![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.140.241.1 ( talk) 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This is more appropriate as classically for 1400 Islam has recognised only three significant sects: Sunni, Shia, Khawarij (ibadi). In the latter days, some Sufis become extremely deviant and hence they were ascribed as another sect. All of these other "groups" are actually separate religions e.g. Ahmadiyya, quranism etc. as they are not recognised as part of Islam. Listing Mahdavia is ridiculous, it is some obscure group that existed briefly in the 18th century in a remote part of pakistan with a few hundred followers... We are talking about islam the religion of 2 billion people, if you want an accurate representational template then stick to my edit. Thanks. Sakimonk talk 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sufi sects emerged primarily in Baghdad along with a formalised Shia sect circa all within 300 years AH (some like the khawarij emerged so early they were involved in killing Uthman RA for example) the other groups / sects / movements are all at least 1000 years AH. That is what I meant. Sakimonk talk 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sakimonk talk 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Mutazila were /are philosophical rationalists which emerged upon the discovery and translation of hellenistic works, they have a completely distinct set of values from Quranists. Mutazila are a division of Aqeedah / theological school, there is a long line of Hanafi Mutazila in khoresan for example. Quranists reject the ahadith and wouldn't follow a madhhab. Moreover Mutazila are distinct by their classification of the attributes of Allah, this isn't in line with Quranists. Sakimonk talk 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sakimonk talk 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflating the modern quranism movement with the Mutazila sect due to a possibly shared philosophical discourse isn't correct. The habashis for example are staunchly sufi but this wouldn't classify them as being a classical sect, even though sufis are. Sakimonk talk 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Template:Religion topics
ARE Abrahamic religions BUT NOT Islam
ARE Indo- Iranian religions AND they are non-islamic
Yazdânism AND Bahá'í SHOULD BE DELETED from Template:Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Druze, on the other hand, might be included explicitly in to the list. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
| list5name = classical denominations | list5title = Classical denominations
| list5 =
| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations
| list6 =
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations
| list6 =
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
ALSO * Tolu-e-Islam should be added.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Wahhabism isn't a denomination, it's part of the Salafi movement which is covered by Sunni islam. Tolu e Islam seems more like a political movement after reading about it and not a denomination, in fact it clearly states that they are against sectarianism and it is more about a political theory of establishing an Islamic nation (i.e. they wanted Pakistan to be founded as a Quranic-following nation). I don't see why druze should be included if Bahai / yazdanism isn't sinze Druze don't identify as part of Islam, the article explains them as "The Druze faith incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Ismailism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to esoterically interpret religious scriptures and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness." Sakimonk talk 05:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In any case, there is no question that this term was originally used in order to “drive people away” from the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. It was claimed that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was calling to a new religion or to a fifth madhhab (school of jurisprudence). Of course, in addition to calling them “Wahhabis,” they were also called heretics, infidels and Khawarij. During the past century, there developed a difference
Sakimonk talk 00:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There are four main madhhabs then dhahiri according to the way of the fuqaha and then there is Ahlal Hadeeth which isn't a madhhab but a sphere of derivation of legal rulings according to interpreting the meanings and strengths of ahadith. Sakimonk talk 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sufism is found in both denominations of Islam i.e in Sunnis and Shias and there is no need to write it as separate denomination. There are no separate Sufi chains which claims themselves away from Sunni denomination rather all are under Sunni School of thought with a tiny minority of Shia is practising Sufism. Historically, all Sufi masters were Sunnis and many were authorities on Sunni School. ScholarM ( talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage of MODERN gives wrong impression. i.e. When we say Modern Physics, it implies that the laws of classical mechanics were not sufficient or not accurate enough. So we have invented the laws of Modern Physics like Quantum Mechanics. On the contrary, in Islamic schools, the word "MODERN" does not mean that these new schools are making some corrections over the teachings of the classical madh'habs. Actually, these NEW CURRENTS are not being recognized as the true teachings by the classical branches like Sunni or Shia, and they are not making some corrections over the classical ones. Therefore, the word MODERN should be replaced by NEW CURRENTS / MADHHABS. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit of a paradox in what you're saying about reformation. On the one hand, latter-day's connection to LDS is irrelevant for its use here in Islam, while the reformation's connection to Sunnism is relevant for excluding its use in other -isms. I do agree with your view on "traditional" though, being a bit ambiguous in combination with the Sunnah. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 05:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:Sakimonk, we don't take sensitivities into account. If we did we would ban images of Muhammad, which we don't. In fact many of our articles would look extremely different. And 'latter-day' is confusing. So far as arguing that only the Sunnis are orthodox our article doesn't say that and it concerns me that you are arguing from such an absolute pov. Doug Weller ( talk) 07:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sakimonk again it's not relevant what people think. We have sufficient tools to knock out vandalism and/or edit wars. That's not a problem. As far as Ahmadis are concerned they are anything but localised. Kharijites that you have repeatedly mentioned are localised and are 10 times smaller. --Peace world 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadi beliefs are more aligned with the Sunni tradition, than they are with the Shi'a tradition, such as The Five Pillars of Islam and The Six articles of Islamic Faith. Likewise, Ahmadis accept the Quran as their holy text, face the Kaaba during prayer, practice the Sunnah (practices and habits of Muhammad) and accept the authority of Hadiths (reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad). [1] These are the central beliefs constituting Ahmadi Muslim thought. The distinguishing feature of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is their belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Summarising his claim, Ahmad writes:
The task for which God has appointed me is that I should remove the malaise that afflicts the relationship between God and His creatures and restore the relationship of love and sincerity between them. Through the proclamation of truth and by putting an end to religious conflicts, I should bring about peace and manifest the Divine verities that have become hidden from the eyes of the world. I am called upon to demonstrate spirituality which lies buried under egoistic darkness. It is for me to demonstrate by practice, and not by words alone, the Divine powers which penetrate into a human being and are manifested through prayer or attention. Above all, it is my task to re-establish in people’s hearts the eternal plant of the pure and shining Unity of God which is free from every impurity of polytheism, and which has now completely disappeared. All this will be accomplished, not through my power, but through the power of the Almighty God, Who is the God of heaven and earth. [2]
"
Sakimonk talk 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Jaunpuri declared himself to be the Imam Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer in Islam, while on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1496 (AH 901)." the name Mahdavia literally uses the word mahdi in its name, "messianists" or to that effect. Sakimonk talk 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to see Major branches, Minor branches, and others in italic-format rather than BOLD. Could you do that it will look nice. Hey, you have forgotten to put Five percenter, Moorish Science and Tolu-e-Islam somewhere in this template since they are so distinct and cannot be classified under Major branches, and Minor branches . Thhanks.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This entire discussion is headed towards being a wall of text full of WP:BS. No other religion is using its template to discriminate amongst its branches, therefore Islam should also follow the same path. Its simple as that. Major/minor, Right/wrong, Old/new, Alien/Martian, all will be used to discriminate. Therefore we should just keep them in a single list. If someone wants to order it alphabetically, be my guest. Other than this I can see that there is HIGH, HIGH, VERY HIGH amount of consensus to leave this alone. Why are even discussing this further in long walls of text is beyond me. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 10:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
98% of muslims are sunni or shia, the rest make up the 2 percent, this should be made clear, this was always the case in this Islam template and it was only anti-muslim editors who removed the seperation to make it look like Islam was sectarian. This should come under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the original agreed version was BEFORE the unification was made. They were ALWAYS SEPERATED. LOOK AT THE TEMPLATE HISTORY FOR YOUR SELF IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG. Sakimonk talk 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam/Islamic-thought#toc69163
This is becuase the authors are informed and know the topic and aren't pushing a ridiculous POV censorship and politically correct narrative (which the ahmadis on here are because they resent the fact that 98% of Muslims are sunni or shia). Sakimonk talk 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be made clear that ahmadi and mahdavia are messianic and not normal sects of Islam - they both revolved around figures who literally delcared themselves to be the messiah - ghulam mirza stated he was the Hindu god krishna and that he was a modern day Jesus (AS) and that he was the Mahdi (messiah figure). Mahdavia literally means messianic. Sakimonk talk 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Might be bigger than Shia in total. Besides, they are Sunni and Shia mixed. A Sufi may be Sunni or Shia as well. Then how can you make them a distinct denomination.
And what about these guys are they a distinct denomination? 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Are Druses non-muslims or Mowahhid. If you are Mowahhid, you cannot be from non-muslims . But according to Wiki Template:Religion topics They are non-muslims, But these people, i.e., Druses admitted that they are Mowahhid. In this case whom to believe? To Wiki or Druses? 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He is a Sufi, besides he is a Universal man ( Al-Insān al-Kāmil), but he is one of those non-muslims. Moreover, he admitted that he is not a Mowahhid. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to some people, he was from non-muslims, as well. And according to some other people Abu Hanifah was from Murji'ah. And according to some other people Al-Ghazali was from one of those non-muslims.
According to those some people, all these famous people, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Abu Hanifah, Al-Ghazali are non-muslims. You can give the names of those people here.. I don't write it here.
This should be listed under DENOMINATIONS as its name implies it is Nondenominational Muslim
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, According to this page: Imam -- it says Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a Mu'tazili not an Athari.. Things are getting more complicated... 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Any Sufi Muslim is either Sunni or Shia.. This is the case. There are more than 40 tariqah, and their members are either Sunni or Shia.. Thus, Sufism cannot be a denomination.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you write this in parenthesis, you have to list all the branches of Sunni and Shia as well.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 21:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
OPEN THIS AND EVEYBODY MAKES THE CORRECTIONS 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Sakimonk's latest edit: Sakimonk you can argue your case here. If you revert again, if you reinstate the distinction again without having found consensus for it, I will block you. Pinging FreeatlastChitchat and Doug Weller. Drmies ( talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The confusion is according to WP:BRD cycle, the bold edit should be removed until an agreement is reached. If you look at the history of the template, major and minor was always there. In fact only major was listed and minor wasn't. Only in the last few months an unchallenged bold edit removed the distinction. I simply reinstated it. However, people who belong to one of the "minor" groups are now advocating that it remains as such. My honest feeling on the matter is that Wikipedia is uncensored hence it shouldn't matter that people in the "minor" groups are offended. Secondly Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and present a topic accurately. It is truly nonacademic and quite flawed to not make mention that the vast majority of articles on Islam are with respect to sunni Islam which has 1435 years of history and over 90% of the circa 1.5-8 billion followers. The remainder is circa 10 percent Shi'ite. This is a highly pertinent topic on the news and so on and people who come to wikipedia to understand and grasp this topic will not off the bat know that this is the case. This is unfair on the readers. less than 0.01% of muslims are ahmadiyyah (20 million out of circa 2 billion), how is it not logical to make a small distinction simply to inform the readers. This isn't violating NPOV but simply proving relevant context. Sakimonk talk 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahmaddiyah is similar to nontrinitarian christianity in the sense that they follow a completely different set of beliefs regard Jesus (AS) and the prophethood in Islam. All other Islamic sects consider Muhammed SAWS as the last prophet. Ahmadis believe in latter day prophets (similar to mormonism) and also beleive that Jesus came down to earth and went to india and died there (much like how mormons believe Jesus came down to earth and went to America and died there. Sakimonk talk 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
My case is simple. No other template of religion is using any formatting to differentiate between sects, therefore Islam should also stick to that. The rationale behind this formatting is that we just present the sects and do not give the point of view of any sect. Putting them into distinctions violates this NPOV and inserts POV. It also opens up a can of worms which will lead of huge amount of disruption. For example(this may or may not happen, just an example here) an editor may argue that we are not going to differentiate them into major and minor according to population, we are going to differentiate them according to growth rate, and as there is no precedent, he has all the right to say so. With this distinction, Ahmadiyyah will be major and Shia will be minor. This will start an edit war and the case will create almost a year long debate in arbcom. We can save all that trouble by just giving a list. If you see the way I arranged the list it is 'NOT' according to policy, but according to population. This 'subtle' distinction should be 'more than enough'. Anything above this is just blatant POV. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sub-Denominations with considerable amount of population should clearly be shown on this template. Today, Sunnis are divided into FIVE, Shī‘ahs are divided into THREE Sub-Denominations, and Khawarij has only ONE Sub-Denomination. It is important to show all these Sub-Denominations since their population is MORE THAN 1% of the OVERALL population except Zaīdīs, Ibadis, and Ẓāhirīs. On the other hand, Zaīdīs, Ibadis, and Ẓāhirīs even their total population is less than ONE PERCENT, but in your template the name of Ibadis is explicitly written while some huge population groups like Hanafis and Ithnā‘ashariyyah with a population of MORE THAN 10% was never mentioned. THEREFORE, This template is SO UNBALANCED from this respect. YOU should make the necessary CORRECTIONS immediately.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 (
talk)
21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Click on this for ... detail. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) THEY are the members of Sunni and Shī‘ah or ahmadiyya whatever. This is another subject. it does not belong here. so stop this absurd protection of the temp 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Creeds need to be listed somewhere68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
!!! Mahdavia ??If someone is putting this onto this template, he is the most ignorant person on the subject. Because so many other major denominations are NOT listed. I believe that the preparer belongs to this sect. But, LOOK this is not you personal talk page, you should have written this there. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Maybe, the name of the template should change to !!! Mahdavia ??Yes, this template is prepared as an advertisement for !!! Mahdavia ?? Justification for my accusationsWhere are the names of Bektashiyyah, Nizari, and the many others that I mentioned above for example, where is Bayramiyya. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) !!! Mahdavia ?? should be DELETED immediately. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Doug Weller, You've said this page should be more like christianity - you fail to realise that the chrisntianity template has three subdivisions; Eastern, Western and Non-trinitarian. So yeah...
Sakimonk
talk
02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also User talk:68.100.166.227 has made an excellent argument, why on earth is mahdavia mentioned when it isn't even extant whereas other major sects like ismailism aren't mentioned yet ahmadi'ism IS but it isn't even a normative Islamic sect but a different religion altogether? Sakimonk talk 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that one really has to check the sources behind the statistics. The 90% and 10% numbers, as far as I can tell from the respective pages on Sunni and Shi'a Islam, come from a 2009 report. If you continue browsing to the methodology they used, it becomes clear that they have just categorised each and every denomination into either Sunni or Shi'a. I would not be surprised if they also added the Ahmadiyya to Sunnis, since it is stated that the Sunni and Shi'a categories "contain self-identified Muslim communities that may be considered heterodox or nonmainstream by other Muslims". My point is that the figures given by Sakimonk are not really useful in determining how big certain denominations are. If I were to believe the figures given on Nondenominational Muslim, then 20% of the muslim population does not adhere to any sect. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you keep telling yourself that. I didn't even use that as an argument but just for context. Alhamdulilah regardless Allah knows His ummah, khatmenubuwat. Sakimonk talk 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Read List of Mahdi claimants. Explain how did you decide to pick Mahdavia out of so many diverse groups.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 09:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 10:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Listing the name of Nation of Islam now requires to put the name of Moorish science as well since they are all in the same category. This brings a new question. We are listing the names of all these new movements like Quranism, Nation of Islam, Moorish science, Nondenominational. But we never say anything about other denominations like Alevis, Nizaris, and Nusairis. These groups are not recognized by the Amman Message even though they are considered as a part of Shia. Mentioning the names of Quranism, Nation of Islam and Moorish science but saying nothing about Alevis, Nizaris, and Nusairis will not be fair. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move your suggestions from my talk page to this one, so the discussion stays centralised.
Template:Islam
Since you've recently been involved in a discussion on the modification of Template:Islam, will you consider to divide Denominations into 3-groups as:
- Other
- Sufis
- Ibadis
- Zahiris
- Ahmadis
- Mahdavia (Should be written here only if it is determined that they are neither Sufi nor Sunni/ Shia)
- Alevis (actually they are Sufi & Shia but similar to Mahdavia)
- Nusayris (they are also from Shia but some people considers them as a distinct group like Druze)
- Quranists
- Nation of Islam
- Moorish science
- Nondenominational Muslims
This will also be consistent with the definitions accepted by the Amman Message. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting Mahdavia, Alevis and Nusayris will be consistent with the Amman Message. All the three look like Sufi- Shia..
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- This will also be Consistent with Template:Religion topics.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that this template should be treated as a concise table of contents on Islamic topics. Listing all the subdenominations would make it chaotic. There is already a template for that if needed.
Of course, some input from other Wikipedians is highly welcomed. And please, anonymous IP, please stop including "recommended reading" material. Instead, state a complete and coherent plea on the talk page (no, that does not mean simply copy-pasting stuff to your plea) - HyperGaruda ( talk) 12:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the article on Islamic schools and branches, I propose that Nation of Islam and Moorish science should be replaced by African American Muslims. This is necessary since the template does not list the sub-denominations like Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri for Sunni Islam, and Zaydis, Isma'ilis, Twelvers for Shia Islam.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Done
--Peace
world
16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A Nondenominational Muslim as its name implies does not belong to any Branches or Denominations. It shouldn't be here. As you have deleted Mowahhid since all Muslims are Muwahhid Muslims, this needs to be deleted, as well.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 20:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Could you change:
| list5title = Denominations
to
| list5title = Denominations
or just
| list5title = Islamic denominations
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Please collapse the Template...? — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Islam}}
. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
06:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Is Alewism not also part of Islam? I guess it belongs to Shia Islam, but the shia template just contains Alawism. We have also Sufism here (that is actually part of Sunni, and maybe sometimes also Shia). Should we add Alevism to the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
108.31.73.21 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If Khawarij will not be included here, Alevism should not be written since it is included in Sufism & Twelvers 108.31.73.21 ( talk) 01:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi people16 ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Sufism to the section "Culture and Society." 96.227.142.42 ( talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Trinanjon and AlHazen: for your information, the image in the sidebar has been the subject of discussion time and again as you can see in Template talk:Islam/Archive 2. The shahada is not perfect either for use on Wikipedia, because its meaning poses neutrality problems and is unreadable/unrecognizable to most people outside the Arab/Muslim world. By the way, a calligraphic representation of Allāh is used over at ar-wiki. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
<!--Reach consensus on Wikiproject Islam before making any changes -->
. Is there a specific Wikiproject discussion you can link that demonstrates changing the image to the cresent and star? –
Batreeq (
Talk) (
Contribs)
08:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Since reaching agreement over one image has been difficult, as demonstrated in all the archived discussions, how about more than one image? {{ Judaism}} uses three. I propose the following three:
-- HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
To small page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseKingPMSAW ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I think Islamic literature deserves space in the template. I don't know if newly created article Islamic advice literature also can get place in this template.
Few more updates may be needed I will return back on those later.
Bookku ( talk) 13:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This template appears to be affecting the formatting of bulleted lists. For example, see Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws and compare all of the bulleted lists with the Differences section where this template is used. I've tried moving the template around in that article—using Show preview, not publishing the changes—and the strange formatting follows the template, so it's definitely an issue with the code. However, templates aren't my forte so I'm not sure how to fix it. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look. Cheers! Woodroar ( talk) 22:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I propose changing the template image from the present calligraphic representation of Allah to a new image - "Al-Islam" written in Arabic calligraphy - that has been adopted for this template's equivalent on Arabic Wikipedia. I personally find it to look clean and aesthetically pleasing:
Ghazi Malik ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Since reaching agreement over one image has been difficult, as demonstrated in all the archived discussions, how about more than one image? I propose the following three:
Please can I make this edit since I want to put the three major symbols of Islam in this template, Thanks. SharqHabib ( talk) 22:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please, share your thoughts on the debate about the image that should be used in the template here. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
86.140.241.1 ( talk) 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This is more appropriate as classically for 1400 Islam has recognised only three significant sects: Sunni, Shia, Khawarij (ibadi). In the latter days, some Sufis become extremely deviant and hence they were ascribed as another sect. All of these other "groups" are actually separate religions e.g. Ahmadiyya, quranism etc. as they are not recognised as part of Islam. Listing Mahdavia is ridiculous, it is some obscure group that existed briefly in the 18th century in a remote part of pakistan with a few hundred followers... We are talking about islam the religion of 2 billion people, if you want an accurate representational template then stick to my edit. Thanks. Sakimonk talk 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sufi sects emerged primarily in Baghdad along with a formalised Shia sect circa all within 300 years AH (some like the khawarij emerged so early they were involved in killing Uthman RA for example) the other groups / sects / movements are all at least 1000 years AH. That is what I meant. Sakimonk talk 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sakimonk talk 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Mutazila were /are philosophical rationalists which emerged upon the discovery and translation of hellenistic works, they have a completely distinct set of values from Quranists. Mutazila are a division of Aqeedah / theological school, there is a long line of Hanafi Mutazila in khoresan for example. Quranists reject the ahadith and wouldn't follow a madhhab. Moreover Mutazila are distinct by their classification of the attributes of Allah, this isn't in line with Quranists. Sakimonk talk 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Sakimonk talk 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Conflating the modern quranism movement with the Mutazila sect due to a possibly shared philosophical discourse isn't correct. The habashis for example are staunchly sufi but this wouldn't classify them as being a classical sect, even though sufis are. Sakimonk talk 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Template:Religion topics
ARE Abrahamic religions BUT NOT Islam
ARE Indo- Iranian religions AND they are non-islamic
Yazdânism AND Bahá'í SHOULD BE DELETED from Template:Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Druze, on the other hand, might be included explicitly in to the list. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
| list5name = classical denominations | list5title = Classical denominations
| list5 =
| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations
| list6 =
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations
| list6 =
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
ALSO * Tolu-e-Islam should be added.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Wahhabism isn't a denomination, it's part of the Salafi movement which is covered by Sunni islam. Tolu e Islam seems more like a political movement after reading about it and not a denomination, in fact it clearly states that they are against sectarianism and it is more about a political theory of establishing an Islamic nation (i.e. they wanted Pakistan to be founded as a Quranic-following nation). I don't see why druze should be included if Bahai / yazdanism isn't sinze Druze don't identify as part of Islam, the article explains them as "The Druze faith incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Ismailism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to esoterically interpret religious scriptures and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness." Sakimonk talk 05:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In any case, there is no question that this term was originally used in order to “drive people away” from the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. It was claimed that Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab was calling to a new religion or to a fifth madhhab (school of jurisprudence). Of course, in addition to calling them “Wahhabis,” they were also called heretics, infidels and Khawarij. During the past century, there developed a difference
Sakimonk talk 00:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There are four main madhhabs then dhahiri according to the way of the fuqaha and then there is Ahlal Hadeeth which isn't a madhhab but a sphere of derivation of legal rulings according to interpreting the meanings and strengths of ahadith. Sakimonk talk 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sufism is found in both denominations of Islam i.e in Sunnis and Shias and there is no need to write it as separate denomination. There are no separate Sufi chains which claims themselves away from Sunni denomination rather all are under Sunni School of thought with a tiny minority of Shia is practising Sufism. Historically, all Sufi masters were Sunnis and many were authorities on Sunni School. ScholarM ( talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage of MODERN gives wrong impression. i.e. When we say Modern Physics, it implies that the laws of classical mechanics were not sufficient or not accurate enough. So we have invented the laws of Modern Physics like Quantum Mechanics. On the contrary, in Islamic schools, the word "MODERN" does not mean that these new schools are making some corrections over the teachings of the classical madh'habs. Actually, these NEW CURRENTS are not being recognized as the true teachings by the classical branches like Sunni or Shia, and they are not making some corrections over the classical ones. Therefore, the word MODERN should be replaced by NEW CURRENTS / MADHHABS. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit of a paradox in what you're saying about reformation. On the one hand, latter-day's connection to LDS is irrelevant for its use here in Islam, while the reformation's connection to Sunnism is relevant for excluding its use in other -isms. I do agree with your view on "traditional" though, being a bit ambiguous in combination with the Sunnah. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 05:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:Sakimonk, we don't take sensitivities into account. If we did we would ban images of Muhammad, which we don't. In fact many of our articles would look extremely different. And 'latter-day' is confusing. So far as arguing that only the Sunnis are orthodox our article doesn't say that and it concerns me that you are arguing from such an absolute pov. Doug Weller ( talk) 07:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sakimonk again it's not relevant what people think. We have sufficient tools to knock out vandalism and/or edit wars. That's not a problem. As far as Ahmadis are concerned they are anything but localised. Kharijites that you have repeatedly mentioned are localised and are 10 times smaller. --Peace world 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadi beliefs are more aligned with the Sunni tradition, than they are with the Shi'a tradition, such as The Five Pillars of Islam and The Six articles of Islamic Faith. Likewise, Ahmadis accept the Quran as their holy text, face the Kaaba during prayer, practice the Sunnah (practices and habits of Muhammad) and accept the authority of Hadiths (reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad). [1] These are the central beliefs constituting Ahmadi Muslim thought. The distinguishing feature of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is their belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, as prophesied by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Summarising his claim, Ahmad writes:
The task for which God has appointed me is that I should remove the malaise that afflicts the relationship between God and His creatures and restore the relationship of love and sincerity between them. Through the proclamation of truth and by putting an end to religious conflicts, I should bring about peace and manifest the Divine verities that have become hidden from the eyes of the world. I am called upon to demonstrate spirituality which lies buried under egoistic darkness. It is for me to demonstrate by practice, and not by words alone, the Divine powers which penetrate into a human being and are manifested through prayer or attention. Above all, it is my task to re-establish in people’s hearts the eternal plant of the pure and shining Unity of God which is free from every impurity of polytheism, and which has now completely disappeared. All this will be accomplished, not through my power, but through the power of the Almighty God, Who is the God of heaven and earth. [2]
"
Sakimonk talk 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Jaunpuri declared himself to be the Imam Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer in Islam, while on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1496 (AH 901)." the name Mahdavia literally uses the word mahdi in its name, "messianists" or to that effect. Sakimonk talk 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to see Major branches, Minor branches, and others in italic-format rather than BOLD. Could you do that it will look nice. Hey, you have forgotten to put Five percenter, Moorish Science and Tolu-e-Islam somewhere in this template since they are so distinct and cannot be classified under Major branches, and Minor branches . Thhanks.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This entire discussion is headed towards being a wall of text full of WP:BS. No other religion is using its template to discriminate amongst its branches, therefore Islam should also follow the same path. Its simple as that. Major/minor, Right/wrong, Old/new, Alien/Martian, all will be used to discriminate. Therefore we should just keep them in a single list. If someone wants to order it alphabetically, be my guest. Other than this I can see that there is HIGH, HIGH, VERY HIGH amount of consensus to leave this alone. Why are even discussing this further in long walls of text is beyond me. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 10:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
98% of muslims are sunni or shia, the rest make up the 2 percent, this should be made clear, this was always the case in this Islam template and it was only anti-muslim editors who removed the seperation to make it look like Islam was sectarian. This should come under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the original agreed version was BEFORE the unification was made. They were ALWAYS SEPERATED. LOOK AT THE TEMPLATE HISTORY FOR YOUR SELF IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG. Sakimonk talk 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam/Islamic-thought#toc69163
This is becuase the authors are informed and know the topic and aren't pushing a ridiculous POV censorship and politically correct narrative (which the ahmadis on here are because they resent the fact that 98% of Muslims are sunni or shia). Sakimonk talk 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be made clear that ahmadi and mahdavia are messianic and not normal sects of Islam - they both revolved around figures who literally delcared themselves to be the messiah - ghulam mirza stated he was the Hindu god krishna and that he was a modern day Jesus (AS) and that he was the Mahdi (messiah figure). Mahdavia literally means messianic. Sakimonk talk 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Might be bigger than Shia in total. Besides, they are Sunni and Shia mixed. A Sufi may be Sunni or Shia as well. Then how can you make them a distinct denomination.
And what about these guys are they a distinct denomination? 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Are Druses non-muslims or Mowahhid. If you are Mowahhid, you cannot be from non-muslims . But according to Wiki Template:Religion topics They are non-muslims, But these people, i.e., Druses admitted that they are Mowahhid. In this case whom to believe? To Wiki or Druses? 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He is a Sufi, besides he is a Universal man ( Al-Insān al-Kāmil), but he is one of those non-muslims. Moreover, he admitted that he is not a Mowahhid. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to some people, he was from non-muslims, as well. And according to some other people Abu Hanifah was from Murji'ah. And according to some other people Al-Ghazali was from one of those non-muslims.
According to those some people, all these famous people, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Abu Hanifah, Al-Ghazali are non-muslims. You can give the names of those people here.. I don't write it here.
This should be listed under DENOMINATIONS as its name implies it is Nondenominational Muslim
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, According to this page: Imam -- it says Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a Mu'tazili not an Athari.. Things are getting more complicated... 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Any Sufi Muslim is either Sunni or Shia.. This is the case. There are more than 40 tariqah, and their members are either Sunni or Shia.. Thus, Sufism cannot be a denomination.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you write this in parenthesis, you have to list all the branches of Sunni and Shia as well.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 21:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
OPEN THIS AND EVEYBODY MAKES THE CORRECTIONS 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Sakimonk's latest edit: Sakimonk you can argue your case here. If you revert again, if you reinstate the distinction again without having found consensus for it, I will block you. Pinging FreeatlastChitchat and Doug Weller. Drmies ( talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The confusion is according to WP:BRD cycle, the bold edit should be removed until an agreement is reached. If you look at the history of the template, major and minor was always there. In fact only major was listed and minor wasn't. Only in the last few months an unchallenged bold edit removed the distinction. I simply reinstated it. However, people who belong to one of the "minor" groups are now advocating that it remains as such. My honest feeling on the matter is that Wikipedia is uncensored hence it shouldn't matter that people in the "minor" groups are offended. Secondly Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and present a topic accurately. It is truly nonacademic and quite flawed to not make mention that the vast majority of articles on Islam are with respect to sunni Islam which has 1435 years of history and over 90% of the circa 1.5-8 billion followers. The remainder is circa 10 percent Shi'ite. This is a highly pertinent topic on the news and so on and people who come to wikipedia to understand and grasp this topic will not off the bat know that this is the case. This is unfair on the readers. less than 0.01% of muslims are ahmadiyyah (20 million out of circa 2 billion), how is it not logical to make a small distinction simply to inform the readers. This isn't violating NPOV but simply proving relevant context. Sakimonk talk 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ahmaddiyah is similar to nontrinitarian christianity in the sense that they follow a completely different set of beliefs regard Jesus (AS) and the prophethood in Islam. All other Islamic sects consider Muhammed SAWS as the last prophet. Ahmadis believe in latter day prophets (similar to mormonism) and also beleive that Jesus came down to earth and went to india and died there (much like how mormons believe Jesus came down to earth and went to America and died there. Sakimonk talk 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
My case is simple. No other template of religion is using any formatting to differentiate between sects, therefore Islam should also stick to that. The rationale behind this formatting is that we just present the sects and do not give the point of view of any sect. Putting them into distinctions violates this NPOV and inserts POV. It also opens up a can of worms which will lead of huge amount of disruption. For example(this may or may not happen, just an example here) an editor may argue that we are not going to differentiate them into major and minor according to population, we are going to differentiate them according to growth rate, and as there is no precedent, he has all the right to say so. With this distinction, Ahmadiyyah will be major and Shia will be minor. This will start an edit war and the case will create almost a year long debate in arbcom. We can save all that trouble by just giving a list. If you see the way I arranged the list it is 'NOT' according to policy, but according to population. This 'subtle' distinction should be 'more than enough'. Anything above this is just blatant POV. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sub-Denominations with considerable amount of population should clearly be shown on this template. Today, Sunnis are divided into FIVE, Shī‘ahs are divided into THREE Sub-Denominations, and Khawarij has only ONE Sub-Denomination. It is important to show all these Sub-Denominations since their population is MORE THAN 1% of the OVERALL population except Zaīdīs, Ibadis, and Ẓāhirīs. On the other hand, Zaīdīs, Ibadis, and Ẓāhirīs even their total population is less than ONE PERCENT, but in your template the name of Ibadis is explicitly written while some huge population groups like Hanafis and Ithnā‘ashariyyah with a population of MORE THAN 10% was never mentioned. THEREFORE, This template is SO UNBALANCED from this respect. YOU should make the necessary CORRECTIONS immediately.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 (
talk)
21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Click on this for ... detail. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) THEY are the members of Sunni and Shī‘ah or ahmadiyya whatever. This is another subject. it does not belong here. so stop this absurd protection of the temp 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Creeds need to be listed somewhere68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
!!! Mahdavia ??If someone is putting this onto this template, he is the most ignorant person on the subject. Because so many other major denominations are NOT listed. I believe that the preparer belongs to this sect. But, LOOK this is not you personal talk page, you should have written this there. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Maybe, the name of the template should change to !!! Mahdavia ??Yes, this template is prepared as an advertisement for !!! Mahdavia ?? Justification for my accusationsWhere are the names of Bektashiyyah, Nizari, and the many others that I mentioned above for example, where is Bayramiyya. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) !!! Mahdavia ?? should be DELETED immediately. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Doug Weller, You've said this page should be more like christianity - you fail to realise that the chrisntianity template has three subdivisions; Eastern, Western and Non-trinitarian. So yeah...
Sakimonk
talk
02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also User talk:68.100.166.227 has made an excellent argument, why on earth is mahdavia mentioned when it isn't even extant whereas other major sects like ismailism aren't mentioned yet ahmadi'ism IS but it isn't even a normative Islamic sect but a different religion altogether? Sakimonk talk 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that one really has to check the sources behind the statistics. The 90% and 10% numbers, as far as I can tell from the respective pages on Sunni and Shi'a Islam, come from a 2009 report. If you continue browsing to the methodology they used, it becomes clear that they have just categorised each and every denomination into either Sunni or Shi'a. I would not be surprised if they also added the Ahmadiyya to Sunnis, since it is stated that the Sunni and Shi'a categories "contain self-identified Muslim communities that may be considered heterodox or nonmainstream by other Muslims". My point is that the figures given by Sakimonk are not really useful in determining how big certain denominations are. If I were to believe the figures given on Nondenominational Muslim, then 20% of the muslim population does not adhere to any sect. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you keep telling yourself that. I didn't even use that as an argument but just for context. Alhamdulilah regardless Allah knows His ummah, khatmenubuwat. Sakimonk talk 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Read List of Mahdi claimants. Explain how did you decide to pick Mahdavia out of so many diverse groups.. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 09:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 10:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Listing the name of Nation of Islam now requires to put the name of Moorish science as well since they are all in the same category. This brings a new question. We are listing the names of all these new movements like Quranism, Nation of Islam, Moorish science, Nondenominational. But we never say anything about other denominations like Alevis, Nizaris, and Nusairis. These groups are not recognized by the Amman Message even though they are considered as a part of Shia. Mentioning the names of Quranism, Nation of Islam and Moorish science but saying nothing about Alevis, Nizaris, and Nusairis will not be fair. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to move your suggestions from my talk page to this one, so the discussion stays centralised.
Template:Islam
Since you've recently been involved in a discussion on the modification of Template:Islam, will you consider to divide Denominations into 3-groups as:
- Other
- Sufis
- Ibadis
- Zahiris
- Ahmadis
- Mahdavia (Should be written here only if it is determined that they are neither Sufi nor Sunni/ Shia)
- Alevis (actually they are Sufi & Shia but similar to Mahdavia)
- Nusayris (they are also from Shia but some people considers them as a distinct group like Druze)
- Quranists
- Nation of Islam
- Moorish science
- Nondenominational Muslims
This will also be consistent with the definitions accepted by the Amman Message. 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 68.100.166.227 ( talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting Mahdavia, Alevis and Nusayris will be consistent with the Amman Message. All the three look like Sufi- Shia..
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- This will also be Consistent with Template:Religion topics.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 07:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that this template should be treated as a concise table of contents on Islamic topics. Listing all the subdenominations would make it chaotic. There is already a template for that if needed.
Of course, some input from other Wikipedians is highly welcomed. And please, anonymous IP, please stop including "recommended reading" material. Instead, state a complete and coherent plea on the talk page (no, that does not mean simply copy-pasting stuff to your plea) - HyperGaruda ( talk) 12:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the article on Islamic schools and branches, I propose that Nation of Islam and Moorish science should be replaced by African American Muslims. This is necessary since the template does not list the sub-denominations like Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri for Sunni Islam, and Zaydis, Isma'ilis, Twelvers for Shia Islam.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 15:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Done
--Peace
world
16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A Nondenominational Muslim as its name implies does not belong to any Branches or Denominations. It shouldn't be here. As you have deleted Mowahhid since all Muslims are Muwahhid Muslims, this needs to be deleted, as well.
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 20:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Could you change:
| list5title = Denominations
to
| list5title = Denominations
or just
| list5title = Islamic denominations
68.100.166.227 ( talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Please collapse the Template...? — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Islam}}
. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
06:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Is Alewism not also part of Islam? I guess it belongs to Shia Islam, but the shia template just contains Alawism. We have also Sufism here (that is actually part of Sunni, and maybe sometimes also Shia). Should we add Alevism to the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
108.31.73.21 ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If Khawarij will not be included here, Alevism should not be written since it is included in Sufism & Twelvers 108.31.73.21 ( talk) 01:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi people16 ( talk) 15:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Sufism to the section "Culture and Society." 96.227.142.42 ( talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Trinanjon and AlHazen: for your information, the image in the sidebar has been the subject of discussion time and again as you can see in Template talk:Islam/Archive 2. The shahada is not perfect either for use on Wikipedia, because its meaning poses neutrality problems and is unreadable/unrecognizable to most people outside the Arab/Muslim world. By the way, a calligraphic representation of Allāh is used over at ar-wiki. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
<!--Reach consensus on Wikiproject Islam before making any changes -->
. Is there a specific Wikiproject discussion you can link that demonstrates changing the image to the cresent and star? –
Batreeq (
Talk) (
Contribs)
08:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Since reaching agreement over one image has been difficult, as demonstrated in all the archived discussions, how about more than one image? {{ Judaism}} uses three. I propose the following three:
-- HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
To small page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseKingPMSAW ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I think Islamic literature deserves space in the template. I don't know if newly created article Islamic advice literature also can get place in this template.
Few more updates may be needed I will return back on those later.
Bookku ( talk) 13:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This template appears to be affecting the formatting of bulleted lists. For example, see Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws and compare all of the bulleted lists with the Differences section where this template is used. I've tried moving the template around in that article—using Show preview, not publishing the changes—and the strange formatting follows the template, so it's definitely an issue with the code. However, templates aren't my forte so I'm not sure how to fix it. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look. Cheers! Woodroar ( talk) 22:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I propose changing the template image from the present calligraphic representation of Allah to a new image - "Al-Islam" written in Arabic calligraphy - that has been adopted for this template's equivalent on Arabic Wikipedia. I personally find it to look clean and aesthetically pleasing:
Ghazi Malik ( talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Since reaching agreement over one image has been difficult, as demonstrated in all the archived discussions, how about more than one image? I propose the following three:
Please can I make this edit since I want to put the three major symbols of Islam in this template, Thanks. SharqHabib ( talk) 22:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please, share your thoughts on the debate about the image that should be used in the template here. Thank you! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 ( talk)