![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The articles between sunni and shiite seem very different content and layout. Maybe they could be organized more similarly and thus allow the reader to compare the two more easily. Also, a comparison page seems like it might be valuable.
I agree, this would be very valuable to people looking for the differences (which i suspect would be a large number of people looking at this page). 203.129.33.102 ( talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I as a Sunni Muslim am against the so called Sunni Islam, there is no Sunni Islam or Shi'ite Islam, it is all Islam only, therefore I am against dividing Muslim into smaller divisions, such as when mentioning about the demographics facts of any country, we are not Christians, if it is okay with the Christians to be divided to Catholics and Protestants, it is not okay with Muslims to be divided, I am pretty sure that most Muslims would agree, I say Most and I am certain, Please put this into consideration, thank you.
Why does the "Demographics" section of this article refer to Shi'ite muslims? Isn't this an article about Sunni muslims?
I am a Church of England Christian & I don't understand why the Sunni Branch of Islam doesn't have a leader?
With all the troubles in the world today & not a big guy at the top - it makes for a terrible image of Islam in general - having no network of PR. Also why do the 2 main different branches of Islam hate each-other so much? Is it a Persian /Arabic tribal thing?
I believe that mainstream Islam is a peaceful & respected religion (with not much in it as a comparison with the other main religions in the world.. - they are all much the same) - but the extremists are helping to destroy both the whole religion and also the positive image, yet behind closed doors must Muslims think that 9/11 was the best thing to happen since sliced bread..???!!
I am looking for the truth and would be grateful to hear from a Sunni Muslim that isn't going to threaten to cut off my head or try and convince me to convert!! Hayday 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This religion is shiite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.106.168 ( talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should decide what to do about the link section of this site. It is consistently being removed then replaced in a long cycle. The list was quite long before and definitely unweildy. Maybe we can decide on some links that are worthy and try to come to something that is comprehensive yet precise. Links I recommend are www.islam-qa.com and www.understand-islam.net. The second is run by Dr. Saleh as-Saleh himself with over 1,000 hours of his lectures. The first is very valuable and contains fatawa from Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid and is very comprehensive. ZaydHammoudeh 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been watching the page and the site continues to be spammed with links every 12-24 hours. I am not an expert on wikipedia, just someone trying to give humble input; however, I do think given the trend of editting that it might not be a bad idea to put in lock preventing anonymous or recently registered users from editting. This I think is especially needed given the apparent use of sockpuppets to edit this site. I could be wrong on this recommendation. It is just a thought. ZaydHammoudeh 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Osama Bin Laden is a sunni muslim. Why won't you let him stay in the "see also" section. Futher, many terrorists are sunni muslim and should also be included.
Is there supposed to be a big blank space below the first paragraph? I haven't seen this before, so I doubt it's my browser, and usually a chunk missing from an article indicates vandalism. Just curious. Jermor 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, where it says that "they are referred to as Ahl ul-Sunna", shouldn't the "ul" be assimilated? Mattman00000 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are to write it phonetically yes: "Ahl as-Sunnah", as س (seen) is a Shamsi letter Aaliyah Stevens 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the story with the external links in this article? Is it swimming in spam or is it just me? — Wknight94 ( talk) 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Me too I post this link http://www.islamhouse.cm/p/1295. Whats the matter! the end of the website com march 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC) what is your excuse to put this site in spam list have you seen it ittaqee Allah. 6 April 2008
The person who is pasting wahabi and Pro wahabi sites in the external area must know that others are also wathching his acts . as both deobandi barelwi follows school of thought their sites should be typed there not of non sunni beleief Wahabi Ideology . This act will not be successful . either remove the external links area from this page or paste their sunni sites . thnks sunni soldier of islam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk • contribs).
All I want to say that most of the time here the person is pasting wahabi sites in the suuni page. If one wish to see can easily watch what Islamonline or saudi islam projects. But we the sunni muslim in Majority follows hanafi shafai maliki hambali schools , even deobandi too believed thses 4 schools . so the links of these Sunni sites like Yanabi .com ,Islamicacademy.org, dawateislami.net,msoamu.org,razaacademy.com should be there on sunni page .
Moderators please note this Point. thanks Indian sunni student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
PLEASE GO THROUGH DAWATEISLAMI which is not only a Useful sunni site but also a global sunni movement.
who is giving daily Speeches on Qtv , a Sunni Channel .
It is offered that these sites represent different sunni orgn academy's and sunni sources. (These are True Representatives)
where as most of the sites below are either of Wahabi dawah centres or news sites as islamonline or Taliban Alqaeda Supporters Wahabi Sites:
Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance Islam - www.islaam.com Islam Web - www.islamweb.net Islam Guide - A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam. Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Islam Question And Answer Sunni Path - An online Islamic Academy Sultan Islamic Links - www.sultan.org Understand Islam - An Islamic site run by Moiz Amjad.
Please be aware that there is a number 'Sunni' movements in the Indian subcontinent, who are Sunnis but they label their particular brand of Sunni Islam as exclusively Sunni, not including other Sunni movements within that new euphomism for the word Sunni, such as the deobandis, tablighis, Jamat-e-Islam. Asian/Indian 'Sunni' movements do not consider these other movements as 'Sunni' in their narrow definition even though these groups are not Wahabi/Salafi - they are part of the Ahl-as-Sunna. Their euphomism for Sunni actually refers to Barelwis and Sufis only as Sunnis, although this article is generally about all those that fall under the banner of Sunni, not just those who are part of Indian Sunni movements. It can lead to confusion about the term. Lets not make this an article about the Indian subcontinent's 'Sunni' movements and stick to the general non-cultural definition: i.e. the classical Scholars of Sunni Islam & the 4 madhabs, not new asian sectarian definitions. For example the UNKNOWN user above claims (with an appeal to sensationalism or appeal to fear that the following websites are Taliban/Al-qaeda Supporterting Wahabi Sites:
Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Sunni Path - www.sunnipath.com
This is is clearly incorrect. IslamOnline is linked to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi who is not Wahabi etc, nor is Islamicity, IslamicFinder, and definately not SunniPath.com, which links itself to some of the sites the user claims are genuine Sunni sites. Lets not let this article be hijacked by Pakistani/Indian local inter-sunni rivalries. There are very few Sunni traditional classical scholars that came from india in the first 300 years of Islam when Sunni Islam was formalised. I think one of our primary sources should be the classical works on http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ Aaliyah Stevens 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not read or heard any where in any Literature of Jamaateislami or tablighi jamat that they Belonged to Sunnism .They have created new Movements in Sunnism . They have Claimed it in many Places . same is the Condition with Deobandis that they with above these two groups have always treated Non sunnis Scholars whether they are Wahabi or not , as Authentics . In Whole of the Islamic History Except IBN e taimiyya ,ibn abdulwahab and his supporters and their movements ,the Muslims have a graet Majority of Sunnis. and these sunnis never accepeted the teachings of NON sunnis or any new Movements in Islam. It must be remembered that all the four schools have always Considered Sufism as most Strong way of Purification in each and Every Islamic Country . and the sunnism is used and Defined by the Sufi Scholars and Preachers Everywhere. Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi,Mualana Rum,Nuh Ha Mim Keller,Imamaahmed Raza khan,Hazrat Ahmed Maliki of Mecca,Hazrat Jalaluddin Suyyuti , Shah Abdulahaqmuhaddith Dehlavi, Shahabdulaziz , etc are some of the Name of Scholars of the Great Repute who are not only well versed in Sufism but always Supported Sunnism the haq,the Truth throught the world.
Come to the sites, most of the sites on sunnis page belong to the ahle hadiths and wahabis who even opposed the sunnis and their four schools. Then How can those sites be there on sunni Page ?
Can u Challenge the Turkish sunni literature at www. hizmetbooks.org www.raza.co.za or www.islamicacademy.org or www.yanabi.com ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
for the sunni external links....why they are all in urdu language....u have to past or add in international websites not urdu or pakistani etc....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.14.233 ( talk)
thanx for re-adding good sunni external links instead of the other websites which only represent the Barelwi movement and does not represent the whole sunni branch...the current external links are really excellent and represent real sunnism in all over the world...keep it up and all the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.14.233 ( talk) 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Should either of these be referenced as Sunni? The Mu'tazilah have been regarded as heretics by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari schools, and certainly not part of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'a. Also, there are hardly any true Mu'tazilah left today, although there's some influence of their thought in some Shia writing.
The Salafis are clearly aligned to the views of Ibn Taymiyyah, Barbahari, Bin Baz, ibn al Uthaymin , etc who were regarded as anthropomorphists by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari. The majority of other scholars who would have to be identified as Sunnis distanced them from their literal interpretations. Artichoke84 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is not the whole of the matter, because if that were the entirety of the case, then the Salafi school would be no different to the Athari school. Unfortunately, the scholars from which the Salafis draw their guidance, do make likenesses by way of similies, and adding on interpretations that the salaf never claimed for themselves. There is no question that the Salafi school is associated with the people I mentioned in my original post, so let us examine some of their statements.
Ibn al-Uthaymin claimed that: "Allah is in the heaven in person (bi dhâtihi) but despite this He draws near to the servant during the latter's prayer, just as the sun is in the heaven, while its rays reach creatures on earth." There is a clear addition of simile and likeness there, whereas the position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and al-Bukhari was always bi la kayf ('without saying how').
Bin Baz on the interpretation of Imam al-Tahawi's definitive Sunni aqida says that: "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows". The actual text of Imam al-Tahawi says: "He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created entities are." There's a clear difference here. One text says He is beyond having limits placed on Him, and the other affirms some.
Ibn Taymiyyah: "The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world (fawqu al-`aalam) and his being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank (rutba), or that it is with respect to location (makan). For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah's precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah's elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence." Again, this is not an Athari point of view, since it seeks to explain these verses of the Qur'an. The behaviour of the salaf was Athari, in that it never sought to say how. Imam Malik said (r): "The establishment (al-istiwa') is known and its modality (al-kayf) is unthinkable and to ask about it is an innovation (bid`a)."
al-Ibana which you have cited, is a corrupt text which, quite apart from the issue of anthropomorphism, incorporates a claim which states Imam Abu Hanifa was an apostate. If Imam Abu Hanifa is not a a Sunni Muslim, then what are the majority of Muslims supposed to be when they follow him? Artichoke84 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Therefore I am removing all external links except those that are agreed upon by ALL sunnis: Sufis, Salafis, and all. e.g. Nobody can dipute Al-Azhar. Aaliyah Stevens 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you point about al-Azhar, and I too am of that opinion of it being in the pocket of the government, but it is still recognised as the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, along with the University of Fes (Qarawiyin) and Islamic university of Islamabad, many Islamist leaders who oppose the "puppet" Tantawi have themselves graduated from there, although it's leader / spokesperson Tantawi maybe a puppet, the courses it offers are still recognised. As for the other entries muslimphilosophy, and Al-tafsir, etc they are purely non POV, archives of classical Islamic work, academic, not propoganda, or hold opinions of recognised Sunni scholars Aaliyah Stevens 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How can u Add Salafi sites in Sunni Link area ?There is no relevancy at all . Read their literature First. Can u Ignore sufism in Sunnism ? it is sufism which has spread the sunni islam through out the world . Even if u ignore it in sunni link area u can not make it disappear from the Islamic history . What about www.hizmetbooks.org and www.islamicacademy.org ,www.raza.co.za ,and www.wimnet.org One should know if the Barelwis are part of sunnism then the Barelvi sites deserve a Place here on this sunni link area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabiha ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Although I sympathise with your sentiment, and I myself am a Sufi, as were all the major thinkers of Sunni ISlam, e.g. Ghazali however:
I have noticed that you have added links to specific groups such as Minhaj al-Quran and dawat-e-Islam, this is very wrong. This lays the basis for other people to add their favourite groups, this is not about Sunni groups, it is about Sunni Islam. If we were to allow websites for specific groups, then others would add Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, Hizb-ut-tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islam, etc etc which would end up a very long list. Please stop doing so, Minhaj al-Quran etc are NOT the only or main sunni group in the world, in fact the largest Sunni group in the world, is probably the umbrella of Ikhwaan al-Muslimeeen and it's various branches globally, then maybe Tablighi jama'ah, but we have not added thier links. Aaliyah Stevens 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, one link, Sunni Path, Allows & praises Milaad and links to some of your other websites. Aaliyah Stevens 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then You think that if in few hundred years of islamic history no Muslim scholar came from India then How does it affect the Contribution of World famous scholars who have shown path the true path to millions. Did You forgot that Hazrat khawaja gharib nawaz and Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi from India were not only sufis but were Scholars too .
Can You deny the fact that India pakistan and bangladesh contains most of the Muslim Sunni Population and the islam which they Practised is not new but it Sufism .
Can You Ignore them ? Infact noone can ignore them .
Do You know that Sunni Markaz of Kerala
www.markazonline.com is the largest islamic sunni University of the India. They are not hanafi by School but are Known as Barelwis by the so called Reformers in Islam such as Ahle hadiths and Jamaat e Islami because they practised sufi sunnism . And You must Know that Barelwis have not made them so.They have practised it from their Births . This sunni sufism is Known as barelwism in whole of the India including the state of Kasmir ,pakistan and bangladesh.
and Moreover The sites such as Islamic finder ,islamonline.com,islamonline.net desreve Place on wahabi page . Specially these three rejects what u say sufismand sunnism . u said u believe in sufism . Do u go to Dargahs of Wali or do u ask for dua or intercession from him ? All these acts throug out the world are Practised by majority of Muslims and Specially by sunnis. Then all the sunnis including sufis are committing Shirk . And they are not muslims according to these sites . and if u are adding any islamic University site then the site of Markaz desreve a Place here .
please also comment about www.hizmetbooks.org , www.islamicacademy.org www.sunnah.org ,www.raza.co.za
Do u know that Barelwi term is getting Popularity in Europe for Sufi Peoples ? U must read the great Mujaddid of the Century Imam ahmed raza khan at www.alahazratnetwork.org
plz reply all my questions which i have raised and also comment on the sites which i have written there. so it is on You what u consider by the term sunni. But as far as indian subcontinent is concerned all the sufism practising muslims are called Barelwis by the persons who rejects it .
The thing which u have said here is that You intend to Include Encyclopedia and recognized universities. So the www.markazonline.com and www.hizmetbooks.org deserve a Place on this sunni Page . Shabiha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.225.3.6 ( talk) 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
markazonline.com is not a university, it is a charity which runs schools.
hizmetbooks is not an encyclopedia. Look up the definitions of the words, and don't try and hoodwink users into thinking so. the universityies in india that have official websites are: Jamia Millia Islamia: http://jmi.nic.in/, and http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm Aaliyah Stevens 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree but we are debating external web site links for Islamic universities. markazonline.com is not one, and if we are to put some up it would be Aligarh. Which are well known, I have been and lived all over the arab world and have never heard markazonline.com mentioned, Why do we need to include every single uni, the big ones will do. Aaliyah Stevens 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Now u did not find even Markaz as University which has made 800 hundreds graduate this year .The Sunni markaz kerala or other markaz does not need governmental recognition or affiliation . It has Alazhar recognition and its degrees are recognized by AMU Aligarh , Jamia millia and jamia Hamdard and you will deny now even most reputed sunni university as university which is jamia ashrafia mubarakapur Azamgarh www.aljamiatulashrafia.org/ . The students of which adds Misbahi to their names and hundreds of Scholars are grduated every Year. You dont have enough excuse to remove hizmetbooks.org and islamicacademy.org Shabiha
U have to justify removing all my sites which are sunni and have Global Presence . If Most Reputed Madarsas of India i.e Islamic University Markaz and ashrafia dont satisfay ur claims then u may not paste there any other Uni .because it doesnot satisfy me and thousands like me the indian Sunnis . ok shabiha !
If this is about Indian pride in Sunni Islam, or some sor of obscure indian sunni nationalism, I find your motivations highly questionable. Anyway, I have added what is probably the most reputable Indian Islamic university - Deoband. Lets put this issue to rest, the only problem now is what if an indonesian, uzbek, Nigerian, Malay, bosnian, or turk Muslim says that their sunni Muslim university is not represented?? I have added an indian university so leave it now! Aaliyah Stevens 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Aaliyah I appreciate you taking it on yourself to try to improve the quality of this article. It is good to be enthusiastic, but you are kind of trying to use an iron hand to achieve the goal. Originally, I assumed good faith for your actions and thought what you were doing was a genuine attempt to be even handed. However, the "see also" section you reverted and added to was already very Sufi leaning. Your additions of kalam only compounded that. You are a self-avowed Sufi; to make statements of the need to be NPOV and equitable then to make the see also section so one sided is unfortunate. You really made the "See Also" section reflect primarily one view when you accuse others of advocating views of a very narrow section of the Sunni population. You can't have it both ways. ZaydHammoudeh 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Aliyah ,Removing others and adding Your favourite Links on wikipedia will not help the Users . The Deoband You know is represented by a particular group and Markaz and ashrafia by other Group of sunnis. Same is the Situation with Your most of the Links . Crores don't think the Link You have Pasted there as Reputed .The links U have removed are not Considered as reputed by crores of Sunnis. The thing is that Wikipedia should give clear and adequate representation to all sunni groups.Wikipedia is here to tell about all those who considered themselves as Sunnis through out theWorld . Can any one Deny ? Wikipedia should have listing of all the major Sunni Educational as well organizational Links onitSunnipage .Person Like You only doing what is seeming good to You .
shabiha
Zayd, if you look at the history of my edits, I have been trying to prevent this page being hijacked by Salafis/ Wahabis and by Sufi Barelwi or Hanafis of the Indian subcontinent. It find it amusing that on the one hand I am accused of being pro-Wahabi, and on the other I am accused of being too pro-Sufi! Your statements on my addition of Kalam to the "See Also" section implies that Kalam was solely a Sufi activity, not a Sunni one. Engagement in Kalam was a practice of all of the early Sunni scholars to combat the false Kalam of others, and legalistic Sufism (not the Bhudist influenced type that suspends Sharaih) has had almost universal appeal in Sunni Islam, so belongs there. Also, how is it one sided to include Ghazali who is the most well known Islamic scholar after the four Imams, and respected in east and west. His name is more known throughout the west (rightly or wrongly) than even some of the 4 Imams for his thoughts.
Regarding the addition of the hizmetbooks and associated link, and the removal of the Uni of deoband, I am opposed to both:
Shabiha how can you argue that all sunni institutions of all those who consider themselves Sunni should be included when you argued against the "Wahabi" links, and you removed the universitu of Deoband. Wahabis consider themselves Sunni. Following your logic we would end up with a thousand external links. And to conclude the list I settled with is "my favorite" it totally wrong, I included only notable and undisputed links: Does anyone object to Al-Azhar? No!. I think external links should only include undisputed links such as Al-Azhar, Islamabad, Fiqh al-Akbar by Abu Hanifah, and academic sites, not proselytising links like yours. Allowing them opens the floodgates to all other to add their favourite group's schools
Does anyone object to these links, and on what basis? They neither Wahabi nor Pro-Barelwi:
The links should stay as these only, as only these will be undisputed Aaliyah Stevens 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I can be accused of being partisan, if my argument is simple; that we should list lowest common denominators of Sunni Islam, because all else is, and will result in partisan proselytizing. Yes, I agree with excluding links that represent groups and parties, not Sunni Islam as a whole, and if that makes petty people feel alienated that's tough, because wikipedia and any encyclopedia should not be bullied into accepting something as mainstream, or representative of something bigger. We need to make a distinction between Sunni Islam/the 4 math-habs, and the the relatively new competing groups and movements that are branches of Sunni Islam. I would object to listing the Ba-Alwi school because it is one tariqa among many, and we would then have to list every school of every Sufi tariqa.
I agree that we should rule out schools etc, and allow primary texts of major Sunni A'ima many of which are published on Philosophica Islamica, however I think it is impossible to miss out Azhar as the most respected, and oldest Sunni University. Although Jamiat-al-Qarawiyin may be older, and may have been reputable, it is now almost forgotten, has no external link, and is not recognised anymore, I've been there and it's in ruins. The problem you are going to have is the same problem we have with listing schools, somebody from India or Pakistan will believe that their Imam or Sheikh is on par with Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or Ghazali and want their works listed too, then Ikhwaanis will want Hassan al-Banna's or Syed Qutb's works listed etc etc etc. Thats why I hold the potentially most unpopular rule, which is "list only the common denominators between all Sunnis" which will be the 4 Imams, their teachers and their students, + other notables like Ghazali, Suyuti or Nawawi. Nobody can argue that they were not true Sunnis. This will exclude people like Ahmed Rida Khan Barelwi, or Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab or ibn Taymiyya, which people will attack as not proper Sunnis. Aaliyah Stevens 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As stated above, this article is about Sunni Islam, not Sunni groups, Sunni sub-sects and Sunni movements. These groups, movements and sub-sects have their own page e.g. Barelwi, Wahabi, Ikhwaani.
The external links should only include:
Shabiha
Please add/discuss any other criteria.
So far we have:
This is a reference site on Usul and Fiqh, and uses Classical sources
This is purely a reference site of an academic nature
This is purely an academic reference site for classic Islamic books etc
Nobody disputes Abu Hanifah
Nobody disputes Imam Malik
Nobody disputes Imam Shafi
Nobody Disputes Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
OK, could you post the link? Aaliyah Stevens 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a book explaining Usul in Sunni Islam
Yes we Should Continue with Sunni Path. AS it has been seen that a Particular User is trying to Impose its Own thinking on Wikipedia ,it is suggested that other Users should come forward to make this Page really rich .
the Other academic site may be www.islamicacademy.org
though the Hizmet Books criticizes Wahabis but it has books on Sunnism with Authentic and Reliable refrences of Sunni Ulemas . The Books on This Site are not found any where.Any one can Examine their importance to Sunnis of the World .
Another Site is the Work of Prof Masud Ahmed at www.masud.co.uk on traditional Islam.
Shabiha, I have warned you before, please stop persistently adding your links at random intervals, we are trying now to discuss the issue, but you have again added more (some obscure) links, in what seems to be a "revenge edit" against Dalaa. Both edits were wrong. Aaliyah Stevens 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Aaaaliyah i have not made any revenge Edit.I always tries and believe in giving representation to all Sections . Dont u think that a Sunni Page must have at least one Link related to all the sub groups . Thats Why i Edit it . shabiha
No, we should not have a link for every sub-group. that would be a very long list, and we were discussing this above, so I do consider your edits disruptive. Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This new link added by Zayd, is much more in terms of words and text of the book, written by modern Salafis, and only one section of the book contains the 90 or so statemnts (in 3 parts) of Imam Ahmed. This is unacceptable, unless we find an unadulterated translation, otherwise we will have to use the previous link on Salah. Aaliyah Stevens 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Zayd you state: "most of the links you post are full of Sufi bias." Most? please be careful what you accuse me of. There is a big difference between most and only s single site. Fine we will remove SunniPath.com. I have no problem with that. I think you should "hold your tongue" a little more, all you had to do was point that stuff out rather than go into a long diatribe.
Anyway, I fail to see how the above addresses the point of the link you put up which is primarily not the words of the Imam Ahmed. Let's agree to remove both, until we find an unadulterated translation without over extensive commentary by Salafis Aaliyah Stevens 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Shabiha, please, if Islam and Sufi tazkiyyah can't control you to be nice and civil to your brother, then read WP:CIVIL wikipedias policy on civility. Also, learn that Islam is not Urdu or Indian, and Urdu and Indian words are not Islamic words: using urdu "sahaba E kiram", "Miladun nabi" "Roza's", "Dargahs" are urdu/hindi terms, and not every Muslim in the world is Indian/pakistani. How many times do I have allude to this point!!
Fuss-ha(classical or standard) Arabic is the language of Islam, not Urdu. How do you expect the rest of the Muslim to understand you if you use Indian words, and the fact that you don't know the difference shows how much experience you have with the Arabic language and books of Fiqh. So I suggest you don't debate this issue here, if at all. If you really want to debate the issue do it on the Mawlid page. Zayd, don't rise. Aaliyah Stevens 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont try to teach me what u dont Know . Sahabae kiram Rozas or dargahs i used for the sake of putting my point. I never said that Islam is limited to Urdu or Hindustan or Pakistan. U cant be the Master of this Page .The Point i intend to Prove is that A site should not be removed from this sunni page because it tells about Maulid ,the rememberence of Holy Prophet S.A.W. You should also know if some one will try to remove a sunni site on this basis then Each and every one has right to discuss this issue HERE, not Any Where. Any way Have You bought this Sunni page ? shabiha
Hayyak Allaah ya Shabiha. I want to say first al-hamdulillaah (All Praise is Due to Allaah) that no one asks me for fatawa because only the faqeeh is qualified to give fatawa, and I am by no means a faqeeh. Since I do not give fatawa, I do not take people out of the Sunnah Jama'ah like you state, "In ur fatwas u claims to be only muslims and says shirki People to other sunnis" However, Shabiha your words accuse me of not being Sunni when you say, "What are u doing here when u are Wahabi." It is ok with me if you want to insult me; I don't particularly mind. However, in insults, it is only proper to be accurate and let me say unequivocally that I am not Wahhabi. I have never been Wahhabi nor do I expect to be Wahhabi. Maybe I have misunderstood your words Shabiha. The others are correct when they state that it is not always easy to understand your argument due to the language barrier.
Next it is important to state that the actions of the Muslims (be they Sufi, Salafi, Takfiri, etc) are not evidence against Islam; Islam is evidence against their actions. It is not appropriate to frame your argument to say that most Muslims do a certain action so it is permissible. Moreover, it is important to know the crucial principle in usool al-fiqh, "The fundamental principle concerning worship is prohibition; nothing is permitted except that which Allaah (subhaanallaahu wa ta’aalaa) and His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) legislated." The best two evidences for this principle as explained by the scholars are the two authentic ahadeeth, “Whoever does any action that is not in accordance with this matter of ours (Islam) will have it rejected.” (Reported in Saheeh Muslim, (English translation no. 4267, book 18) and ‘Whoever innovates anything in this matter of ours (Islam) that is not a part of it, will have it rejected” [Reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (English translation vol. 3, hadeeth no. 861) and in Saheeh Muslim (English translation no. 4266, book 18)]. Enough between all of us is the words of the Prophet. I understand that this last paragraph was off topic but I wanted to provide an answer since I was asked. ZaydHammoudeh 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Zaid I regretif Ihave Offended U . I stated that Because U said that SunniPath has given Significance to Milad and that was notCelebrated Bythe Sahabis .Each and Every Pious act Which we are doing or are Trying to do in this era was not Practiced by the Sahabis So WE may Not End that Practice Which is Legaly valid in Islam . Dear NKV I agree to You that we should have a Consensus on the Sites Which should be there on this Sunni Page. I ask a Question ,Should not a Practice Which is Observed by the Huge majority of Sunnis as Pious , Deserve aHonourable Place Here? Or TheNon Sunni ideology Will Affect the Listing? Shabiha
It seems this discussion has run its course; the remaining disputed sites are Usool as-Sunnah, Sunni Path, and Philosphica Islamica. I think they should be removed and the external links issue put to rest for now. Any thoughts? ZaydHammoudeh 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How can u add th Site which are Totally unrelated to Sunnism for ex International Islamic university of islamabad has nothnig Informative accept about university . Junaid
I am removing these Sites which are neither Discussed and nor are Sunni .
These represent Salafi /Wahabi /JamaateIslami View . Shabiha 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sr. Shabiha, please be reasonable and remember your Islamic manners. Even if we take issue with some links or sites, you can't slander them without proof. You do have a history on claiming that sites and resources that don't agree with your viewpoint "aren't Sunni"; this, coupled with your history of vandalism - and I know of this because i've had to revert edits where you've blanked pages before - makes me a little nervous. Please check your intentions and remember that simply stating "i'm removing these links on the talk page" and then doing it without getting feedback does not constitute open discussion of the issue. MezzoMezzo 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
— Xiong 熊 talk * 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that Sr. Aaliyah and Brs. Zayd and Nkv have been doing a standup job on this article, and I have to say I really am impressed by the patience and cooperation i've seen in mediation what should and shouldn't be in this article. Out of respect for the work put into it, I wish to discuss my issues here before making any edits, as I wish all disputes on an article could be handled in such a mature fashion. For the consideration of those interesting in improving upon this article, I have some suggestions for which I am seeking feedback:
Again, I am seeking feedback here - primarily from the three aformentioned users that have been doing such a good job in editing, though others are welcome as well. I hope that I can help everyone to enhance this article and keep it informative and to the point. MezzoMezzo 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you have said, just that Kalam during era of great debates, was used to refer to any discussions related to theology and Aqueeda, not necessarily the negative way we understand the word today. So Imam Ghazali had his Kalam argument which was in fact not Kalam by todays standards at all, it was simply demonstrating that there has to be a creator of the universe. On the Shurah issue, I agree we should not use the word democracy, but it is true to say that Sunnis accepted the principle of Shurah as the basis of supporting Abu Bakr, he sought the mandate of the Ummah the next morning after Saqifah, while the Shia rejected that this was relevant in choosing a Khalif - as they believed Ali was Masoom and divinely appointed. Aaliyah Stevens 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please edit the first paragraph so it is more balanced and easy to read if you are not sunni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 ( talk) 14:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
For the caliphs,
why the fourth caliph ali ibn abi talib is not mentioned with the other three caliphs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalaaa ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There are only four sunni schools of fiqh and they are hanafi,shafi'i,maliki and hanbali.... Ahmadi is not included and it is not right at all to add it to sunni islam page, ahmadis are different thing, they are not sunni and even they are not muslim....thats what majority of muslims say.....please delete Ahmadi from the sunni schools of fiqh... Thanx to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 ( talk) 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
For the Sunni Beliefs section, can you please just write all beliefs in English words not in arabic using english letters and that will be very helpful for people who dont know arabic this much and please improve the sunni islam page because it neeeds lots of improvements...sunni islam is islam itself because we all know that most muslims are sunnis, so please improve the sunni islam page so it can represent muslims and sunnis in a better way to others...Thanx very much to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 ( talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"For instance, there is no Sunni–Shi'a breakdown available for many countries, and the CIA World Factbook"
I looked up indonesia a couple days ago, I only saw: Religion Muslim.. Mallerd 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Indonesia is Sunni... Here Syi'ah is persecuted(yeah. Just 2 years ago some mobs burned down a syi'ah ulama house, claimed he is infidel, because he told the people to pray on natural ground only. Not that I disagree with them, though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.196.233 ( talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So, if one goes to the Shia template, or the Ismaili one, or the Alevi one, one sees right away how these groups differ from other Muslims. But what about Sunnis? Like the other templates, the stuff under 'beliefs' is so general most of it applies to every other group. Belief in angels and the unity of Allah? That's almost everyone. There needs to be something that points out the belief in the sahaba, their uprightness, the rashidun caliphs, and Sunnis view the conflicts of the sahaba between themselves.
This includes the general article itself. Great, four schools of fiqh. Now how is this group different from all other Muslims? Anyone who reads this will have no clue whatsoever.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Sunni_Islam&diff=135335163&oldid=135335015 Everything about these issues is Sunni-Shia oriented. Now, that's true, they are very Sunni-vs-Shia oriented. But how can we avoid that, after all, that's what we're basically comparing Sunnism to? I agree, we need to state what makes Sunnism unique without making it sound like we're purposely comparing it to the second biggest branch, but how do we go about doing that?
Right now, I'm doing a total rewrite of the Shia article, but I already know what we can get across and not seem like it's an argument. With Sunnism, it becomes more confusing because of its 'orthodoxy' and majority. It seems every point is comparing to someone else's group, but that's mainly because Sunnism is seen as the norm.
We need to write up points of importance, and expand on those points. They can't be too Sunni-vs-Shia centric, but they need to get the uniqueness of Sunni fiqh and aqeedah (mostly aqeedah) across. So, what do we need to do? -- Enzuru 08:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I've made some minor tweaks to the TOC and added the standard sections that will need to go on the end. Also, the section about Hanafism on the subcontinent need to be either Indian subcontinent or, better in my view, remove that heading altogether and just describe it in the relevant movements where they started from. → AA ( talk) — 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean: "These two books (Bukhari and Muslim) are strict in their accuracy...." Is it intended to mean that both books largely agree with, and therefore re-inforce, each other? I think a re-wording of this sentence for clarity would be worthwhile. 86.138.213.109 ( talk) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure people will want to edit some things in what I wrote, perhaps remove some things and add others. They are of course welcome to do so, but the intro certainly has to contain a fair bit more than it previously did, so I'd like to ask not to blindly revert my edit if somebody disagrees with parts of it or thinks they should not be in the intro. The part about the caliphate and the Azhar at least seems fairly uncontroversial and fairly essential for an introduction to Sunni Islam. Of course the article urgently needs a history/origins section as well, although I can already see the problems that'll cause concerning what is "Sunni" history as opposed to general Islamic history... Paul Willocx ( talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how reliable is a source to cite, in which such insulting views are expressed against Shias.^ "How Many Shia Are in the World?". IslamicWeb.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-18. [1] I Quoute: "It is important to remember that Shia have a high birth rate since their religion allows adultery (Mut'a). The percentage of Shia this time is relative to the percentage of Muslims." First of all Mut'a is not adultury but temporary marriage. Even if one pejoratively takes it as prostituion, it does not mean that it increases the number of Children born. Secondly in more cases in that source Shia's are presented as opposed to Muslims. Words like "in relation to Muslims" and "their Religion" clearly suggest such a view.-- Tirip ( talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The shia's dont blame the fourth caliph but the first three caliphs. if we pay attention then this becomes true because the second caliph was the one who went to Fatima binte Muhammad's house and he gave warnings to her. as the holy prophet quoted 'Fatima is part of me and who ever hurts her hurts me and who hurts me hurts Allah'. Plus Fatima was not given what was left for her, Fidak. Which upset her and according to hazrat Aisha she was hurt because of this. Ali ibn Abitalib didnt recieve the caliphate. I think we muslims have forgotten the incident of Ghadi re Qum which is recorded in Ahmad ibn Hambal's Mishqat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.11.208 ( talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So far the article seems to just distinguish different schools of Sunni thought. This information should certainly be included in an encyclopedia article, but there should also be a paragraph or two that defines what Sunni Islam itself is, that is what distinguishes Sunni from other types of Islam. An encyclopedia article on a subject typically first discusses that subject, then discusses sub-classifications, right?
Why is there a separate section in the article for Sunni Islam in South Asia? There is no explanation given for this supposed significance beyond Sunni Islam in, say, Africa or the Middle East. The entire section is unreferenced as well. I really see no reason for this. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am appalled and shocked at the first paragraph of the Sunni Islam article. I implore and beg any moderator or anyone who have access to the page to remove the blasphemic paragraph as it suggest a negative meaning and probably from a non-Muslim point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genzee0505 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) {{ helpme}}
Can we have a section devoted to the etymology and origin of the term? Faro0485 ( talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by the terms. Are these all synonyms? They all seem to refer to to the branch of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
I note the bottom of the page has categories "Islam in Turkey", etc. As well as several misformatted redlinks such as "Islam in pakistan" and "Islam in UK". Given that Sunni Islam appears in most countries of the world, and outweighs non-Sunni Islam in all but a few countries, do we even need those categories? I'm going to be bold and remove them, particulary as the current ones are non-exhaustive, and several are redlinks, but I welcome any counter-argument. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are .... ahl sunnat's websites: http://www.shababeislami.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Star and Crescent are a symbol of the Ottoman Empire and NOT a symbol of Islam. I would appreciate it being removed as it appears in my Facebook profile under my religion, and could confuse the public reading the article. Sunni Islam is following the Sunnah of the prophet PBUH and there is nothing "sunni" about the star and crescent symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.26.82 ( talk) 22:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
My dear Brothers and Sisters,THINK ABOUT IT!!! And change your religious views from Shia/Sunni to MUSLIM, as out beloved Prophet wan not a Shia or a Sunni, So we are not. As Muhammad was a Muslim, so are we, only MUSLIM, not a bit more not a bit less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msakpak ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I decided to write the section like this:
User:PassaMethod who is lowering the percentage of Sunnis in several articles to 75% minium (which no source supports) reverted my edit to his version which is:
I believe that my version is better because it helps readers understand more. To keep my version please vote Keep at the bottom, but if you don't want my version vote No Keep and explain why? Thank you.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, vote Oppose if you oppose the wording of the first paragraph, or Support if you support it
Please see talk sections in Talk: Athari and Talk: Islamic theology.
In the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box that is used as a standard reference on many pages "Athari" is mentioned as a school of Islamic theology. I do not believe that this is correct. I have put my case on both of the above talk pages and hope that this issue can be resolved soon. My suggestion is to delete it from the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box and delete it from references as a theological school as there is no credible evidence to suggest that it is considered as such, again as per my comments on the talk pages. -- Ddragovic ( talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | |
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
The pictures of the Prophet's mosque and maps of the Rashidun Caliphate do not belong here unless there's a reliable source to prove that the Prophet and the first caliphs considered themselves to be "sunnis." cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 01:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Do uu really think that content was relevant to History section??? You can't just write anything by saying that it is sourced. It hurts me not because it is irrelevant to the article but because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia! What would a reader think when he/she finds out that he/she is not reading the history of Sunni Islam but instead Wikipedia is teaching him/her that 'one should not think that early Muslims followed Sunni Islam'
You should overconfident because I can refute your whole ' sourced claims' by stating only one hadith which is believed to be true by all Muslims except quranists. The hadith (saying of prophet of Islam) states that 'there will be 73 denominations of Islam and only one will go to heaven' . (This is the same hadith that ruined by faith in Islam because I realised that there was only 1.39% chance for me to go to heaven'!) This hadith has 2 implications no#1 Islam supports denominations and no#2 there is no such term as 'Nondenominational' in Islam and early Muslims also belonged to a particular denomination.
In end I just request u that plz don't use Wikipedia for promoting unity among Muslims u can have your own site for this purpose and other thing I want to say is that if you don't understand this then keep doing what u are doing. I will neither disturb u nor admin on this topic because I don't care anymore! @ LjL the fact that Sunnis believe that Abu Bakar was first Caliph and Ali was fourth one is a universal fact. It will be unnecessay and undue if we site sources. Septate ( talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The IP in question has been repeatedly making edits that are, well... suboptimal in nature. And in the lead section, at that. Could someone have a look at them? They have bad grammar, are uncited, and they don't really seem to belong in the lede. I've reverted them before with edit summaries, but the user just keeps making more without responding. LjL ( talk) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The map showing Sunni/Shia world demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam#mediaviewer/File:Islam_by_country.png the colors are biased, pro-Sunni.
Muslims perceive green color as muslim color - Sunnis are in green, but Shias and Ibadi are in other colors than green, which may mislead people to think of Shias and Ibadis as less muslim.-- 184.161.146.100 ( talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mislead who exactly? Other muslims? 81.18.66.242 ( talk) 18:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section Lexicology, this sentence appears: Some followers of Shi'ism refer to Sunnis using derogatory epithets such as nasibi and Bakri.
Although nasibi is defined on its own Wikipedia page, no gloss is given for Bakri. Capitalisation suggests a proper name; then again, Google image search throws up images of livestock. Can anyone help? Nuttyskin ( talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on this RfC, related to the Zahiri school and the Sunni Islam template. Eperoton ( talk) 03:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ مصطفى النيل:: Your edits have now been reverted by 3 different editors. That should signal to you that something is wrong with what you're doing. Please stop deleting sourced content arbitrarily, without discussing on talk page. cӨde1+6 TP 01:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam. [1] So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. [2] [3] So, I hope everyone be helpful keeping Wikipedia trustworthy and avoid edit war. Thanks :-). مصطفى النيل ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The edition you both are trying to enforce has no consensus also because I don't agree with it for objective reasons! مصطفى النيل ( talk) 04:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, in my latest edit I didn't remove the false claims or anything. I just added info and reliable sources and I hope everyone cooperate and avoid edit wars against my latest edit. مصطفى النيل ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the edit of مصطفى النيل so whats the matter here?! متحور ( talk) 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Megalodon34: I have some concerns about the pillars of iman section as it stands currently. There were some issues of POV insertion (albeit unintentional since it seemed very conventional) which you might notice in my edit summaries. I'm more concerned about the claims of modern-day movements (I'm assuming you intend Salafists and Wahhabism) rejecting what are considered "traditional" aspects of Sunni creed. There are a few issues I'm seeing here.
At this point it's best to discuss further, but my main concern currently is that the section is being turned into the personal commentary and views of editors on Tahawi's creed. The solution in most cases like this is to simply scale back recent edits and only present what can be supported with reliable secondary sources, taking care not to take sides in the debate about who's traditional/orthodox and who isn't (re: the problem of presenting Azhar as "traditional"), and ensuring that the content of articles is based on the body of published work and not original prose. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
changed to this
Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic early leaders Khalifas.
I'm unsure so leave it here for experianced users to decide, thanks. Govindaharihari ( talk) 09:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sunni Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article might be appropriate to protect per Arbitration decision? I don't actually notice anything in this article that might be directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but Israel is mentioned in a reference...
Please ping me with any response, as I am not watching this page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 18:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is erroneous wording in translation.
It is: Belief in God having created creation with His Intellect but/with HER wisdom (in either his owm mind or hers).
In english, intellect and wisdom have distinct neuro linquistical pathways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.87.64 ( talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
If this article included reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, it would clarify how these are different to the Six Pillars of Imam, which the article currently lists. Vorbee ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the five pillars of Shiite faith? I think they don't belong here. RezviMasood ( talk) 09:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The articles between sunni and shiite seem very different content and layout. Maybe they could be organized more similarly and thus allow the reader to compare the two more easily. Also, a comparison page seems like it might be valuable.
I agree, this would be very valuable to people looking for the differences (which i suspect would be a large number of people looking at this page). 203.129.33.102 ( talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I as a Sunni Muslim am against the so called Sunni Islam, there is no Sunni Islam or Shi'ite Islam, it is all Islam only, therefore I am against dividing Muslim into smaller divisions, such as when mentioning about the demographics facts of any country, we are not Christians, if it is okay with the Christians to be divided to Catholics and Protestants, it is not okay with Muslims to be divided, I am pretty sure that most Muslims would agree, I say Most and I am certain, Please put this into consideration, thank you.
Why does the "Demographics" section of this article refer to Shi'ite muslims? Isn't this an article about Sunni muslims?
I am a Church of England Christian & I don't understand why the Sunni Branch of Islam doesn't have a leader?
With all the troubles in the world today & not a big guy at the top - it makes for a terrible image of Islam in general - having no network of PR. Also why do the 2 main different branches of Islam hate each-other so much? Is it a Persian /Arabic tribal thing?
I believe that mainstream Islam is a peaceful & respected religion (with not much in it as a comparison with the other main religions in the world.. - they are all much the same) - but the extremists are helping to destroy both the whole religion and also the positive image, yet behind closed doors must Muslims think that 9/11 was the best thing to happen since sliced bread..???!!
I am looking for the truth and would be grateful to hear from a Sunni Muslim that isn't going to threaten to cut off my head or try and convince me to convert!! Hayday 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This religion is shiite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.106.168 ( talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should decide what to do about the link section of this site. It is consistently being removed then replaced in a long cycle. The list was quite long before and definitely unweildy. Maybe we can decide on some links that are worthy and try to come to something that is comprehensive yet precise. Links I recommend are www.islam-qa.com and www.understand-islam.net. The second is run by Dr. Saleh as-Saleh himself with over 1,000 hours of his lectures. The first is very valuable and contains fatawa from Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid and is very comprehensive. ZaydHammoudeh 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been watching the page and the site continues to be spammed with links every 12-24 hours. I am not an expert on wikipedia, just someone trying to give humble input; however, I do think given the trend of editting that it might not be a bad idea to put in lock preventing anonymous or recently registered users from editting. This I think is especially needed given the apparent use of sockpuppets to edit this site. I could be wrong on this recommendation. It is just a thought. ZaydHammoudeh 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Osama Bin Laden is a sunni muslim. Why won't you let him stay in the "see also" section. Futher, many terrorists are sunni muslim and should also be included.
Is there supposed to be a big blank space below the first paragraph? I haven't seen this before, so I doubt it's my browser, and usually a chunk missing from an article indicates vandalism. Just curious. Jermor 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, where it says that "they are referred to as Ahl ul-Sunna", shouldn't the "ul" be assimilated? Mattman00000 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are to write it phonetically yes: "Ahl as-Sunnah", as س (seen) is a Shamsi letter Aaliyah Stevens 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the story with the external links in this article? Is it swimming in spam or is it just me? — Wknight94 ( talk) 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Me too I post this link http://www.islamhouse.cm/p/1295. Whats the matter! the end of the website com march 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC) what is your excuse to put this site in spam list have you seen it ittaqee Allah. 6 April 2008
The person who is pasting wahabi and Pro wahabi sites in the external area must know that others are also wathching his acts . as both deobandi barelwi follows school of thought their sites should be typed there not of non sunni beleief Wahabi Ideology . This act will not be successful . either remove the external links area from this page or paste their sunni sites . thnks sunni soldier of islam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk • contribs).
All I want to say that most of the time here the person is pasting wahabi sites in the suuni page. If one wish to see can easily watch what Islamonline or saudi islam projects. But we the sunni muslim in Majority follows hanafi shafai maliki hambali schools , even deobandi too believed thses 4 schools . so the links of these Sunni sites like Yanabi .com ,Islamicacademy.org, dawateislami.net,msoamu.org,razaacademy.com should be there on sunni page .
Moderators please note this Point. thanks Indian sunni student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
PLEASE GO THROUGH DAWATEISLAMI which is not only a Useful sunni site but also a global sunni movement.
who is giving daily Speeches on Qtv , a Sunni Channel .
It is offered that these sites represent different sunni orgn academy's and sunni sources. (These are True Representatives)
where as most of the sites below are either of Wahabi dawah centres or news sites as islamonline or Taliban Alqaeda Supporters Wahabi Sites:
Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance Islam - www.islaam.com Islam Web - www.islamweb.net Islam Guide - A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam. Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Islam Question And Answer Sunni Path - An online Islamic Academy Sultan Islamic Links - www.sultan.org Understand Islam - An Islamic site run by Moiz Amjad.
Please be aware that there is a number 'Sunni' movements in the Indian subcontinent, who are Sunnis but they label their particular brand of Sunni Islam as exclusively Sunni, not including other Sunni movements within that new euphomism for the word Sunni, such as the deobandis, tablighis, Jamat-e-Islam. Asian/Indian 'Sunni' movements do not consider these other movements as 'Sunni' in their narrow definition even though these groups are not Wahabi/Salafi - they are part of the Ahl-as-Sunna. Their euphomism for Sunni actually refers to Barelwis and Sufis only as Sunnis, although this article is generally about all those that fall under the banner of Sunni, not just those who are part of Indian Sunni movements. It can lead to confusion about the term. Lets not make this an article about the Indian subcontinent's 'Sunni' movements and stick to the general non-cultural definition: i.e. the classical Scholars of Sunni Islam & the 4 madhabs, not new asian sectarian definitions. For example the UNKNOWN user above claims (with an appeal to sensationalism or appeal to fear that the following websites are Taliban/Al-qaeda Supporterting Wahabi Sites:
Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Sunni Path - www.sunnipath.com
This is is clearly incorrect. IslamOnline is linked to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi who is not Wahabi etc, nor is Islamicity, IslamicFinder, and definately not SunniPath.com, which links itself to some of the sites the user claims are genuine Sunni sites. Lets not let this article be hijacked by Pakistani/Indian local inter-sunni rivalries. There are very few Sunni traditional classical scholars that came from india in the first 300 years of Islam when Sunni Islam was formalised. I think one of our primary sources should be the classical works on http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ Aaliyah Stevens 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not read or heard any where in any Literature of Jamaateislami or tablighi jamat that they Belonged to Sunnism .They have created new Movements in Sunnism . They have Claimed it in many Places . same is the Condition with Deobandis that they with above these two groups have always treated Non sunnis Scholars whether they are Wahabi or not , as Authentics . In Whole of the Islamic History Except IBN e taimiyya ,ibn abdulwahab and his supporters and their movements ,the Muslims have a graet Majority of Sunnis. and these sunnis never accepeted the teachings of NON sunnis or any new Movements in Islam. It must be remembered that all the four schools have always Considered Sufism as most Strong way of Purification in each and Every Islamic Country . and the sunnism is used and Defined by the Sufi Scholars and Preachers Everywhere. Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi,Mualana Rum,Nuh Ha Mim Keller,Imamaahmed Raza khan,Hazrat Ahmed Maliki of Mecca,Hazrat Jalaluddin Suyyuti , Shah Abdulahaqmuhaddith Dehlavi, Shahabdulaziz , etc are some of the Name of Scholars of the Great Repute who are not only well versed in Sufism but always Supported Sunnism the haq,the Truth throught the world.
Come to the sites, most of the sites on sunnis page belong to the ahle hadiths and wahabis who even opposed the sunnis and their four schools. Then How can those sites be there on sunni Page ?
Can u Challenge the Turkish sunni literature at www. hizmetbooks.org www.raza.co.za or www.islamicacademy.org or www.yanabi.com ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 ( talk) 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
for the sunni external links....why they are all in urdu language....u have to past or add in international websites not urdu or pakistani etc....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.14.233 ( talk)
thanx for re-adding good sunni external links instead of the other websites which only represent the Barelwi movement and does not represent the whole sunni branch...the current external links are really excellent and represent real sunnism in all over the world...keep it up and all the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.14.233 ( talk) 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Should either of these be referenced as Sunni? The Mu'tazilah have been regarded as heretics by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari schools, and certainly not part of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'a. Also, there are hardly any true Mu'tazilah left today, although there's some influence of their thought in some Shia writing.
The Salafis are clearly aligned to the views of Ibn Taymiyyah, Barbahari, Bin Baz, ibn al Uthaymin , etc who were regarded as anthropomorphists by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari. The majority of other scholars who would have to be identified as Sunnis distanced them from their literal interpretations. Artichoke84 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is not the whole of the matter, because if that were the entirety of the case, then the Salafi school would be no different to the Athari school. Unfortunately, the scholars from which the Salafis draw their guidance, do make likenesses by way of similies, and adding on interpretations that the salaf never claimed for themselves. There is no question that the Salafi school is associated with the people I mentioned in my original post, so let us examine some of their statements.
Ibn al-Uthaymin claimed that: "Allah is in the heaven in person (bi dhâtihi) but despite this He draws near to the servant during the latter's prayer, just as the sun is in the heaven, while its rays reach creatures on earth." There is a clear addition of simile and likeness there, whereas the position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and al-Bukhari was always bi la kayf ('without saying how').
Bin Baz on the interpretation of Imam al-Tahawi's definitive Sunni aqida says that: "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows". The actual text of Imam al-Tahawi says: "He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created entities are." There's a clear difference here. One text says He is beyond having limits placed on Him, and the other affirms some.
Ibn Taymiyyah: "The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world (fawqu al-`aalam) and his being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank (rutba), or that it is with respect to location (makan). For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah's precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah's elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence." Again, this is not an Athari point of view, since it seeks to explain these verses of the Qur'an. The behaviour of the salaf was Athari, in that it never sought to say how. Imam Malik said (r): "The establishment (al-istiwa') is known and its modality (al-kayf) is unthinkable and to ask about it is an innovation (bid`a)."
al-Ibana which you have cited, is a corrupt text which, quite apart from the issue of anthropomorphism, incorporates a claim which states Imam Abu Hanifa was an apostate. If Imam Abu Hanifa is not a a Sunni Muslim, then what are the majority of Muslims supposed to be when they follow him? Artichoke84 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Therefore I am removing all external links except those that are agreed upon by ALL sunnis: Sufis, Salafis, and all. e.g. Nobody can dipute Al-Azhar. Aaliyah Stevens 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you point about al-Azhar, and I too am of that opinion of it being in the pocket of the government, but it is still recognised as the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, along with the University of Fes (Qarawiyin) and Islamic university of Islamabad, many Islamist leaders who oppose the "puppet" Tantawi have themselves graduated from there, although it's leader / spokesperson Tantawi maybe a puppet, the courses it offers are still recognised. As for the other entries muslimphilosophy, and Al-tafsir, etc they are purely non POV, archives of classical Islamic work, academic, not propoganda, or hold opinions of recognised Sunni scholars Aaliyah Stevens 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How can u Add Salafi sites in Sunni Link area ?There is no relevancy at all . Read their literature First. Can u Ignore sufism in Sunnism ? it is sufism which has spread the sunni islam through out the world . Even if u ignore it in sunni link area u can not make it disappear from the Islamic history . What about www.hizmetbooks.org and www.islamicacademy.org ,www.raza.co.za ,and www.wimnet.org One should know if the Barelwis are part of sunnism then the Barelvi sites deserve a Place here on this sunni link area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabiha ( talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Although I sympathise with your sentiment, and I myself am a Sufi, as were all the major thinkers of Sunni ISlam, e.g. Ghazali however:
I have noticed that you have added links to specific groups such as Minhaj al-Quran and dawat-e-Islam, this is very wrong. This lays the basis for other people to add their favourite groups, this is not about Sunni groups, it is about Sunni Islam. If we were to allow websites for specific groups, then others would add Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, Hizb-ut-tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islam, etc etc which would end up a very long list. Please stop doing so, Minhaj al-Quran etc are NOT the only or main sunni group in the world, in fact the largest Sunni group in the world, is probably the umbrella of Ikhwaan al-Muslimeeen and it's various branches globally, then maybe Tablighi jama'ah, but we have not added thier links. Aaliyah Stevens 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, one link, Sunni Path, Allows & praises Milaad and links to some of your other websites. Aaliyah Stevens 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Then You think that if in few hundred years of islamic history no Muslim scholar came from India then How does it affect the Contribution of World famous scholars who have shown path the true path to millions. Did You forgot that Hazrat khawaja gharib nawaz and Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi from India were not only sufis but were Scholars too .
Can You deny the fact that India pakistan and bangladesh contains most of the Muslim Sunni Population and the islam which they Practised is not new but it Sufism .
Can You Ignore them ? Infact noone can ignore them .
Do You know that Sunni Markaz of Kerala
www.markazonline.com is the largest islamic sunni University of the India. They are not hanafi by School but are Known as Barelwis by the so called Reformers in Islam such as Ahle hadiths and Jamaat e Islami because they practised sufi sunnism . And You must Know that Barelwis have not made them so.They have practised it from their Births . This sunni sufism is Known as barelwism in whole of the India including the state of Kasmir ,pakistan and bangladesh.
and Moreover The sites such as Islamic finder ,islamonline.com,islamonline.net desreve Place on wahabi page . Specially these three rejects what u say sufismand sunnism . u said u believe in sufism . Do u go to Dargahs of Wali or do u ask for dua or intercession from him ? All these acts throug out the world are Practised by majority of Muslims and Specially by sunnis. Then all the sunnis including sufis are committing Shirk . And they are not muslims according to these sites . and if u are adding any islamic University site then the site of Markaz desreve a Place here .
please also comment about www.hizmetbooks.org , www.islamicacademy.org www.sunnah.org ,www.raza.co.za
Do u know that Barelwi term is getting Popularity in Europe for Sufi Peoples ? U must read the great Mujaddid of the Century Imam ahmed raza khan at www.alahazratnetwork.org
plz reply all my questions which i have raised and also comment on the sites which i have written there. so it is on You what u consider by the term sunni. But as far as indian subcontinent is concerned all the sufism practising muslims are called Barelwis by the persons who rejects it .
The thing which u have said here is that You intend to Include Encyclopedia and recognized universities. So the www.markazonline.com and www.hizmetbooks.org deserve a Place on this sunni Page . Shabiha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.225.3.6 ( talk) 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
markazonline.com is not a university, it is a charity which runs schools.
hizmetbooks is not an encyclopedia. Look up the definitions of the words, and don't try and hoodwink users into thinking so. the universityies in india that have official websites are: Jamia Millia Islamia: http://jmi.nic.in/, and http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm Aaliyah Stevens 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree but we are debating external web site links for Islamic universities. markazonline.com is not one, and if we are to put some up it would be Aligarh. Which are well known, I have been and lived all over the arab world and have never heard markazonline.com mentioned, Why do we need to include every single uni, the big ones will do. Aaliyah Stevens 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Now u did not find even Markaz as University which has made 800 hundreds graduate this year .The Sunni markaz kerala or other markaz does not need governmental recognition or affiliation . It has Alazhar recognition and its degrees are recognized by AMU Aligarh , Jamia millia and jamia Hamdard and you will deny now even most reputed sunni university as university which is jamia ashrafia mubarakapur Azamgarh www.aljamiatulashrafia.org/ . The students of which adds Misbahi to their names and hundreds of Scholars are grduated every Year. You dont have enough excuse to remove hizmetbooks.org and islamicacademy.org Shabiha
U have to justify removing all my sites which are sunni and have Global Presence . If Most Reputed Madarsas of India i.e Islamic University Markaz and ashrafia dont satisfay ur claims then u may not paste there any other Uni .because it doesnot satisfy me and thousands like me the indian Sunnis . ok shabiha !
If this is about Indian pride in Sunni Islam, or some sor of obscure indian sunni nationalism, I find your motivations highly questionable. Anyway, I have added what is probably the most reputable Indian Islamic university - Deoband. Lets put this issue to rest, the only problem now is what if an indonesian, uzbek, Nigerian, Malay, bosnian, or turk Muslim says that their sunni Muslim university is not represented?? I have added an indian university so leave it now! Aaliyah Stevens 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Aaliyah I appreciate you taking it on yourself to try to improve the quality of this article. It is good to be enthusiastic, but you are kind of trying to use an iron hand to achieve the goal. Originally, I assumed good faith for your actions and thought what you were doing was a genuine attempt to be even handed. However, the "see also" section you reverted and added to was already very Sufi leaning. Your additions of kalam only compounded that. You are a self-avowed Sufi; to make statements of the need to be NPOV and equitable then to make the see also section so one sided is unfortunate. You really made the "See Also" section reflect primarily one view when you accuse others of advocating views of a very narrow section of the Sunni population. You can't have it both ways. ZaydHammoudeh 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Aliyah ,Removing others and adding Your favourite Links on wikipedia will not help the Users . The Deoband You know is represented by a particular group and Markaz and ashrafia by other Group of sunnis. Same is the Situation with Your most of the Links . Crores don't think the Link You have Pasted there as Reputed .The links U have removed are not Considered as reputed by crores of Sunnis. The thing is that Wikipedia should give clear and adequate representation to all sunni groups.Wikipedia is here to tell about all those who considered themselves as Sunnis through out theWorld . Can any one Deny ? Wikipedia should have listing of all the major Sunni Educational as well organizational Links onitSunnipage .Person Like You only doing what is seeming good to You .
shabiha
Zayd, if you look at the history of my edits, I have been trying to prevent this page being hijacked by Salafis/ Wahabis and by Sufi Barelwi or Hanafis of the Indian subcontinent. It find it amusing that on the one hand I am accused of being pro-Wahabi, and on the other I am accused of being too pro-Sufi! Your statements on my addition of Kalam to the "See Also" section implies that Kalam was solely a Sufi activity, not a Sunni one. Engagement in Kalam was a practice of all of the early Sunni scholars to combat the false Kalam of others, and legalistic Sufism (not the Bhudist influenced type that suspends Sharaih) has had almost universal appeal in Sunni Islam, so belongs there. Also, how is it one sided to include Ghazali who is the most well known Islamic scholar after the four Imams, and respected in east and west. His name is more known throughout the west (rightly or wrongly) than even some of the 4 Imams for his thoughts.
Regarding the addition of the hizmetbooks and associated link, and the removal of the Uni of deoband, I am opposed to both:
Shabiha how can you argue that all sunni institutions of all those who consider themselves Sunni should be included when you argued against the "Wahabi" links, and you removed the universitu of Deoband. Wahabis consider themselves Sunni. Following your logic we would end up with a thousand external links. And to conclude the list I settled with is "my favorite" it totally wrong, I included only notable and undisputed links: Does anyone object to Al-Azhar? No!. I think external links should only include undisputed links such as Al-Azhar, Islamabad, Fiqh al-Akbar by Abu Hanifah, and academic sites, not proselytising links like yours. Allowing them opens the floodgates to all other to add their favourite group's schools
Does anyone object to these links, and on what basis? They neither Wahabi nor Pro-Barelwi:
The links should stay as these only, as only these will be undisputed Aaliyah Stevens 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I can be accused of being partisan, if my argument is simple; that we should list lowest common denominators of Sunni Islam, because all else is, and will result in partisan proselytizing. Yes, I agree with excluding links that represent groups and parties, not Sunni Islam as a whole, and if that makes petty people feel alienated that's tough, because wikipedia and any encyclopedia should not be bullied into accepting something as mainstream, or representative of something bigger. We need to make a distinction between Sunni Islam/the 4 math-habs, and the the relatively new competing groups and movements that are branches of Sunni Islam. I would object to listing the Ba-Alwi school because it is one tariqa among many, and we would then have to list every school of every Sufi tariqa.
I agree that we should rule out schools etc, and allow primary texts of major Sunni A'ima many of which are published on Philosophica Islamica, however I think it is impossible to miss out Azhar as the most respected, and oldest Sunni University. Although Jamiat-al-Qarawiyin may be older, and may have been reputable, it is now almost forgotten, has no external link, and is not recognised anymore, I've been there and it's in ruins. The problem you are going to have is the same problem we have with listing schools, somebody from India or Pakistan will believe that their Imam or Sheikh is on par with Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or Ghazali and want their works listed too, then Ikhwaanis will want Hassan al-Banna's or Syed Qutb's works listed etc etc etc. Thats why I hold the potentially most unpopular rule, which is "list only the common denominators between all Sunnis" which will be the 4 Imams, their teachers and their students, + other notables like Ghazali, Suyuti or Nawawi. Nobody can argue that they were not true Sunnis. This will exclude people like Ahmed Rida Khan Barelwi, or Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab or ibn Taymiyya, which people will attack as not proper Sunnis. Aaliyah Stevens 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As stated above, this article is about Sunni Islam, not Sunni groups, Sunni sub-sects and Sunni movements. These groups, movements and sub-sects have their own page e.g. Barelwi, Wahabi, Ikhwaani.
The external links should only include:
Shabiha
Please add/discuss any other criteria.
So far we have:
This is a reference site on Usul and Fiqh, and uses Classical sources
This is purely a reference site of an academic nature
This is purely an academic reference site for classic Islamic books etc
Nobody disputes Abu Hanifah
Nobody disputes Imam Malik
Nobody disputes Imam Shafi
Nobody Disputes Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
OK, could you post the link? Aaliyah Stevens 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a book explaining Usul in Sunni Islam
Yes we Should Continue with Sunni Path. AS it has been seen that a Particular User is trying to Impose its Own thinking on Wikipedia ,it is suggested that other Users should come forward to make this Page really rich .
the Other academic site may be www.islamicacademy.org
though the Hizmet Books criticizes Wahabis but it has books on Sunnism with Authentic and Reliable refrences of Sunni Ulemas . The Books on This Site are not found any where.Any one can Examine their importance to Sunnis of the World .
Another Site is the Work of Prof Masud Ahmed at www.masud.co.uk on traditional Islam.
Shabiha, I have warned you before, please stop persistently adding your links at random intervals, we are trying now to discuss the issue, but you have again added more (some obscure) links, in what seems to be a "revenge edit" against Dalaa. Both edits were wrong. Aaliyah Stevens 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Aaaaliyah i have not made any revenge Edit.I always tries and believe in giving representation to all Sections . Dont u think that a Sunni Page must have at least one Link related to all the sub groups . Thats Why i Edit it . shabiha
No, we should not have a link for every sub-group. that would be a very long list, and we were discussing this above, so I do consider your edits disruptive. Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This new link added by Zayd, is much more in terms of words and text of the book, written by modern Salafis, and only one section of the book contains the 90 or so statemnts (in 3 parts) of Imam Ahmed. This is unacceptable, unless we find an unadulterated translation, otherwise we will have to use the previous link on Salah. Aaliyah Stevens 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Zayd you state: "most of the links you post are full of Sufi bias." Most? please be careful what you accuse me of. There is a big difference between most and only s single site. Fine we will remove SunniPath.com. I have no problem with that. I think you should "hold your tongue" a little more, all you had to do was point that stuff out rather than go into a long diatribe.
Anyway, I fail to see how the above addresses the point of the link you put up which is primarily not the words of the Imam Ahmed. Let's agree to remove both, until we find an unadulterated translation without over extensive commentary by Salafis Aaliyah Stevens 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Shabiha, please, if Islam and Sufi tazkiyyah can't control you to be nice and civil to your brother, then read WP:CIVIL wikipedias policy on civility. Also, learn that Islam is not Urdu or Indian, and Urdu and Indian words are not Islamic words: using urdu "sahaba E kiram", "Miladun nabi" "Roza's", "Dargahs" are urdu/hindi terms, and not every Muslim in the world is Indian/pakistani. How many times do I have allude to this point!!
Fuss-ha(classical or standard) Arabic is the language of Islam, not Urdu. How do you expect the rest of the Muslim to understand you if you use Indian words, and the fact that you don't know the difference shows how much experience you have with the Arabic language and books of Fiqh. So I suggest you don't debate this issue here, if at all. If you really want to debate the issue do it on the Mawlid page. Zayd, don't rise. Aaliyah Stevens 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont try to teach me what u dont Know . Sahabae kiram Rozas or dargahs i used for the sake of putting my point. I never said that Islam is limited to Urdu or Hindustan or Pakistan. U cant be the Master of this Page .The Point i intend to Prove is that A site should not be removed from this sunni page because it tells about Maulid ,the rememberence of Holy Prophet S.A.W. You should also know if some one will try to remove a sunni site on this basis then Each and every one has right to discuss this issue HERE, not Any Where. Any way Have You bought this Sunni page ? shabiha
Hayyak Allaah ya Shabiha. I want to say first al-hamdulillaah (All Praise is Due to Allaah) that no one asks me for fatawa because only the faqeeh is qualified to give fatawa, and I am by no means a faqeeh. Since I do not give fatawa, I do not take people out of the Sunnah Jama'ah like you state, "In ur fatwas u claims to be only muslims and says shirki People to other sunnis" However, Shabiha your words accuse me of not being Sunni when you say, "What are u doing here when u are Wahabi." It is ok with me if you want to insult me; I don't particularly mind. However, in insults, it is only proper to be accurate and let me say unequivocally that I am not Wahhabi. I have never been Wahhabi nor do I expect to be Wahhabi. Maybe I have misunderstood your words Shabiha. The others are correct when they state that it is not always easy to understand your argument due to the language barrier.
Next it is important to state that the actions of the Muslims (be they Sufi, Salafi, Takfiri, etc) are not evidence against Islam; Islam is evidence against their actions. It is not appropriate to frame your argument to say that most Muslims do a certain action so it is permissible. Moreover, it is important to know the crucial principle in usool al-fiqh, "The fundamental principle concerning worship is prohibition; nothing is permitted except that which Allaah (subhaanallaahu wa ta’aalaa) and His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) legislated." The best two evidences for this principle as explained by the scholars are the two authentic ahadeeth, “Whoever does any action that is not in accordance with this matter of ours (Islam) will have it rejected.” (Reported in Saheeh Muslim, (English translation no. 4267, book 18) and ‘Whoever innovates anything in this matter of ours (Islam) that is not a part of it, will have it rejected” [Reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (English translation vol. 3, hadeeth no. 861) and in Saheeh Muslim (English translation no. 4266, book 18)]. Enough between all of us is the words of the Prophet. I understand that this last paragraph was off topic but I wanted to provide an answer since I was asked. ZaydHammoudeh 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Zaid I regretif Ihave Offended U . I stated that Because U said that SunniPath has given Significance to Milad and that was notCelebrated Bythe Sahabis .Each and Every Pious act Which we are doing or are Trying to do in this era was not Practiced by the Sahabis So WE may Not End that Practice Which is Legaly valid in Islam . Dear NKV I agree to You that we should have a Consensus on the Sites Which should be there on this Sunni Page. I ask a Question ,Should not a Practice Which is Observed by the Huge majority of Sunnis as Pious , Deserve aHonourable Place Here? Or TheNon Sunni ideology Will Affect the Listing? Shabiha
It seems this discussion has run its course; the remaining disputed sites are Usool as-Sunnah, Sunni Path, and Philosphica Islamica. I think they should be removed and the external links issue put to rest for now. Any thoughts? ZaydHammoudeh 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How can u add th Site which are Totally unrelated to Sunnism for ex International Islamic university of islamabad has nothnig Informative accept about university . Junaid
I am removing these Sites which are neither Discussed and nor are Sunni .
These represent Salafi /Wahabi /JamaateIslami View . Shabiha 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sr. Shabiha, please be reasonable and remember your Islamic manners. Even if we take issue with some links or sites, you can't slander them without proof. You do have a history on claiming that sites and resources that don't agree with your viewpoint "aren't Sunni"; this, coupled with your history of vandalism - and I know of this because i've had to revert edits where you've blanked pages before - makes me a little nervous. Please check your intentions and remember that simply stating "i'm removing these links on the talk page" and then doing it without getting feedback does not constitute open discussion of the issue. MezzoMezzo 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
— Xiong 熊 talk * 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that Sr. Aaliyah and Brs. Zayd and Nkv have been doing a standup job on this article, and I have to say I really am impressed by the patience and cooperation i've seen in mediation what should and shouldn't be in this article. Out of respect for the work put into it, I wish to discuss my issues here before making any edits, as I wish all disputes on an article could be handled in such a mature fashion. For the consideration of those interesting in improving upon this article, I have some suggestions for which I am seeking feedback:
Again, I am seeking feedback here - primarily from the three aformentioned users that have been doing such a good job in editing, though others are welcome as well. I hope that I can help everyone to enhance this article and keep it informative and to the point. MezzoMezzo 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you have said, just that Kalam during era of great debates, was used to refer to any discussions related to theology and Aqueeda, not necessarily the negative way we understand the word today. So Imam Ghazali had his Kalam argument which was in fact not Kalam by todays standards at all, it was simply demonstrating that there has to be a creator of the universe. On the Shurah issue, I agree we should not use the word democracy, but it is true to say that Sunnis accepted the principle of Shurah as the basis of supporting Abu Bakr, he sought the mandate of the Ummah the next morning after Saqifah, while the Shia rejected that this was relevant in choosing a Khalif - as they believed Ali was Masoom and divinely appointed. Aaliyah Stevens 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please edit the first paragraph so it is more balanced and easy to read if you are not sunni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 ( talk) 14:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
For the caliphs,
why the fourth caliph ali ibn abi talib is not mentioned with the other three caliphs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalaaa ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There are only four sunni schools of fiqh and they are hanafi,shafi'i,maliki and hanbali.... Ahmadi is not included and it is not right at all to add it to sunni islam page, ahmadis are different thing, they are not sunni and even they are not muslim....thats what majority of muslims say.....please delete Ahmadi from the sunni schools of fiqh... Thanx to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 ( talk) 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
For the Sunni Beliefs section, can you please just write all beliefs in English words not in arabic using english letters and that will be very helpful for people who dont know arabic this much and please improve the sunni islam page because it neeeds lots of improvements...sunni islam is islam itself because we all know that most muslims are sunnis, so please improve the sunni islam page so it can represent muslims and sunnis in a better way to others...Thanx very much to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 ( talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"For instance, there is no Sunni–Shi'a breakdown available for many countries, and the CIA World Factbook"
I looked up indonesia a couple days ago, I only saw: Religion Muslim.. Mallerd 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Indonesia is Sunni... Here Syi'ah is persecuted(yeah. Just 2 years ago some mobs burned down a syi'ah ulama house, claimed he is infidel, because he told the people to pray on natural ground only. Not that I disagree with them, though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.196.233 ( talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So, if one goes to the Shia template, or the Ismaili one, or the Alevi one, one sees right away how these groups differ from other Muslims. But what about Sunnis? Like the other templates, the stuff under 'beliefs' is so general most of it applies to every other group. Belief in angels and the unity of Allah? That's almost everyone. There needs to be something that points out the belief in the sahaba, their uprightness, the rashidun caliphs, and Sunnis view the conflicts of the sahaba between themselves.
This includes the general article itself. Great, four schools of fiqh. Now how is this group different from all other Muslims? Anyone who reads this will have no clue whatsoever.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Sunni_Islam&diff=135335163&oldid=135335015 Everything about these issues is Sunni-Shia oriented. Now, that's true, they are very Sunni-vs-Shia oriented. But how can we avoid that, after all, that's what we're basically comparing Sunnism to? I agree, we need to state what makes Sunnism unique without making it sound like we're purposely comparing it to the second biggest branch, but how do we go about doing that?
Right now, I'm doing a total rewrite of the Shia article, but I already know what we can get across and not seem like it's an argument. With Sunnism, it becomes more confusing because of its 'orthodoxy' and majority. It seems every point is comparing to someone else's group, but that's mainly because Sunnism is seen as the norm.
We need to write up points of importance, and expand on those points. They can't be too Sunni-vs-Shia centric, but they need to get the uniqueness of Sunni fiqh and aqeedah (mostly aqeedah) across. So, what do we need to do? -- Enzuru 08:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I've made some minor tweaks to the TOC and added the standard sections that will need to go on the end. Also, the section about Hanafism on the subcontinent need to be either Indian subcontinent or, better in my view, remove that heading altogether and just describe it in the relevant movements where they started from. → AA ( talk) — 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean: "These two books (Bukhari and Muslim) are strict in their accuracy...." Is it intended to mean that both books largely agree with, and therefore re-inforce, each other? I think a re-wording of this sentence for clarity would be worthwhile. 86.138.213.109 ( talk) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure people will want to edit some things in what I wrote, perhaps remove some things and add others. They are of course welcome to do so, but the intro certainly has to contain a fair bit more than it previously did, so I'd like to ask not to blindly revert my edit if somebody disagrees with parts of it or thinks they should not be in the intro. The part about the caliphate and the Azhar at least seems fairly uncontroversial and fairly essential for an introduction to Sunni Islam. Of course the article urgently needs a history/origins section as well, although I can already see the problems that'll cause concerning what is "Sunni" history as opposed to general Islamic history... Paul Willocx ( talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how reliable is a source to cite, in which such insulting views are expressed against Shias.^ "How Many Shia Are in the World?". IslamicWeb.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-18. [1] I Quoute: "It is important to remember that Shia have a high birth rate since their religion allows adultery (Mut'a). The percentage of Shia this time is relative to the percentage of Muslims." First of all Mut'a is not adultury but temporary marriage. Even if one pejoratively takes it as prostituion, it does not mean that it increases the number of Children born. Secondly in more cases in that source Shia's are presented as opposed to Muslims. Words like "in relation to Muslims" and "their Religion" clearly suggest such a view.-- Tirip ( talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The shia's dont blame the fourth caliph but the first three caliphs. if we pay attention then this becomes true because the second caliph was the one who went to Fatima binte Muhammad's house and he gave warnings to her. as the holy prophet quoted 'Fatima is part of me and who ever hurts her hurts me and who hurts me hurts Allah'. Plus Fatima was not given what was left for her, Fidak. Which upset her and according to hazrat Aisha she was hurt because of this. Ali ibn Abitalib didnt recieve the caliphate. I think we muslims have forgotten the incident of Ghadi re Qum which is recorded in Ahmad ibn Hambal's Mishqat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.11.208 ( talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So far the article seems to just distinguish different schools of Sunni thought. This information should certainly be included in an encyclopedia article, but there should also be a paragraph or two that defines what Sunni Islam itself is, that is what distinguishes Sunni from other types of Islam. An encyclopedia article on a subject typically first discusses that subject, then discusses sub-classifications, right?
Why is there a separate section in the article for Sunni Islam in South Asia? There is no explanation given for this supposed significance beyond Sunni Islam in, say, Africa or the Middle East. The entire section is unreferenced as well. I really see no reason for this. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am appalled and shocked at the first paragraph of the Sunni Islam article. I implore and beg any moderator or anyone who have access to the page to remove the blasphemic paragraph as it suggest a negative meaning and probably from a non-Muslim point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genzee0505 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) {{ helpme}}
Can we have a section devoted to the etymology and origin of the term? Faro0485 ( talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by the terms. Are these all synonyms? They all seem to refer to to the branch of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
I note the bottom of the page has categories "Islam in Turkey", etc. As well as several misformatted redlinks such as "Islam in pakistan" and "Islam in UK". Given that Sunni Islam appears in most countries of the world, and outweighs non-Sunni Islam in all but a few countries, do we even need those categories? I'm going to be bold and remove them, particulary as the current ones are non-exhaustive, and several are redlinks, but I welcome any counter-argument. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are .... ahl sunnat's websites: http://www.shababeislami.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Star and Crescent are a symbol of the Ottoman Empire and NOT a symbol of Islam. I would appreciate it being removed as it appears in my Facebook profile under my religion, and could confuse the public reading the article. Sunni Islam is following the Sunnah of the prophet PBUH and there is nothing "sunni" about the star and crescent symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.26.82 ( talk) 22:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
My dear Brothers and Sisters,THINK ABOUT IT!!! And change your religious views from Shia/Sunni to MUSLIM, as out beloved Prophet wan not a Shia or a Sunni, So we are not. As Muhammad was a Muslim, so are we, only MUSLIM, not a bit more not a bit less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msakpak ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I decided to write the section like this:
User:PassaMethod who is lowering the percentage of Sunnis in several articles to 75% minium (which no source supports) reverted my edit to his version which is:
I believe that my version is better because it helps readers understand more. To keep my version please vote Keep at the bottom, but if you don't want my version vote No Keep and explain why? Thank you.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, vote Oppose if you oppose the wording of the first paragraph, or Support if you support it
Please see talk sections in Talk: Athari and Talk: Islamic theology.
In the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box that is used as a standard reference on many pages "Athari" is mentioned as a school of Islamic theology. I do not believe that this is correct. I have put my case on both of the above talk pages and hope that this issue can be resolved soon. My suggestion is to delete it from the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box and delete it from references as a theological school as there is no credible evidence to suggest that it is considered as such, again as per my comments on the talk pages. -- Ddragovic ( talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | |
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
The pictures of the Prophet's mosque and maps of the Rashidun Caliphate do not belong here unless there's a reliable source to prove that the Prophet and the first caliphs considered themselves to be "sunnis." cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 01:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Do uu really think that content was relevant to History section??? You can't just write anything by saying that it is sourced. It hurts me not because it is irrelevant to the article but because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia! What would a reader think when he/she finds out that he/she is not reading the history of Sunni Islam but instead Wikipedia is teaching him/her that 'one should not think that early Muslims followed Sunni Islam'
You should overconfident because I can refute your whole ' sourced claims' by stating only one hadith which is believed to be true by all Muslims except quranists. The hadith (saying of prophet of Islam) states that 'there will be 73 denominations of Islam and only one will go to heaven' . (This is the same hadith that ruined by faith in Islam because I realised that there was only 1.39% chance for me to go to heaven'!) This hadith has 2 implications no#1 Islam supports denominations and no#2 there is no such term as 'Nondenominational' in Islam and early Muslims also belonged to a particular denomination.
In end I just request u that plz don't use Wikipedia for promoting unity among Muslims u can have your own site for this purpose and other thing I want to say is that if you don't understand this then keep doing what u are doing. I will neither disturb u nor admin on this topic because I don't care anymore! @ LjL the fact that Sunnis believe that Abu Bakar was first Caliph and Ali was fourth one is a universal fact. It will be unnecessay and undue if we site sources. Septate ( talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The IP in question has been repeatedly making edits that are, well... suboptimal in nature. And in the lead section, at that. Could someone have a look at them? They have bad grammar, are uncited, and they don't really seem to belong in the lede. I've reverted them before with edit summaries, but the user just keeps making more without responding. LjL ( talk) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The map showing Sunni/Shia world demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam#mediaviewer/File:Islam_by_country.png the colors are biased, pro-Sunni.
Muslims perceive green color as muslim color - Sunnis are in green, but Shias and Ibadi are in other colors than green, which may mislead people to think of Shias and Ibadis as less muslim.-- 184.161.146.100 ( talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mislead who exactly? Other muslims? 81.18.66.242 ( talk) 18:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section Lexicology, this sentence appears: Some followers of Shi'ism refer to Sunnis using derogatory epithets such as nasibi and Bakri.
Although nasibi is defined on its own Wikipedia page, no gloss is given for Bakri. Capitalisation suggests a proper name; then again, Google image search throws up images of livestock. Can anyone help? Nuttyskin ( talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on this RfC, related to the Zahiri school and the Sunni Islam template. Eperoton ( talk) 03:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@ مصطفى النيل:: Your edits have now been reverted by 3 different editors. That should signal to you that something is wrong with what you're doing. Please stop deleting sourced content arbitrarily, without discussing on talk page. cӨde1+6 TP 01:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam. [1] So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. [2] [3] So, I hope everyone be helpful keeping Wikipedia trustworthy and avoid edit war. Thanks :-). مصطفى النيل ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The edition you both are trying to enforce has no consensus also because I don't agree with it for objective reasons! مصطفى النيل ( talk) 04:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, in my latest edit I didn't remove the false claims or anything. I just added info and reliable sources and I hope everyone cooperate and avoid edit wars against my latest edit. مصطفى النيل ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the edit of مصطفى النيل so whats the matter here?! متحور ( talk) 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Megalodon34: I have some concerns about the pillars of iman section as it stands currently. There were some issues of POV insertion (albeit unintentional since it seemed very conventional) which you might notice in my edit summaries. I'm more concerned about the claims of modern-day movements (I'm assuming you intend Salafists and Wahhabism) rejecting what are considered "traditional" aspects of Sunni creed. There are a few issues I'm seeing here.
At this point it's best to discuss further, but my main concern currently is that the section is being turned into the personal commentary and views of editors on Tahawi's creed. The solution in most cases like this is to simply scale back recent edits and only present what can be supported with reliable secondary sources, taking care not to take sides in the debate about who's traditional/orthodox and who isn't (re: the problem of presenting Azhar as "traditional"), and ensuring that the content of articles is based on the body of published work and not original prose. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
changed to this
Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic early leaders Khalifas.
I'm unsure so leave it here for experianced users to decide, thanks. Govindaharihari ( talk) 09:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sunni Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article might be appropriate to protect per Arbitration decision? I don't actually notice anything in this article that might be directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but Israel is mentioned in a reference...
Please ping me with any response, as I am not watching this page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 18:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is erroneous wording in translation.
It is: Belief in God having created creation with His Intellect but/with HER wisdom (in either his owm mind or hers).
In english, intellect and wisdom have distinct neuro linquistical pathways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.87.64 ( talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
If this article included reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, it would clarify how these are different to the Six Pillars of Imam, which the article currently lists. Vorbee ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the five pillars of Shiite faith? I think they don't belong here. RezviMasood ( talk) 09:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)