on. For Christianity: [2], [3], [4], [5]. For Islam (some of these may duplicate material already cited in the article): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Eperoton ( talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is contradictory. It describes Jinnah as both a Shiite and a non-Shiite. That's like saying you are both a virgin and sexually experienced; or you're bald and long-haired at the same time. 92.10.230.31 ( talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Islam is made up of 5 different "Ma'dhabs". These are the madhabs that are the sub-sets within Islam. PRoposal for deletion. Please do not remove tag unless discussion is carried out first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:41e0:5af:7141:62b:43cb:6dc4 ( talk • contribs)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi
It is not an organized movement. In some case, shia or sunni muslim claim that to avoid the fitna or to claim that their movement is the true islam. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I was accused of advocacy, but I do not belong to this grouping so thats false; further, i merely repeated what a reliable source (Pew) said. 79.67.91.32 ( talk) 00:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Soyouy553: the source is about "just a muslim" not about "Non-denominational Muslim". See WP:OR. And it is not a religious group. This article is an OR. Panam2014 ( talk) 20:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
However, many Muslims do not identify with either sect but rather see themselves as “just a Muslim.”. Seeing oneself as "Just a Muslim" should by default mean that a person does not identify with any denomination (the source expresses it) and is thus a non-denominational Muslim. I often try to prevent myself delving into heated arguments for the sake of my own peace but since I was pinged twice, I came here to just give my opinion. Perhaps editors like Iskandar323 and Apaugasma can weigh-in in a more better manner. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead are:
First, I have two questions:
Second, I propose to rewrite the beginning of the first sentence like this:
-- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Wikiedit01995, JorgeLaArdilla, AmirahBreen, Idell, Flamealpha123, Zimi09, NZDF1985, and Ak131001: @ AccordingClass, TheAafi, TheEagle107, Janjua Rajpout, M.k.m2003, and MezzoMezzo: @ Assassin's Creed, Starkex, Wiki id2, Sa.vakilian, Ed Poor, and Alarob: @ Imagine Wizard, Arteyu, Nostalgia of Iran, and Technophant: @ Owais khursheed, అహ్మద్ నిసార్, Masum Ibn Musa, and FrederickII: @ Naila Khan, VenusFeuerFalle, Resnjari, Umairsy, and Bkerensa: @ Saff V., Lazy-restless, Imtiaz ahmed rifat, F5pillar, and Ahendra: @ Jushyosaha604, Cplakidas, SacredSunflower, and Ghazi Malik: @ Chongkian, Kamilalibhat, AliAhmed111, IronManCap, Ulubatli Hasan, and Melofors: @ Hamza Ali Shah, M.Nadian, Ready12hope, MartinPoulter, and Captain1044: @ KhanQadriRazvi, GoldenBootWizard276, and Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia:
I am pleased to ping you to suggest a solution for the multiple issues of the article.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)