Talk:Sunni Islam/Archive 1

message: Is this link really pertinent? It seems like a website selling books. I am reluctant to remove it though. Anyone know better --MaxPower 15:38, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
It seems that the link simply links to the 'Books' page when it should really be linking to the home page, there actually appears to be semi-useful stuff there... 209.52.175.157 01:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [http://www.faizani.com www.faizani.com] 

message: What is the difference between the two?? Have I got it mixed up?? Sunnis think that the caliph should be elected right?!?!
                                   Please Help!
                                     -Stephanie
Please refer to The Difference Between Shiah's & Sunni's
The difference between Sunnis and Shiites is that Sunnis believe that the caliph should be elected and Shiites believe it should be someone from the family of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).  With that being said, this has led to many political issues and differences, which led to spiritual issues and differences.
:If the sunnis believed thatyou should vote...why did the first khalifa (Abu Bakr) NAME the person he wanted after himself?  I have seen many sunnis convert to shi'a but no shi'a to sunni.  Reasearch more...or even email this person:
:shiadefender@yahoo.com
:that person knows a lot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetlittlebrat98 (talk • contribs) 
There is a difference between naming and nominating. --AladdinSE 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are implying that Abu Bakr, `Umar or `Uthmaan Rady Allaahu `Anhum were not legitimate succesors of the Prophet Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam, could you please tell us then - Why did `Alee Rady Allaahu `Anhu not protest and fight for what was 'rightfully' his? The Khalifa may be established in a number of ways, be by the choice of the majlis ash-Shura, by selection of the previous Khalifa, by claiming it when it is not in existence or by vote of the people.--Mecca Cola 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunnis and Shiites 

message: Anonymous user 67.68.232.172 changed  the percentage of Sunni in Iraq from 35% to 22%.  Someone who is knowledgeable about this should probably confirm this change.  I noticed that the CIA factbook says 32-37%. Al guy 05:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
:I have a feeling it's one of the many, many people who just hears the incompetent journalists say "twenty percent sunni", who doesn't realize that the Kurds are all Sunni muslims, too. Between the two of them, the total is near 40%.Kaz 18:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni in Iraq 

message: OK, I rewrote the article and -- I hope -- excised all the Sunni triumphalism. I also added a fair bit of material re theological schools, hadith, and the like. There is still a great deal to be done. I want to add sections re holidays, schools like El-Azhar, write up current trends, and prune and organize the links at the bottom. I trust that the other editors will correct any of my errors of fact -- there are bound to be a few! Zora 05:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Sunni?  Do liberals with hadith doubts count? hmmm * Hanafi (founded by Abu Hanifa) ... was it founded by him? not sure ... based on his teaching moreso...     what past groups are considered Sunni? gren 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Hanafi fiqh was not even designed by Abu Hanifa!!! He wrote a book called al Fiqh al Akbar..and it is more on theology. LAter jurists, folliwng his GENERAL line of thought, formulated the "hanafi madhab." Similar to all other schools." That is what a professor from San Diego State University stated to me.  Also, since I don't really see any works attributed to hanafi or any real codification of law it makes sense.  I believe we can include any group that follows the sunna as Sunni? except, this brings up problems.  When we think of sunna we think of hadith collections.  Some modern groups reject that many hadith are accurate... yet would claim to follow the example of Muhammad...  are they Sunni?  I think many like that also try to only calls themselves Muslim since there is a command to not break into sects... Also... it was actually a movie of some college lecture.  The professor talked about how the concept of Sunnism didn't exist in the beginning... that it was a look back after a long while.  This makes sense seeing that Umar and Uthman would have been opposed to Ali... I definitely think you are going in the right direction but I should start pooling my information and adding material and citing the sources. One other thing... you removed "They do not constitute a sect of Islam. On the contrary, their first and foremost self-identification label is that of mainstream or orthodox Islam."  I agree that is horribly POV but... but even though it seems that people will call themselves Sunni... I don't think its self-identification is as a sect... even if for all intents and purposes they are. Also I need advice on phrasing... because, surely they are the four traditional Sunni schools... but, we can't say they are the only if we are going to put in liberal and salafi as Sunnis... they are the traditionally accepted ones... and many don't accept others besides them... but, since Islam has no real way of saying "this is right and this isn't" many can identify themselves in different ways. gren 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "As for those who divide their way of life and break up into sects, you have no part of them at all. Their affair is with Allah. He will tell them the truth of what they did in the end." (Qur`an 6:159).  That is what I was saying above about sects and how I don't believe it was traditionally a term of self-identification... soo, groups might not call themselves Sunni, but they can be classified as Sunni if they follow the Sunna?  But, Shia follow their own interpretation of Sunna through their own hadith collections.  Craziness gren 08:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It is rather confusing to me as well. I find it a tendency to be "Are you a Shia?" - "No." - "Oh, you're a Sunni."  I am not sure that is the reality of it though.  If there is a reality to this organization.  Maybe by this point in time only those who accept the four madhhabs are Sunni so the sects are Sunni, Shia and Other... even though the other movements came from within Sunni Islam many times. Although, I would tend to be more inclusive with what we put as being a part of Sunnism until we find out otherwise. gren 12:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: An anon editor removed part of the section on hadith, leaving the para in a confusing state. I'm guessing that anon objected to the description of hadith differing (even though Muslim scholars would tell you that they do). I restored enough of what was deleted to restore the para to coherence, and rewrote around the perceived problem. This is probably not the right place to argue about the utter perfection of hadith <g>. Zora 00:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon editor re hadith 

message: I noticed that the link to this page wasn't working and have corrected the link.
However, there is a discrepancy between the title of the cited page and the citation on this page. This page spells it "Shi'ah Islam", while the page that I've linked to it spells it "Shi'a Islam". These should be edited to conform. I'll leave it to you experts.
--Bill Jefferys 19:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Shi'a Islam 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing policy proposal 

message: I took the numbers off the links (no point hinting that one link is more important than another), removed two commercial links, and sorted the links into forums, instruction, and radio. I'm fairly confident about all that. However, I'm less sure about how to describe the links. I felt that some of the "ad copy" that had been submitted with the links was misleading and I didn't want to leave it -- but I also wasn't sure that it was a good idea to affix my own descriptions. For one thing, I'm not a Sunni Muslim <g>. In the end, I removed all descriptions. Readers can click on the links and make their own judgements. If anyone objects, let's discuss it. 
I also doubt that we've got the best Sunni links. I have a suspicion that a number of the sites nominated themselves. Any Sunnis reading this should add any links that seem useful (large, informative sites). Zora 11:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on links 

message: I'm not quite sure when it happened, and I don't have time right now to delve into the history, but someone has rewritten the kalam section to praise the Hanbali school to the skies, using very Salafi terminology. It's POV as heck and needs to be fixed. I will do it when I can, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Zora 20:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, taken care of. Turned out that the chunk of Salafi material could be excised completely, leaving the original text. I have removed the POV tag, since I put it there. Zora 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanbali slant to Kalam section 

message: You can't have an article about Sunni Muslims without discussing - Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah, Ahl Sunnah wal Jamah, Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jama'ah, or Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaaah. All the same thing just transliterated differently. --JuanMuslim 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People of... 

message: This article mentions Ali 8 times and 'Ali 7 times. Were they the same person? I know Arabic uses a different alphabet, but if 'Ali was the same man as Ali, then it would be easier to understand if all the Ali's were respelled as 'Ali or vice versa. Or if 'Ali was a different person, then it would be clearer if it said "Ali (not to be confused with 'Ali)". Art LaPella 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should all be Ali. I'll fix it when I get a round tuit, unless someone else does first. Zora 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali and 'Ali 

message: Why isn't there an introductory sentence or two to explain what Sunni Islam is for people who don't know ("Sunni Islam is one of the two major branches of Islam..." or something).  It's very confusing and strange to go directly to the "historical split" without any introductory sentences at all.  (See, for example, how it's done, effectively, in Shia).  This article is embarrassingly sparse and unclear for the article on the largest branch of the world's second-largest religion, and needs a lot of work.  Moncrief 19:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the introduction, it's common for Wikipedia articles to miss the obvious. For instance, before my edits Joan of Arc didn't mention the fire until after she was dead, and timeline of cosmology didn't mention Newton's laws. Art LaPella 22:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, will fix it when I have a round tuit, but someone else can too. Zora 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: What does this mean?
:Assalamu alaikum
:The majority of the Sunnis follow the path of Tasawwuf. The two terms are not contradictory just as one can be a Shiah and an Usuli and a Jafari in Madhhab etc.
:In Sunnism, there are three main branches: the outer physical actions (Islam/A'mal), the beliefs (Imam/Aqeedah) and spirituality (Ihsan/Tasawwuf/Tazkiyah/Sufism etc.). All of these are derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah if explicit texts are found, but where there are uncertainties the 4 Madhahib are followed in actions, the Ashari and Maturidi Aqeedah in Aqeedah and the many Sufi Tareeqahs in Tasawwuf.
:Tawassul is permissible in Sunni Islam. 
--Striver 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote this is some deluded whacko. Tasawwuf is another name for Sufism, which exists in many forms, but still amounts to less than 5% of 'Sunnis' not that I would count them in the grouping. Everything written is complete rubbish being pushed by a deviant minority sect which has NO basis in Islam from its original sources.Mecca Cola 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not start the "Sufism is an innovation" debate again. I spent almost a month on it on the Sufism page (refer the talk archives) and we reached a conclusion. I'm not reiterating any points I made over there but if you're interested, you can have a look. Also, if you want to add your assertions about how "Sufis" indulged in Kalam while "orthodox" muslims stayed away from it, Please provide a source. I've reverted it for now. --Nkv 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: There are a couple of problems here. 
* Firstly, these are unsubstantiated from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I personally have a rather authoritative book by Imam Haddad entitled The lives of man that discusses the Islamic view of afterlife and it's got nothing to do hell being stirred till no more people can fit in etc.
* There's quite a bit of Anthropomorphism in there which Sunni muslims don't subscribe to (eg. God's hands, legs, etc.)
* The tone and the language of the whole section is of rather low quality making it look like an act of vandalism rather than a proper entry. 
I'm removing the section since it's not only factually incorrect (please provide sources if I'm mistaken) but also because it's really badly written and because it doesn't add anything to the article. --Nkv 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni view of God. 

message: M, I'm sorry to have to revert, but your edits were argumentative. You were trying to use that section to show that the Sunni were RIGHT. The section merely indicates that there is a controversy and points people to the main article, Succession to Muhammad. I think that if you look at that article, you'll find that all your arguments are already laid out there. Zora 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting edits by MMansoor 

message: This section needs some changes. Here are the problems.
* The section contradicts an earlier which lists Shafii, Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki as schools of  Fiqh. In this section, they're listed as sects. 
* Wahabism and Salafism are the same. The former was the original name given to the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab. The latter is modern name for the same group.
* The Jama'at Islami is a political party. It's not a sect and it's not accurate to list it here. 
* The Mutazil entry here is already listed above under the Kalam section. It belongs there and not here. 
* The Barelvi/Deobandi divide is prominent only in India and the subcontinent. Outside here, they really don't have much significance. To put them as prominent "sects" in the main article on Sunni islam is a little misleading. 
* Some of the ones mentioned here (eg.  Salafism) are sects because they regard themselves as the only correct group and consider many others as disbelievers. Some others like the Barelvis have disagreements with the other groups on many matters but don't see them as disbelievers. They're not considered a sect but a school of thought. 
Please post any additional comments here. I'll clean up the section in a day or two after I accumulate sufficient data. Thank you. --Nkv 06:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings and thank you for the comments. I've inlined my own. I agree with you on all the points and also think that the reasons you've mentioned here should go into the main article (or as sub articles with links from the main one). As it stands, the section we're discussing is still ambiguous. If a reader who doesn't have as much background as you have on the matter reads this section, it simply sounds like the Sunnis are fractured into 4 subsects which are further broken down as the list shows. This is not true and although the original section text doesn't imply so, it's not clear enough. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Although I think it would be a good idea to mention that as a note before starting off with the list. It's a little misleading now as it is. Don't you agree?--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup. I think we should expand the entry for Jama't Islami to mention this.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mutazil are not part of the Orthodox Sunni group and shouldn't be in the Kalam section actually. You're right. Maybe it would make sense to just remove the Mutazil sections from this article completely? There are other wikipedia articles on them anyway and they're not really part of the orthodox Sunnis.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you should add this explanation to the entry. Something on the lines of "Barelvi is a term originally used in the Indian subcontinent but now is used to mean people following traditional Hanafi sunnism". That would make it more accurate.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting Wahabism, Salafism, Deobandis and Barelvis all under one sections entitled "subsects of Islam" without any further details (unlike here in the talk section where you've very succintly listed the differences) is misleading. That was my concern. I'm sure that if you edit all the comments here and put them into the article, my concerns would be addressed. There's also some internal inconsistency eg. the "Current trends" section lists Barelvi but not Deobandi, the four schools of Fiqh are listed under the section "subsects" (although this is just for categorising subsects) which is all misleading. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, such matters can be mentioned as "facts" rather than opinions. eg. The dean of Azhar said such and such in this fatwa and a link to the source. That would be okay. Thank you for the comments. Will you have the time to make the additions to the section or shall I edit and merge in your comments? I didn't see your signature so I thought I'd ask here itself. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsects within Sunni Islam 

message: Paradoxic, this is NOT the place to launch an assault on Sunnis. I don't think that the historical account given is unfair; I'm neither a Sunni nor a Shi'a, and I did my best to be even-handed. You are adding text that accuses Sunni of being innovators, wrong, etc., AND including unproven accusations such as the claim that Muawiyah poisoned Hasan ibn Ali. There is no evidence for this; it's of a piece with Twelver Shi'a claims that every one of the imams was a martyr, killed by the evil Sunnis. 
I think we can erase most of the history in that summary, which was written before the Succession to Muhammad was developed, and just refer readers to the Succession article. Perhaps you'll accept that, since the Succession article gives a great deal of space to Shi'a claims. Zora 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradoxic's edits 

message: I would suggest that the introduction to this article could do with some considerable improvement:
#I don't think "Sunni Islam" is generally regarded in the English language as being "short for" اهل السنة والجماعة , which should also be translated;
#If by contrast it is "short for" it, then one of the articles should redirect to the other instead of there being two separate articles;
#Considerably more info about what Sunni Islam is could go into the intro. Palmiro | Talk 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I have moved the "Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split" to its own article. I also think that this article needs a major clean up. It isn't as good as the Shi'a Islam article, which has more information. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved historic background 

message: I can't imagine you really wanted to replace the introductory paragraph about the meaning of Sunni Islam with a paragraph about tanning, but two different people have put it back in. If you're serious, the proper English form of that sentence would be: "Sunni Muslims enjoy tanning very much. Part of their daily salat is an obligatory visit to a sunbed." Art LaPella 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suntan?

message: God did not make divisions, but the ignorance of men has made division. I suggest to all Muslims to simply refer to themselves as beleivers of God and Muslims not be the terms Shia and Sunni. The differences that exist are on opinion that has been turned to dogma this does not warrent seperate categories to the extend that is being done today. Does it really matter who succeded the Prophet Mohammed? No, not now! Not in our time. So peoples definition of religion is based on who they should follow that is not appointed by God? No. This is totally wrong by all parties. 69.196.139.250 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It is Ammoral to divide Religion

message: Please don't add Salafis as a Madhab. They are not one. Please refer the Madhab article for more information. They are a Hanbali offshoot. If you have reasons and points to prove otherwise, please mention them here and we can come to a conclusion. 
--Nkv 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Madhabs 

message: Source for the word: 
--Striver 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Jama'a

message: Mckhan speaking with you is just a waste of time , you are always running from the main topic , We Ahbash are Sunnis and you will not change that fact .
You say "Habashis have been exposed from USA to Australia" .... all facts show that they are growing each day , Just In They United states They have more than 20 mosques and Schools , In Australia The Government gave them An Islamic Radio Station (The Muslim Community Radio), Canada (they have several mosques + Schools) , In The Middle east : (In Lebanon they have more than 10 Schools , more than 25 Mosques and Mousalla's (prayer place ) , Islamic Radio Station ,They even Own a University (you can add that link to your list if you want : http://www.gu.edu.lb), in Jordan they have several School and Mosque , even in Palestine , same goes to Europe (France , Germany ... )  ! They only thing they are doing is growing day by day And you will not change that fact :)
About The political issue ... do you think if they didn't have a deputy they could get all licences for the Muslim Community ? (you have to live in Lebanon to know how stuff work there ...)
AL-Ahbash Are Sunni's , Ahbach word came from Habesha , habesha is a place in Ethiopia , Since The Sheikh (Abdullah Al Harari) teach the People The Sunnis Path to his Student , Sheikh Abdullah Students were Called "Habashis" , They are known to be Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'a , on Imam Shafie School .
Al-Ahbash are a MAJOR SUNNI GROUP so keep your lies for your self and stop your defamation campaign . --Muslim sunni 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous  - 2 

message: The (in)famous List of groups referred to as cults, which unfortunately seems undeleteable, lists since some months Sunni Islam as a cult (and, BTW also Shi'a Islam and whatsnot). This may be in line with the current set of criteria detailed in the intro of that article, but I take it as sign, that these criteria are flawed. Anybody interested in discussing the issue there? I'm out of time and nerves at this isssue. --Pjacobi 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm exhausted, can somebody please take up the issue at  [[List of groups referred to as cults]]? 

message: I would like to propose some major restructuring to this article for stylistic, aesthetic and practical reasons. As it is, certain sections of the article have become bloated which is unnecessary considering that there are already separate articles devoted to those subjects. I will try to keep my suggestions brief for the sake of discussion:
*The etymology, history, adherents and further reading sections must be kept as is and perhaps even improved upon somewhat; there is really no other place to put that content.
*The section on notes and external links, obviously, shouldn't be touched. Though I would prefer that the section on notes is simply called references.
*The sections for six pillars of iman and sunni view of hadith are excellent, and exactly what the rest of the article should emulate. The sunni view of hadith especially; it merely contains links to the Wikipedia articles for the mentioned topics, not overly lengthy paragraphs explaining it.
*The section on school of law and theological traditions are just awful. I say this now with complete honesty, considering that between 12 March 2012 and 13 March 2012 I was the one who personally added most of the references for the madhhabs. In retrospect, it just doesn't belong here.
In short, I would like to take most of the content for the schools of law and put it in the article for madhhabs, which to be frank is neglected. I would also like to take most of the content for the schools of theology and put it in the article for Islamic theology, most of which is already there anyway. The latter section here in this article could mention all major schools in one sentence without the details of where most adherents live and who founded it; the former could be summarized in the same way.
It is my hope that implementing these changes will make the article easier to read and provide better categorization for the issues discussed therin. I await the responses of concerned editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In regard to the section in legal schools, even the article for Madhhab would have become bloated with excessive details not directly related to the matter at hand. Keeping that in mind, I performed a partial merge to the articles for each school. I feel that the Sunni Islam article is now less cluttered and focuses on only the most pressing details regarding the schools; readers of Wikipedia who wish to know more can simply click on the links for each school and seek more information there. I hope my edits are seen as helpful and non-controversial, and feedback is much needed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging out redundant content (major proposed restructuring) 

message: The lead to the article seems like it was written by Sufi and Salafi editors both trying to push their opposing points of view, in regard to the third paragraph. It's uncited and ab it overly long, so I think a better choice would be to simply remove the details regarding jurisprudence and leave such information in the appropriate articles. I hope this is acceptable to my fellow editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradicting lead 

message: You still need something about the Sunnis on this page so that the basics of all the different denominations are on one page and could be compared. The Sunnis are the biggest denomination in Islam and even the adherents of their individual schools of thought out number some of the smaller denominations. Therefore you need this data on this page.
I would propose having a table of the main similarities and differences for this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that I'm not the only one ready to help! This page is about Sunnis, so do you mean something about the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites here? I think the Arabic version of this article might have something like that. We would need a serious amount of verifiable, reliable sources though, to ensure that nobody's beliefs are misrepresented. Perhaps there are articles here where we could simply borrow such sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no table at Shia Islam and I think it would be inappropriate to have one. It would be almost impossible to construct one that isn't original research. Any comparisons have to be made by reliable sources, we can't do those comparisons ourselves. I'm confused by the statement "You still need something about the Sunnis on this page". This is the page on Sunni Islam. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences among denominations of Islam 

message: "Estimates of the world Sunni population has been estimated by some analysts to be from over 75% to 90%."
This sentence seems to me to imply that 75% to 90% of the world's population is Sunni Moslem, rather than that the Sunnis comprise that proportion of all Moslems. Dawright12 (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Adherents Phrasing 

message: discussion from talk page of User:Pass_a_Method
Mr pass a method my edit it totally nutral and also depended upon a reliable source.dont insert your WP:OR
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
you are making this article less informative.Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an absolutely ridiculous claim, Am Not New/Dil e Muslim. Barelvis comprise 200 million out of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they share South Asia with several other sub-categories of Sunni Islam like Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth. Please don't use Wikipedia as a Barelvi propaganda platform; see WP:SOAPBOX. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr mezzomezzo your above made statement is WP:OR.and where i added my own contents.mezzomezzo stick to what the sources say in stead of making your own analysis.Dil e Muslim talk 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single source on all the related articles note that Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth are also Sunnis and that Barelvi is a sub category for Sunni, not referring to all Sunnis in South Asia. Even if you refuse to accept that, the fact that at least six editors are now regularly reverting what they all agree is OR in your part is telling. You're only making things worse for yourself by being combative. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The dictionary mentions that Barelvis call themselves that, not that they are that. Ahlus Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah is the Arabic long form of Sunni, which is more like a slang term/short form. And since Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith are also acknowledged as movements within Sunni Islam by Oxford University Press sources as can be seen across multiple articles, your attempt to subtly hint that they (as the other Sunni movements in South Asia after Barelvis) are somehow heretics is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Seeing editors who adhere to the Barelvi movement such as yourself attempt to write this in to Wikipedia over the past seven years has made a number of editors, including myself, aware of what you're trying to do. Be logical and think of what will happen if you continue this sort of behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barelvis status 

message: "Sunni Islam is the world's largest religious bodyReligious Diversity and Children's Literature: Strategies and Resources,  Sandra Brenneman Oldendorf - 2011, p 156 and largest religious denomination for any religion in the worldNew York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s, Andrew Karmen - 2006, p 223."
I question the appropriateness of the sources used to substantiate these claims.  There is a relevant discussion regarding the first source at talk:Catholic Church --Zfish118 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead References 

message: I would like to see more about how Sunni Islam is governed.  For instance, how do individual Mosques relate to each other?  Do the "Schools of Law" provide supervision for the Mosques; or is each Mosque self governing?  I am new to this topic, and unfortunately cannot provide such information myself. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that Islam as a religion lacks a central authority like Roman Catholicism for example, so the governance of religious bodies tends to differ depending on location, country, culture and so forth. Actually, we could still probably find sources stating that too which could be a good addition to the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is essentially the kind of information that I would find really beneficial to this article.  Based on my very brief research the past few days, I came to that basic conclusion, but previously had no background whatsoever to understand the material in these articles (this article, as well as the main Islam article). --Zfish118 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome work so far, good job. I will try to see what else I can add as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved coverage of leadership

message: The first paragraph, second sentence contains a rather definitive statement about the size of Sunni Islam compared to other religious denominations. The references cited are a book about religious diversity in US schools and a book about murder rates in New York, neither primary sources for population statistics in the Middle East, North Africa or South East Asia. I suggest clarification or removal unless better reference material can be found. I'm investigating suggestions. (First time contributor, don't know if I followed protocol.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auslander392 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally if the quality of a source is challenged but the source is considered reliable, then deletion is a no-no; instead, it should be tagged with Template:Better source. That way, editors know to come here to the talk page and discuss potential replacements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Quality 

message: The map is extremely helpful, thank you for that. Is it possible to split it into two, one for Sunni and one for Shia? F.Tromble (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools of Law 

message: The Islamic radicalism remains no less a challenge to the world than it did back at 2001 after 9/11. One of its chief aspects involves how non-Muslims, who typically have little knowledge of Islam, may accurately identify Muslim moderates.
Muslim moderation is defined by attitudes and conduct, not by abstractions or historical precedents, which, as with all religions, may be interpreted to support any ideological position. Observing and analyzing Sunni Muslims by such positive, practical criteria is extremely easy. There are more than a billion Sunnis in the world, and they are not all jihadists or fundamentalists, so telling them apart should not be difficult with a little effort. Identifying moderate Shia Muslims is harder, but one thing may be said immediately: those who follow Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq prove their moderation daily, by their silent but effective support to the U.S.-led liberation coalition.
Moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: "what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?" Every Muslim in the world knows about Wahhabism, and knows that it is embodied in al-Qaida. If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate. Denouncing the Saudis alone is not enough; radicals criticize the Saudi monarchy for insufficiently enforcing Wahhabi beliefs. The root cause of Sunni terror is Wahhabism, not the monarchy.
It seems unnecessary to add that those who try to disclaim a link between Wahhabism and al-Qaida, or who blame al-Qaida on American machinations, cannot be considered moderates. If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying "there is only Islam," or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like "Salafism" -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist. Such a radical will not, under any circumstances, declare his or her opposition to Wahhabism per se. They may even claim that the whole concept was invented by Westerners such as myself.
A parallel example may be cited from the history of Communism. Stalinist Communists would repudiate the charge that they were Communists, calling themselves progressives, liberals, or socialists. They would deny that Communism intended anything malign toward the U.S., portraying America as an aggressor (something Islamists and Stalinists have in common) but nonetheless claiming loyalty to it. They would often argue over whether Stalinism even existed. And they would never denounce Stalin, even though the entire planet knew about the atrocities of the Soviet regime. Neither will Islamist radicals denounce Wahhabism.
Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.
Takfir is used to justify the radical Sunni massacres of Shia Muslims in Iraq. It underpins the ideology of the Saudi-Wahhabi sect, the extremist Sunni Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and the bloodthirsty Sunni jihadist movements in Pakistan. It also serves to bind together Muslim extremists through the illusion that they belong to a purified elite. Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.
Moderate Muslims do not engage in takfir. Shias shun takfir, including radical Shias, and Shias fighting against Sunnis who persecute them do not practice takfir against their foes. Enemies of terrorist Wahhabis do not accuse them of unbelief, but of criminality. Traditional Muslims avoid accusations of unbelief, as they were counseled to do by the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet never anticipated that Muslims would fall into unbelief.
Moderate Muslims, including Shias as well as Sunnis, also do not refer to followers of other religions, especially Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, as unbelievers. The Koran never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book, worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this outlook.
Moderate Muslims do not employ the rhetoric of jihad, including attempts to split hairs over the meaning of the term. Moderate Muslims seek a place in the contemporary world for Islam to be respected as a faith, not conflicts in which they may gamble on victory with the lives of others. Jihad vocabulary does nothing to advance the cause of Islam; it creates obstacles to it.
This does not mean moderate Muslims do not defend themselves when attacked. They do. But moderate Muslims in Iraq are under attacks from Sunni radicals, just as moderate Muslims were murdered by Serbs in the former Yugoslavia and moderate Muslims in Chechnya are killed by both Russian troops and Wahhabi adventurers. Iraqi Sunni radicals have more in common with Milosevic's fascist bands than with moderate Muslims. Wahhabis in the Caucasus have interests closer to those of Putin than those of ordinary Chechens, in that both seek a pretext for war. And the Iraqi Sunni radicals and other Wahhabis, Putin the neo-Stalinist, and the Serbs all benefit from the same "antiwar" cheering section in the U.S.
Moderate Muslims also do not reject allegiance to non-Muslim governments. According to current interpretations of Shafi'i sharia, a major school of Islamic jurisprudence through history, there are no countries where Muslims are not required to obey local governments, for the security of their communities. Moderate Muslims do not proclaim public loyalty to such governments while privately counseling that Western governments are inferior to Muslim religious decrees. They do not invent civil rights violations as a political means of fighting Western authorities. Moderate Muslims recognize that Muslims have more rights and opportunities for advancement in most Western countries than in most Muslim lands.
Finally, moderate Muslims are not Arabocentric or trapped in the rhetoric of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent. They recognize that the styles, idioms, and spiritual practices of Islam differ considerably from Mali to Malaysia and from Bosnia to Botswana. Moderate Muslims accept that such diversity should also exist among Muslims in the West; that there can and will be an Islam that is fully American in its culture, as Bosnians and Indonesians reflect the customs and cultures of their lands.
How do moderate Muslims deal with radicals?
Moderate Muslims admit there is a problem in the body of the religion -- not in the principles and traditions of the faith, but among the believers themselves. They recognize that radical ideology and terrorism threaten the future of Islam and must be stopped.
Moderate Muslims do not limit their struggle against extremism to perfunctory statements stating that terror is incompatible with the religion. Rather, moderate Muslims publicly identify, denounce, and combat radicals.
Is the Islamic establishment in the U.S. -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA) -- moderate? No, it is not. Not one of these three groups has ever identified or criticized a Muslim radical in the U.S., except to slander authentic moderates by trying to portray them as extremists. To cite a few notable examples: the aforementioned organizations, which I have called "the Wahhabi lobby,"
accused the moderate author Khalid Duran of being a non-Muslim because they disagreed with an opinion he held (takfir);
labeled the Sufi spiritual shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani a dangerous sectarian because he warned at the end of the 1990s that Islamist extremists in Russia were attempting to purchase nuclear materials;
accused me of "jihadism" because I defended the Kosovar Albanians. In reality, I insisted on recognition that the Albanians are multireligious and that the Kosovo war was ethnic, not religious. 
Meanwhile, however, the Wahhabi lobby has stood by every accused radical to appear before an American court, paying for their lawyers and inventing excuses for their transgressions.
Moderate Muslims do not come up with bogus fatwas and other gimmicks to try to befog the Western public. Nor do they suddenly remake themselves as Sufis to purge the record of their previous radical statements. Moderate Muslims know that the foundational texts, commentaries, and legal, philosophical and theosophical works of the religion suffice as a bulwark against extremism; that is why today's extremism is a new and radical, not a traditional or conservative, phenomenon. They also know that for a person to be called a Sufi, authentic spiritual study, based on meaningful traditions and precedents, must be the basis of his or her religious activity, not a search for instant credibility.
Finally, some moderate Muslims may seek to "reform" Islam, but moderates are not required to be "reformers." Many who today proclaim their desire to "reform" Islam are not moderate at all in their manners and mental equipment; some are simply publicity seekers who think that by talking about "Islamic reformation" they will gain access to the non-Muslim public. Others are obsessed egomaniacs who consider arguing over an 800-year old text to be more important than defeating terrorist conspiracies. But Ibn abd al-Wahhab, founder of the eponymous sect 250 years ago, is proclaimed a reformer, and Saudi Wahhabis assert they have reformed Islam. Opportunism and sectarianism are ever the twin obstacles to the success of moderates who seek real improvement in society and especially, today, its interreligious relations.
Moderate Muslims concentrate on devotion to their religion, not on politics or public relations, and always recall that the Prophet called for his umma to be a community of moderation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.carter911 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you going with this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate Sunni-Islam 

message: There are conflicts today in the Middle East where Sunni-dominated forces and Shiite-dominate forces are fighting each other. Article needs to cover the whos, whats, whys and hows of this. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to cover conflict between Sunnis and Shiites

message: I came to this article seeking to understand the history of conflict within Sunni Islam. To use an analogy, the Sunni - Shia schism could be likened to the Catholic - Orthodox division in Christendom. Yet within Catholicism there has also been a history of factionalism and division. Protestants and Catholics are the most visible break, but there are also deep divisions within these groups. Clearly deep divisions also exist among Sunnis. For example, Sunni critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort the true Sunni understanding of Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and the Taliban. Can a section on divisions internal to the Sunni faith be included in this article? Asd154 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to cover divisions and conflicts within Sunni Islam