Template talk:Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIslam Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015[edit] (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of religions not regarded as part of Islam but "Islamically influenced"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I've corrected this as Classical sects of Islam (Sunni, Shia, khawarij) versus modern sects (a few decades to a century max). Sakimonk talk 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentially the classical sects section covers the four main sects that have been recognised throughout history, see the Amman Message - Influenced groups however can cover those groups which may or may not be considered actually part of islam e.g. NOI, ahmadi, quranism etc. which all are heterodox according to mainstream islam. Sakimonk talk 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many Muslims may consider Ahmadis etc to be heterodox, non-Muslim, whatever, but that is not the case world over where they are treated and recognized as a Muslim group. Classifying them as "Influenced group" fails WP:NPOV.--Peaceworld 10:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sakimonk The distinction is w.r.t. time, 1400 years of recognition of sects versus novel groups which were invented only a few decades to a century ago. I used a less POV term. Sakimonk talk 23:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakimonk:firstly per article Sufism#Formalization_of_doctrine was first formalized during the 10th century; secondly Mahdavia was founded during the 15th century; thirdly per article Quranism, quranist beliefs existed during the first few centuries, referencing to the Mutazila. So your contention that all these denominations have founded in the last few decades or a century ago is plainly false.--Peaceworld 08:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • By essentially listing pre-300AH and post-300AH denominations separately, it appears you are inventing your own classification. "Old age" doesn't necessarily determine whether a denomination is "classical". The two words aren't synonymous. For some, Ibadis may not necessarily be "classical", as it is too small.
  • More importantly, it makes far more sense to have a single section for "Denominations". The current subdivision is simply unwarranted. Are you going to divide "Texts and laws" into two? what about "Culture and society"? or even "History", which I'm sure one can divide that too. You'll end up with a pointless super long template The standard is to either list the denominations alphabetically or by size of the denominations (which was the case, until you made your changes).--Peaceworld 15:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ibadi are the descendants from the khawarij which is one of the earliest sects in Islam - and they aren't "so small" since they make up almost the entirety of Oman and a large parts of North Africa. These are classical sects as they are are what have been historically recognised in Islam as the four main sects and it is in accordance with the Amman Message where from every part of the world pretty much hundreds of scholars agreed on what constitutes the sects and recognised traditions of Islam. Other denominations are exactly what they are, other denominations which fall outside of the classical codification of Islam through its 1400 years of history. Sakimonk talk 22:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is actually a compromise which should satisfy the standards of wikipedia, as most other editors wouldn't even consider quranists for example as even part of islam as they nullify the basis of the testimony of faith (by rejection of the sunnah). Sakimonk talk 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sakimonk The current version is better than before. If we are going to label some denominations "classical", then it probably makes sense to label "others" as "modern", which I've just done. As far as Amman Message and so on and so forth is concerned, all come under POV and therefore should never be a basis for categorizing denominations.--Peaceworld 14:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One POV is that quranists, ahmadis etc are sects of Islam, the opposing POV is that they are not part of Islam at all. NPOV is that they can be listed but a distinction has to be made at least with regard to time. Yeah I think modern / classical is okay. Sakimonk talk 05:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way I have no idea who it was but I'm guessing it was you or misdemeour since you are the only two I've been in contact with lately but someone accused me of using IP addresses to make edits. I've just had a look at the pages I usually edit and I've seen a few different IP users making edits - this is not me. I wouldn't ever be so pathetic to hide my accountability because I am proud of my edits and if I ever make a mistake (which I quite often do) I am proud to admit it and discuss. Sakimonk talk 05:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was Peaceworld111 or Misdemenor who accused me, there is an IP user who is editing the pages I also edit but he is located in Virginia USA according to the IP address, I live in the UK... Sakimonk talk 05:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not me.--Peaceworld 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison with Template:Religion topics Suggests that Yazdânism AND Bahá'í should be DELETED from Template:Islam[edit]

According to Template:Religion topics

  1. Bábism
  2. Azali
  3. Bahá'í Faith
  4. Druze

ARE Abrahamic religions BUT NOT Islam

  1. Yazdânism (Yazidism · Ishikism · Ali-Illahism · Yarsanism)

ARE Indo-Iranian religions AND they are non-islamic


Yazdânism AND Bahá'í SHOULD BE DELETED from Template:Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Druze, on the other hand, might be included explicitly in to the list. (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corrected template[edit]


| list5name = classical denominations | list5title = Classical denominations

| list5 =

| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations

| list6 = (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested correction[edit]

| list6name = other denominations | list6title = Other denominations

| list6 = (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALSO * Tolu-e-Islam should be added.. (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

But, Druze accepts the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad and Qur'an as their current holy book at least one of their books, as well. This is not the case for Baha'is. Besides, they don't have another new-prophet like Ahmadis. A new prophet is an indication for the beginning of a new region. (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a decision we can make - we go by what they say about themselves. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Druzes are classified under Shia. The matter is resolved. Baha'is are neither Shia but a new religion. That matter is also resolved. But Wahabis are a new denomination since they do not follow one of the Five Sunni madhhabs. THEREFORE, they should be listed under LATTER-DAY denominations together with Ahmadis. They are a newly emerged non-historical distinct denomination who DOES NOT follow any one of the FIVE LEGAL Sunni madhhabs recognized by the Amman Message. (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wahabis are part of Salafi movement then why Wikipedia is having separate article named Wahabi movement. Which one is movement which one is not? I would suggest as Wahabis are new denomination, they should be written separately. ScholarM (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommended Reading[edit] (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Note that This book says Wahhabis and Ahmadis- actually he uses the word Qadianis- are NEW-Madhhabs. It is more advanced than Sakimonk's Islam for dummies book. (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an expression of your misinformed / preconceived ideas and total lack of understanding the subtle and complex reality of the Islamic schools and branches. Wahhabism is the movement of societal reformation and return to orthodoxy in the arabian peninsula in the 18th century. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a highly qualified hanbali scholar and the entire movement consisted mainly of the hanabila of the eastern parts of what is now known as Saudi arabia. Modern Salafism is an intricate and non-homogeneous movement originating in Egypt in a post-colonial atmosphere, its original proponents were Muhammed Abduh and Jamaluddin al afghani - this was an agenda for a return to ijtihad within the madhahib primarily. Both Salafism and Wahhabism have a degree of interface but essentially they are each distinct. WIth regard to fiqh and derivation of legal rulings outside of the madhahib - this is where you come to ahlul hadeeth. This is the utilisation of the volumes of hadeeth and deriving fiqh from them - similarly to this is the phenomenon of scholars commonly utilising the usul-ul fiqh of the madhahib but not necessarily arriving at the same conclusions. The reason wahhabism is assocaited with this is because the hanbali madhab (being the last of the four) is quite heavily textualist in its modus operandi but to conlfate it with the other methods and approaches is totally logically flawed and utterly lacks any academic integrity! Sakimonk talk 00:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't believe me, have a read of this biography of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab Rahimahullah, may Allah raise his station in the here after and grant him a lofty abode. The author explicity makes mention of the use of the term wahhabi to denote it as a "fifth madhhab";

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)Reply[reply]
Sunni is divided into Four or Five Madhhabs. If you declare Wahabis as Hanbali, that's O.K. for us. This might be added into the existing templates.. (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

In a sense you are right, many sufi groups are simply sunni Muslims following sufi traditions. However, there are actually a very large number of sufi groups which are independent from sunni Islam by a long shot. This is in the sense that they have their own unique traditions, practices, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, chains of saints etc. which are all distinguishing factors. For example Ibn Arabi is a highly controversial figure which is regarded as a cheif saint in Sufi sects but whos writings are considered extremely heterodoxical by mainstream Sunni Islam
What I mean by this is that there are Sunnis who are sufi but not all sufis are sunni. For example you actually have many shia sufis like the Bektashi Order and you also have religions sects or groups (whatever you would call it) like Universal Sufism founded by people who (may have been Muslim / Sunni originally or may have been influenced heavily by Sunni Islam) but have essentially created their own version of Islam (this could be perceived as a "sect" according to WP guidelines).
Conversely, actual orthodox "Sufism" (as the science of tazkitun nafs) is an integral part of Islam but is not to be confused with deviant non- sunni sufi groups or those who identify as sunni but practice traditions opposed to the sunnah. It's worthy to note that many of these originate from the Indo-pak region and there is a strong association with loss of the arabic linguistic skills necessary to interpret the scriptures (Quran and Hadith) in addition to the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism. In contrast, you can see the deobandi tradition which clung to memorisation of Quran and a strong linguistic tradition who have kept firm upon the sunnah and not deviated. Sakimonk talk 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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. (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same word can mean something different in different contexts. Thus we have Modern history which certainly does not mean history that's corrected older history or is more accurate. It means postclassical history - a period of time. That's how it's used in this template. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The usage of the term modern is appropriate but sensitivities should be taken into account. I think latter-day is equally justifiable and more palatable for all. Sakimonk talk 00:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, then. (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakimonk: Latter-day sounds like the Latter Day Saint movement which unsurprisingly redirects to the Latter Day Saints movement. In fact a google search reveals search results for, again unsurprisingly, the Latter Day Saints movement. "Modern" is the appropriate term (as opposed to what you stated in the edit summary) which according to the article Modern history corresponds to post 16th century.--Peaceworld 18:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakimonk: Perhaps I should also add "Modern" is an antonym to "Classical".--Peaceworld 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been reading the conversation here, and i thought that maybe "traditional" vs "reformist" might be a better way of naming things? Just my humble opinion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, is it me, or is the colon-indentation-reply thingy not working properly (I see parentheses everywhere) - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, found the culprit - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. but the word REFORMIST can never be used. Because these guys are not reforming anything. Please do not try to make an analogy with Christianity on this issue. (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is written in the style of an encylopedia and its works are used in their true lexical sense. Latter-day is a very appropriate distinguishing term and its prevalence in the USA as being associated with LDS mormonism is irrelevant. Reformist can't be used as reformation is something positively associated with Sunni Islam (see mujaddid or salafi). Traditional can't be used as technically and objectively speaking the only sect that literally upholds the actual traditions of Islam (i.e. Quran and Sunnah) is Sunni Islam - all other denominations centralise around key figures who have derived their own traditions (e.g. the imamate in shai'ism, or the sufi saints in sufism) hence why the term orthodox is only assocaited with sunni Islam and all other sects are heterodox. This may come across as me being biased but I am speaking from a purely academic POV which is brutal but accurate. In keeping with WP:NPOV this isn't what I have decided to go on in the breakdown of denominations. Sakimonk talk 00:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Essentially my point is - the very fact that there is this schism from sunni Islam to give yield to these various sects entails the positive identity that sunni Islam is quite literally the original and orthodox form of Islam. Sakimonk talk 00:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

: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)Reply[reply]

In the very same line of thought, why is "latter-day" confusing but "modern" not? I find that using "modern" in this context would be more confusing - in the sense that these template labels pertain to religio-social cultures and traditions. Using "modern" in this context has connotations associated with it (e.g. one sect is "modern" in its traditions, approach to religion etc. whereas others are deemed non modern or archaic). We want to give a sense of time and establishment without confusing the reader. At least classical and latter-day gives this picture as a whole. The most accurate descriptors would be sects originating during the time of, or shortly after, the salaf versus sects which have come to being in very recent history (relatively speaking). Sakimonk talk 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, why should there be a division at all? And why this arbitrary threshold of 300 AH? Got any source to back up such a division? - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the unfounded threshold, Sakimonk, perhaps you didn't realize your case against the use of "Modern" can equally be used as an argument against the use of the word "classical".--Peaceworld 09:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The division is due to all texts sourced in this article (and literally all I have personally ever come across) on Islam classifying sects according to the initial separation of the Shia following the political division shortly after the death of the prophet SAWS and the khawarij who also sprouted out of political and theological disagreement within the time of the prophet's SAWS companions (for example the kharajites killed Utham RA). Then the Sufi sect which emerged in its primordial form in Baghdad shortly thereafter. Essentially you have over one thousand years of theological and philosophical discourse in the literature with regard to these four key sects - and they are commonly regarded as the classical and historical sects of Islam. It is only in the space of the last century or so that there has been an enormous sprouting of all sorts of groups, sects and religions etc. which are vaguely associated with Islam but really not universally regarded as such. For example no one would dispute that shi'a is a sect of Islam as this has been recognised for circa 1400 years. Quranists on the other hand are relatively unheard of and whatever little exists of them is quite contrary to what constitutes an Islamic sect (for example they actually collectively reject even the formal five prayers a day which is tantamount to rejection of Islam). Sakimonk talk 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm reading correctly, Sakimonk you're coming from the perspective of POV.--Peaceworld 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your inference from my statement "all texts sourced in this article (meaning the page on Islam and associated sects etc.)" is POV? This would bring into question the POV of the sources. I have confidence in editors using reliable sources and keeping in line with NPOV (to my knowledge this is the case). Sakimonk talk 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, my inference was from the following, "Essentially you have over one thousand years of theological and philosophical discourse..." till the very end. I don't see from Islam such a classification.--Peaceworld 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to understand that if this distinction isn't made then people will have a problem including quranism and ahmadi'ism etc. as denominations of Islam. By doing this you are saving the headache of future edit wars and drawn out arguments. Sakimonk talk 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over 88% of Muslims are Sunni, about 10 percent are shia, Sufis make up a large chunk of sunnis and also a considerable number of shias - Kharijites make up about 2 to 3 percent. These have been long established throughout the history of Islam as "sects". You will find this in any text that discusses Islam generally speaking. Quranism and ahmadi'ism don't actually fall within the traditional bounds of Islam (for example, Quranists reject the formal prayers, Ahmadis reject the seal of the prophethood, the Quranic account of Jesus (AS), the tenets of Jihad etc.) and moreover they are very recent groups and very localised. Most would not go as far as accepting them as being sects of Islam. At least I am trying to compromise. Sakimonk talk 22:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.--Peaceworld 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kharajites are roughly 1350 years old lol, they are widespread throughout the Islamic world, including North Africa and the arabian peninsula. You're just thinking of Ibadis in Oman. However, modern day khawarij cover a huge and widespread section of the Muslim world - these would be the more extreme and historic form of kharajiteism including many militant groups seen today in the Muslim world. It is the minhaj or methodology of the khawarij that is distinct (i.e. they are more severe in killing other Muslims than non-muslims armies). There is a long series of scholarly works pertaining to this topic but they are certainly more prominent in the islamic world, of nearly 2 billion, than the small minority of ahmadis in India and pakistan (and parts of the UK). For example, there has been an overwhelming majority of scholars who have come out and declared ISIL as khawarij Sakimonk talk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't confuse POV. According to our article ISIL, it's ideology is Wahhabism; that it is Khawarij is POV. Nevertheless you are requested to find sources that back up such a classification. Perhaps you want to look for a parallel as in Template:Christianity. We have Western Christianity; Eastern Christianity. I don't see the corresponding divisions Classical Islam or Modern Islam or for that matter Latter-day Islam as a classification in relevant sources.--Peaceworld 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that they are now just listed as denominations of Islam, with no distinction. That solves the problem so far as I'm concerned. Doug Weller (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Doug Weller, the problem with allowing that edit is that you are essentially enabling override of the talk section. The user FreeatlastChitchat who did that edit actually has also been reverting other edits which are in the process of discussion as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also it is worth mentioning that his edits are heavily POV pushing forward the ahmadi viewpoint which is not academically rigorous and a violation of WP:NPOV guidelines. EVEN if this version is "incorrect" it would still warrant due discussion to arrive to a consensus agreeable to all. Sakimonk talk 17:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, that solves the problem so far as I'm concerned. That's my opinion and I'm not going to say I disagree. I didn't expect you to agree, let's see what others say. Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being "politically correct" and giving the false impression that there are numerous significant denominations in Islam isn't an accurate portrayal of the subject at hand. It should be made clear that when the topic of Islam is being discussed in the entirety of the encyclopedia that it corresponds to the major interpretation of Islam being Sunni Islam (with over 90% of the almost 2 billion followers and over 1400 years of scholarly tradition, literature, philosophy etc. which these articles draw upon and dissect intellectually) and the rest corresponding to the only major schisms in the history of Islam i.e. the political divide that lead to Shia Islam and the esoteric practices and influences of hellenic philisophy that impacted on the Muslims in Baghdad that eventually lead to what we understand to be Sufism. Moreover, the kharajites that rebelled (during the lifetime of the companions RA) that has spawned the ideology of takfiri'ism and so on. These are all major and historically significant aspects of Islam that must be made clear when sects are being presented as a part of Islam. Yes it should also be noted that there happen to be a few shoot off movements (quranism, reformis, ahmadi'ism etc.) over the last century or two but this is absolutely nothing in comparison to the game changing immense political and theological splits that gave rise to the historical and classical sects of Islam. Sakimonk talk 17:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sakimonk (1) perhaps you should apply WP:BRD to yourself before advising others: You were the one bold enough to have come up with the idea of classifying sects. I reverted you, but instead of discussing first and arriving at a consensus you reverted me. (2) This section "Denominations" isn't about how much influence once sect has/had over another. We have section for "History" that discusses topics of historical importance. Honestly it seems as if you want a special position for Sunni Islam...do you want it emboldened? Underlined? Even Template:Christianity mentions the Catholic Church among all other denominations under a NPOV alphabetical order, although it represents 60% of Christians.--Peaceworld 19:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this pretty much undermines your position, Sakimonk. Per WP:BRD and the evidence by Peaceworld111, we should maintain this revision as the status quo, until consensus has been reached. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be frank there can be a hundred different ways to separate these sects. The best way is to just leave them 'AS IS'. Just a simple list. I'd like to ask in the interest of everyone concerned, just WHY does one editor wishes to create a separation? How does creating a separation benefit the encyclopedia? Sakimonk. I'll appreciate it if you just tell what benefits this new kind of listing will give us. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I'll also point out that the Roman Catholic Church believes that it is the original church and that all others split from it. Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The older versions of this template seperate out the denominations by Major Minor and Messianic, this makes perfect sense as this is exactly the accurate picture which presents the reality of Islam. Ahmadia and Mahdavia(zikri) are both messianic as they believe their leader was either a prophet or the leader (Ghulam Mirza called himself the messia and a modern day Jesus literally) most ahmadis either fully believe in Mirza as a prophet of God OR that he is the messiah / mahdi. Sakimonk talk 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The opening statement on Ahmadiiya quite literally says this.. "

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]


  1. ^ Annemarie Schimmel et al.: Der Islam III. Volksfrömmigkeit, Islamische Kultur, Zeitgenössische Strömungen. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1990, S. 418–420
  2. ^ A.R. Dard. Life of Ahmad (PDF). Islami International Publications. p. XV. Retrieved September 3, 2014.

Sakimonk talk 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat the reason it shouldn't be left AS IS is because this is an uncensored encylopedia and doesn't conform to being politically correct or appeasement of any group. The objective is to accurate represent the subject at hand. If 90% of the followers of this religion Islam conform to one particular sect this it MUST be made clear to the reader that it is a major branch and this is what is relevent to the topic at hand. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is somethign that should be left AS IS in case we offend anyone. Moreover, it should be made clear that groups like Ahmadis are centralised around messianic figures like Ghulam mirza etc. and that they differe significantly from what is typically known as "Islam". I'm not sorry for offending anyone in the way of being true to accuracy and representing the facts at hand. Sakimonk talk 23:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same goes for mahdavia (zikri) "Mahdavia, or Mahdavism, is a Mahdiist (Arabic: مهدوي ‎ mahdawi) sect founded by Muhammad Jaunpuri in India in the late 15th century.

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)Reply[reply]

Why should this template be so different from those for Christianity and Judaism? You are trying to insert a pov into the template. Doug Weller (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major branches[edit]

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.. (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wall of text is WP:BS[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but I don't suppose you were referring to Barnstars. The correct page would be WP:CB. - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HyperGaruda Thou hast made me laugh too hard, giveth me the money to repair mine cracked ribs :P. Yes I meant the Bollocks page, I completely forgot that Bullshit has been redirected to Bollocks for ages and ages. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just appeasement of fringe offshoots of the actual religion of Islam. The only sects in Islam are Sunni'ism and some shia groups, khawarij and sufis. The rest of the groups mentioned here are mostly not actually part of the religion of islam but are offshoot religions. The only difference between them and Bahai / druze/ universal sufism is that they actually still call themselves "muslim". Sooner or later they will stop doing that once they get enough recognition and funding from the US or Israel. This is exactly what happened with the bahais, once israel gave them a huge endorsement and let them build a giant temple there they stopped calling themselves shia muslims. Ahmadis are already getting quite a lot of funding and support from israel now becaue their religion rejects the Islamic principles of defensive war (which the Palestinians are engaged in). If you people are so worked up about being considered as part of Islam then why don't you just convert to actual Islam instead of pretending that ghulumi qadiani'ism is an actual form of Islam (which it isn't). The very fact that you reject the word of Allah on the matter of the seal of the prophethood in addition to the account of Jesus (AS) are two key proofs that you are not from Islam. Moreover, even if you reject those things but you still regard Ghulam as a mujaddid, you are supporting his kufr and advocating for it hence again you're not muslim. Sakimonk talk 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

98% of muslims are sunni or shia, the rest make up the 2 percent[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Look at this, the PROPER encylopedia written by professionals classifies Islamic sects are Sunni, Shia and Kharajite and then has OTHER SECTS and then lists all the rest[edit]


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)Reply[reply]

It should be made clear that ahmadi and mahdavia are messianic and not normal sects of Islam[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Here's a book written by ghulam himself, HERE. And here is a book from the OFFICIAL ahmadi website HERE Several times he calls himself either a prophet, Jesus, mahdi or the messiah. His religion considers him to be the messiah / second coming of jesus / mahdi. Why is this being censored? Hiding this information is SOAPBOXING and CENSORSHIP and violates all the guidelines set down in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sakimonk talk 21:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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.

First of all, Sufism is NOT a sect. Their members are from Sunni and Shia i.e. it is a mixture of Sunni and Shia which are the MAJOR branches.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. I've ammended it. Sakimonk talk 02:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what about these guys are they a distinct denomination? (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That article is a jumble of so many different things though, Muwahhid just means monotheist. All ahlus-sunnah are monotheist ideally. Sakimonk talk 02:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol I'm so confused. Are you blocked?? I actually support most of your edits and I think you are a good contributor in general. I think you should make a proper account. Sakimonk talk 02:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Druses are Mowahhid but wiki-religion template says they are non-muslims.. This is contradictionary.. (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion: I think all Muslims should be Mowahhid. The opposite will not work.. i.e. all sects in Islam are Mowahhid. Am I right? (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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? (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jakob Bohme[edit]

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. (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I give this example to prove that Sufism is not a denomination in Islam. But a Muslim Sufi 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 a denomination. (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari[edit]

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 WHOM[edit]

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.

So again, Jakob Bohme is a sufi but was from one of those non-muslims. Sufism is not a denomination in Islam. (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nondenominational Muslim[edit]

This should be listed under DENOMINATIONS as its name implies it is Nondenominational Muslim (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, According to this page: Imam -- it says Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a Mu'tazili not an Athari.. Things are getting more complicated... (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no it doesn't lol the table is read top to bottom not left to right! :) Sakimonk talk 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasawwuf is still a listed under denominations[edit]

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.

Because, They are already included in Sunni or Shia.. You should delete Tasawwuf which is still listed under denominations.. (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you write this in parenthesis, you have to list all the branches of Sunni and Shia as well.

Major branches are 3 : Sunni, Shia and Khawarij. (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


OPEN THIS AND EVEYBODY MAKES THE CORRECTIONS (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

I, Freeatlastchitchat have made some formatting changes to the replies so that everything is organized, no text was changed
Comment by Sakimonk

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)Reply[reply]

  • There is no confusion, at least not about your edit warring. Build an argument for your edit, not for your right to make the edit again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by Sakimonk

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)Reply[reply]

You keep throwing around the words POV without actually understanding the significance of the term. NPOV is being true to the nature of the article in a balanced and objective manner. It is NOT balanced and objective to assert that Ahmadiyyah'ism is in any way on a similar scale to Sunni Islam in any shape or form. Moreover, the drastic theological differences will simply confuse the readers. Sakimonk talk 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drmies can you help resolve this by bringing in some impartial administrators. The users you pinged are not willing to come to an agreement. Sakimonk talk 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not for admins to decide on content; in this case, they may well judge your behavior. You must convince these editors here that you're right, and you must behave in a way that convinces administrators that you're not so disruptive you should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't believe this, shouldn't you be enforcing WP:BRD policy? Why is it so hard for someone who realise that the version I've reverted to is the original and not the bold edit. Sakimonk talk 05:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just out of curiosity, which version is the original according to you? - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Believe it. Where shall I start? BRD is not a policy. What the "original" version is, is hard to establish. That you are edit warring is obvious to everyone but you. Drop this stick, your waving it is becoming disruptive in its own right, and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT can be a reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by freeatlast

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)Reply[reply]

Actually many religions have distinctions. E.g. Eastern and Western and Nontrinitarian Christianity. Furthermore, lists should indicate significant of topics. It is necessary to indicate to the readers that Sunni Islam is a major branch of Islam (with 90% of its followers) as the majority of articles pertain to Sunni Islam and not the other sects. Sakimonk talk 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should Islam be treated differently to Christianity, whose template doesn't differentiate? How many times do I have to point this out. Doug Weller (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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.. (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we should treat this template like those for Christianity & Judaism. Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your policy is to list the names of all un-classified sects like Ahmadiya & Mahdavia, a couple of months ago Nation of Islam was also there, why did you delete its name then? Was it by accident? (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click on this for ... detail. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasawwuf: Collection of some Ṭarīqah[edit] (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 temp68.100.166.227 (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creeds need to be listed somewhere[edit] (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a special template for that: Template:Aqidah. I think a link to Theology in the beliefs section is appropriate, but not the entire list of different creeds - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

!!! Mahdavia ??[edit]

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. (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, the name of the template should change to !!! Mahdavia ??[edit]

Yes, this template is prepared as an advertisement for !!! Mahdavia ??

Justification for my accusations[edit]

Where are the names of Bektashiyyah, Nizari, and the many others that I mentioned above for example, where is Bayramiyya. (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

!!! Mahdavia ?? should be DELETED immediately. (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have hatted this extensive ... thing you posted up here. I am going to have to ask you to STOP with this crazy formatting, these colors, all this bold, etc. I have no idea what you're trying to do--show us what the template should look like, but interspersed with your own commentary. Also, stop shouting. Read WP:TPG. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do you write only the name of 2 sub-denominations (one of them extinct), when there are so many denominations? That was the simple question and you have never answered to this. (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you write Mahdavia as a denomination? Why do you not write Ismaili or Bayrami as a denomination?
You just pick anything you like as a denomination. Are you an expert on this subject? Same question is asked over and over again. Who are these Mahdavis? (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Also User talk: 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)Reply[reply]

Because Ahmadis self-identify as Muslim (see also my comment below), which however would also warrant the inclusion of NOI and other more heterodox groups. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

I concur. To be frank there has been no poll/survey which has taken into consideration the entire muslim world, therefore these are just rough, very very rough, estimates and give or take 5-10% should be assumed without fear. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Read List of Mahdi claimants. Explain how did you decide to pick Mahdavia out of so many diverse groups.. (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify:
  • You are talking to multiple editors. It is not a single person who edits this template all by him/herself.
  • I'm not completely sure what point you are trying to make with the "List of Mahdi claimants". If you wanted to know why there are no other mahdiist groups than Ahmadism and Mahdavism, I think you'll need to look at 1) the availability of a wiki-article on that group, and 2) whether that group claims to be Muslim at all (which is not the case for Babism and Bahá'í). Of course this is my personal opinion, so don't draw definitve conclusions from it.
- HyperGaruda (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are going to add the name of all Mahdiist groups or Sects/Religious denominations, I think you have to do that. (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do what? Please be a bit more specific. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read the List of Mahdi claimants article. There are many groups similar to Mahdavia. Moreover, we know that many Ṭarīqah considers their current leader as Mahdi. In this case, will you detect those groups and list all of them as you did in the case of Mahdavia and Ahmadiyya. Besides, you have recently deleted Nation of Islam from that list. People are so confused. Yes, Ibadis are from the Khwarij. Therefore, you've written the name of Ibadis, since all the other branches of Khwarij are today extinct. We understand this. (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've done some browsing on wikipedia, and if I were to follow my two conditions (plus a 3rd: the group can't be subcategorised under other existing denominations), then the following groups should be added: Nondenominational Muslims and Nation of Islam. I did not include the Tariqah, since they are part of Sufism. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to make a comment. In my opinion, Mahdavia looks like a tariqah, as I said before, there are other tariqa who considers their leader as Mahdi, some of them openly some of them secretly. They have a silsila as in the case of other tariqa. My second remark: Ahmadiya Movement is something like Salafi Movement, they are very similar to sunnis in all of their beliefs.. This might be considered as a new sect of sunnis since they have a population close to zaydis and ibadis. My point is this: If you consider Ahmadiya Movement as a non-sunni movement, i. e. they have been separated or emerged out of sunnism, you can make the same argument for Salafi Movement and Wahhabism. Actually, many people claims that this is the case. If you say No; Salafi Movement and Wahhabism are sunnis, then Ahmadis also sunnis, but only difference is that they had shifted slightly from sunnism in a similar fashion Salafis and Wahhabis deviated from hanbali-sunnis. In conclusion, this requires that either Salafis and Wahhabis should be written next to Ahmadis or ahmadiyya should also be deleted from the list of denominations because they abide by the same rules and apply same procedures as sunnis, like five pillars of islam.. (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommended reading[edit] (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other issues[edit]

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. (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommended reading on Islamic Schools & Madhhabs[edit]

Comments on anonymous IP's suggestions[edit]

I've taken the liberty to move your suggestions from my talk page to this one, so the discussion stays centralised.


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:

This will also be consistent with the definitions accepted by the Amman Message. (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (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.. (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This will also be Consistent with Template:Religion topics. (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.

  • Since Nizaris, Alevis and Alawis (or Nusayris as you call them) are subgroups of Shi`a according to their pages, I would not include them.
  • Your arguments for Moorish Science seem legit, so I'll do include that one.
  • Mahdavism is indeed a difficult issue, since there is so little (reliable) information; I think it's best to remove them until there are better sources stating their position within Islam.
  • Ahmadis have declared itself separate from Sunnism during the second Ahmadi caliphate, in contrast to Salafis, who consider themselves to be the true Sunnis. So no, I'm not going to put Ahmadism under Sunnism or treat Salafism as separate from Sunnism.

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)Reply[reply]

In order to be consistent with the Amman Message:
  1. Zahiri should be written before or next to Ibadi in both Template:Islam and Template:Religion topics.
  2. In addition, the names of Moorish science and Nation of Islam should be added to Template:Religion topics. (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction Zahiri is Sunni: According totemplate:Sunni Islam and Amman Message as edited by(talk | contribs) at 15:00, 15 November 2014 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to request changes in other templates, then you should request them on their respective talk pages, i.e. Template talk:Religion topics. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African American Muslims[edit]

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. (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar argument applies for United Nation of Islam as well. All of them Moorish science and Nation of Islam (including United Nation of Islam & 5 percenter) are African American Muslims. (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems good to me.  Done--Peaceworld 16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the point in keeping this as a Denomination here while some other larger ones are not being shown in this template? (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's absurd to create a fictitious Denomination named as Nondenominational Muslim and to make it's advertisement while there exists so many well-known real-Denominations like Hanafi , Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ithnā‘ashariyyah, Ismā'īlī, Zaīdī and Ẓāhirī. (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done {{Islam}} is transcluded at Non-denominational Muslim, and mentions Non-denominational Muslim. I'm not inclined to make this change without a clear consensus. This request also dates back to 2015, and a recent user decided to activate this. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 17:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

| list5title = Islamic denominations[edit]

Could you change:

| list5title = Denominations


| list5title = Denominations

or just

| list5title = Islamic denominations (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. The linked page should use the actual title and not a redirect. That way, when used on said page (Islamic schools and branches in this case), the link in the template becomes black and bold, thereby preventing a useless redirect loop. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 5 March 2016[edit]

Please collapse the Template...? — (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. What do you mean? The template is already in a collapsed state when using the most basic evokation, i.e. {{Islam}}. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article on Twelver says "Alevis in Turkey and Albania and Alawis in Syria share belief in the Twelve Imams with Twelvers, but their theological doctrines are remarkably different."
Question: Do you consider both Alevis and Alawis as Shia? Even though their beliefs differ than Twelver, they are considered as Shi'ites. But the template:islam just show Alevism as a distint group. Then, what about the Alawites?
According to the template, Alawis are Shia, but Alevi does not belong to Shia, are they something else? Either Alawites should be added explicitly or Alevism should be deleted. (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Khawarij will not be included here, Alevism should not be written since it is included in Sufism & Twelvers (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather just replace all specific denominations by one link to Islamic schools and branches. That way we can avoid the whole "who is allowed to be in the list" argument altogether and it saves up space in an already quite crowded sidebar template. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support removing individual denominations from the template. I don't see a way to make the selection based on RSs. Eperoton (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018[edit]

Hi people16 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018[edit]

Add Sufism to the section "Culture and Society." (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image again[edit]

@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)Reply[reply]

I recommend the usage of the moon and crescent symbol, as it is the most widespread conventional means used to identify Islam. It is globally and internationally recognized; nothing is alternatively used as such or is parallel to in function. AlHazen (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(@Batreeq:) I don't understand the apprehension of using the crescent in this template, if even international organisations like the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have it as their symbol. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page says to reach consensus before changing the image from God in Arabic (Allah): <!--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)Reply[reply]
For your information, the comment about reaching consensus on WikiProject Islam has only been there since last July. Previous versions of the template with Allah as symbol had no such requirements. Discussion about the template is best had at the relevant template talk page, which is here. Feel free to notify WT:ISLAM about a discussion being held here though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
۞ ۝ ۩. I quite like the first. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about multiple images[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The crescent still is not representative of Islam. Currently, there isn't consensus to change it to a star & cresent. Please read the following explanation and click the linked discussion in the summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Islam&diff=966592672&oldid=961899315&diffmode=source. There is no need to open up this debate again. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to open up this debate? Clearly the incessant bickering this year over what image to use, is a sign that discussion is needed. Also, I am having a hard time finding where consensus was established for الله as this template's symbol. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020[edit]

To small page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseKingPMSAW (talkcontribs) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update request[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Template is affecting bulleted lists[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I think that in your case, positioning the bulleted list directly below the template, made the code "see" the bulleted list as a continuation of the template. I worked around that by inserting a break in Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws#Differences, though ideally this should be fixed within the template itself. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image change request[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021[edit]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about multiple images[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Image on Template: Islam (again)[edit]

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)