Template talk:Sunni Islam

message: The Arabic version of this template includes the Muslim Brotherhood as a movement. There is a good point to be made in that the MB is both an organization and an ideology. Additionally, we also have the Tablighi Jamaat, Murabitun World Movement and Ansar as-Sunnah - where do they fit in? Organizations or movements? And is there a way to work them in without causing the template to become bloated? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources for what, though? I'm not so much making an argument about what is or isn't an organization/movement as I am simply asking - in fact, I'd need to ask you if you have any sources on it. I got nothing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I would say best to leave MB out of it then. F.Tromble (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just had the same thought, there should be listing of Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligh etc. because these are massive Sunni organistions (not really movements though). Perhaps there could be a section called Sunni organisations? Sakimonk  talk 21:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good subcategory to make, but then there's the risk of it becoming cluttered. Actually, could we make a category for organizations and at the same time trim the section for books of hadith? Some of the titles mentioned there are minor in terms of historical influence, yet it's by far the most bloated part of the template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movements or organizations? 

message: Template looks really dull comparing to other islamic and religious templates. Needs to be re-worked on. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template needs to be re-worked 

message: Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that escalated quickly. , you should have started discussing here after your first WP:BOLD edit was reverted, instead of reverting the reversion (see WP:BRD). Now then, about the presence of Sufism in the list of aqidahs, I agree that it looks out of place and is also not supported by the main articles: Aqidah#Traditional Sunni Schools and Schools of Islamic theology#Sunni schools of divinity. Neither lists Sufi under the Sunni aqidahs. I'm not sure where Sufi (or Ahl al-Hadith, for that matter) belongs on this template, but at least not under Aqidah, from the looks of GBooks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

text: It is of course possible that your "accusers" forgot about this in the meantime. Try getting their attention by pinging them, e.g. via  ~~~~. For this to work, you'll need to combine a link to the user with your signature (four tildes) in the same edit. Alternatively, leave a message at their user talk pages. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufi is not a school of divinity 

message: Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. Please remove.
213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 20 February 2016 

message: "Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”" Doug Weller talk 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my evidence over at the fringe board  the Atharis schools prominence is up in the air, however until we can sort that out: I would propose Athari be moved under others bracket per the statement from the same source: "This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school" Misdemenor (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Move is ok. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atharis 

message: There has been a long-running dispute relating to the status of the Zahiri school. It seems to have arrived at a consensus with respect to the Zahiri article, but we still have a disagreement about presentation in this template. There are two relevant areas of controversy:
# Encyclopedias and general histories commonly refer to the Zahiri madhhab as "extinct" or "defunct", while other sources cited in the article note that the modern Ahl-i-Hadith movement "consciously identified themselves with Zahiri doctrine", and that the maddhab is "prominent" among Salafis, though it is "not formally operating today". 
# While there is argeement that the Zahiri school was historically considered part of the Sunni legal community, some sources state that it was then "excluded from the Sunni consensus". It was conspicuously listed apart from the Sunni madhhabs in the Amman Message, and we haven't been able to find a RS that explicitly refers to its modern form as "Sunni".
The question is how the Sunni Islam template should be designed in view of the above. Here are the options which have been floated:
# Leave the template as it is.
# Move Zahiri under "extinct"
# Move Zahiri on its own line with "disputed" in parentheses.
# Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there.
# Remove Zahiri from this template altogether.
Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 4: Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there. Option 1 doesn't seem preferable because two editors have strongly opposed that no matter what. Option 2 is demonstrably false based on RS. Option 3 would only be a temporary solution since a dispute would still need to be resolved by editors. Option 5 is doctrinally impossible since all of traditional Islam is either Sunni, Shia or Ibadhi, and Zahirism isn't Shia or Ibadhi. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Option 4 is in my opinion the most correct. 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Option 4 renaming subsection "inactive" would be better. Misdemenor (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Inactive still returns us back to the same discussion over POV pushing that we had before the RfC took place: the errant insistence of one editor that Zahirism is extinct when reliable sources demonstrate that this clearly isn't the case. If we're having a discussion about using the term "inactive" instead of "other" as the option suggested, then we didn't need to have organized the RfC above; it was a waste of time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs 

message: The RfC has served its purpose in attracting additional participants and revealing their choices. If we can't reach consensus for change, the template would default to its current state. Since it's farther from the "inactive" option than it is from "other", I would expect that the editors arguing for the former would take particular interest in consensus-building. Eperoton (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of those who participated can agree that the current state of the template isn't ideal. So I must concede, pushing aside my previous pessimism, that the RfC didn't end the discussion entirely but it was a step. In that case, I'd still stand by Other - the original language of option 4 - since it's the most neutral term possible, delineates the difference between the four madhahib and all others, and doesn't add any sort of value judgment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC discussion continued 

message: It states that Zahiri is neither extint/inactive nor defunct. It still exists.
212.253.113.96 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutly it is sunni. Otherwise it should not be on this template, Right?
212.253.113.96 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not part of the traditional Sunni schools but since they would self identify as Sunni, its is on this template. Some sources call it a minor school of Sunni Islam. It should not be alongside the established four schools for various reasons including that its not recognized school within the Sunni sphere. Most academics have been careful in calling it Sunni however, it has somewhat revived in the spirit of groups related to Salafism. Editors wanting to keep it on the template may have been inclined to do so because of its historical relation with Sunnis as well as self label policy. Wikipedia must focus first and foremost on the mainstream definition then present other minority views. What's "older" is also irrelevant to how prominence is given. I get that Zahiri's extinction is disputed but the "other" section does not equate to it being inactive nor extinct. If you look just a few threads above, consensus has been achieved on this issue. Misdemenor (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  212.253.113.96: The placement of Zahiri was established by a WP:CONSENSUS reached through a WP:RFC, which you can find on this talk page above. If you want to change that, you have to get a new consensus for your proposed change. Eperoton (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amman Message]] 

message: Following a recent notice of subtle POV pushing attempts harking back to 2014, I've separated Ahl-i Hadith from Salafism. More details are on Talk:Ahl-i Hadith, but basically this is based on reliable sources, mostly which clarify that the conflation of the two movements is primarily a view of their theological opponents, but analysts note that the two movements are historically distinct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Ahl-i Hadith from Salafism 

message: Mu'tazila and Murji'ah are NOT members of the Sunni ("orthodox") Muslim majority group i.e., Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah. According to Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his Sharh Mukhtasar Ibn al-Hajib:(Source) 
The same definition has been used by other scholars, such as: (Source)
* Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi in his Kitab Usul al-Din.
* Murtada al-Zabidi in his Ithaf al-Sada al-Muttaqin.
* Ahmad al-Dardir in his sharh (interpretation) on al-Kharida al-Bahiyya.
As well as Abdallah ibn Alawi al-Haddad, Abu 'Amr al-Dani, Abu Mansur 'Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, Abu al-Muzaffar al-Isfrayini (d. 471/1078–9), Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, Jalal al-Din al-Dawani, and Ahmad ibn Ajiba. (Source)
Based on the decisions of the 2016 international conference on Sunni Islam in Grozny regarding the distinguishing features of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah compared to the misguided people: the indispensable distinguishing features of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah are three interconnected foundations: Iman, Islam and Ihsan, which is why, in terms of Iman, Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah are Ash'aris and Maturidis, in terms of obedience to Allah they are followers of one of the four madhabs: the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i and the Hanbali, and in terms of Ihsan they are Sunni Muslims, which means those who follow the path of moral self-improvement shown by great teachers such as the Sufi imams: Abu al-Qasim al-Junayd al-Baghdadi, 'Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, Baha' al-Din Naqshband and other righteous mentors.
According to these reliable sources, Mu'tazila and Murji'ah MUST be removed, because the template is about Sunni Islam. Sufis MUST be added to the template, because Sufism is rooted in Sunni Islam.
If there are no objections, I will apply these suggestions soon.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for linking to this. I'm afraid I have to object to this categorization of the Mutazilites. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mu'tazila and Murji'ah are NOT Sunni 

message: Regarding your edit here. Well, there are several sources 'above' and a fair number of scholars have confirmed this. For example, Murtada al-Zabidi (d. 1205/1791) stated that Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a consists of ahl hadith (followers of hadith), Sufis, Ash'aris and Maturidis. And this is generally accepted by the mainstream of Muslims, including the Shi'is themselves! According to Markaz al-Abhath al-'Aqa'idiyya () which is a Shi'i religious center (under the supervision of the office of 'Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani) stated that: the vast majority of Sufis throughout history are Sunnis.--TheEagle107 (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufis are Sunnis