Talk:Islamic schools and branches

Ahmadiyya

Why? Ahmadiyya wasn't mentioned at all, so I added a small note. This should be expanded and the relationship between Ahmadiyya and mainstream Islam explained. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

it was unfortunately removed by an ip user about two weaks ago. Thank you for bringing it up.--Peaceworld 14:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Qadianism is not a part of Islam, nor is it a school of thought. Many qadianis/ahamdis think so and say this, but this is not the case. With the many published books of mirza ghulam, his sayings and beliefs, it is clear that this man had other motives and cannot be Islamic. He claiemd and I quote... "In case you still have some doubt about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claiming for himself a higher status than that of Nabi Muhammad(SAW), see the quotation below. In this Mirza Ghulam Ahmad reports a revelation that puts his status above all other Divine apostles and saintly people: Many thrones descended from the Heaven but your throne was laid above all others. [RK, v. 22, p. 92; 3rd and 5th line from the top; Haqeeqat-ul-Wahee]

So according to mirza he is of a higher creation than the Beloved Rasul of Allah???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoope76 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya is not a sec of Islam. Most of the countries of world had declared them as Kafir. They have no connection with Islam. So It must be removed from this article. M. Adnan Khadim 17:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnank (talk • contribs)

can we plz just remove ahmadiyya because they are not muslims and are not considered muslims, they made up there own last prophet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39393 MA (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agreed, Ahmadiyya is not a sect of Islam. They are not Muslim at all. But they are trying their best to distract Muslims from the right path. Request to all Muslim.

Please please please be Aware of Ahmadiyya/Qadiani/Marzai.

Muhammadwaqasrafaqat (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nawabmalhi don't presume or show off like you are an ace Wikipedia editor or writer or like you are an admin here. You are just a propagandist ignoring all norms and rules of Wikipedia to force your opinion on the world. Your incompetency is apparent from the edit history of the page Islamic schools and branches, so many edits/reverts repeatedly make you guilty of edit warring and of breaching many other community rules. If Ahmadis/Qadiyanis like you would like to have their opinion seen let them write in Ahmadiyya page for now, as you have no connection whatsoever with Islam and its branches. I had given detailed information about this in Islamic schools and branches with references which should not be deleted by anyone respecting Wikipedia terms and conditions. Hope you avoid forcing your personal opinions on world and respect community terms in future.

With all due respect @Nawabmalhi there has always been consensus among Muslim community for last 1440 years and would always be so based on primary sources of Islam that any person who claims to be a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad, is a liar and a non-Muslim/Apostate, same is the ruling for those who follow such a person i.e. they are also non-Muslims. Moreover it is common norm that if you want to know about a thing or person, you ask him or people around him or in case of thing study its manual, in the same way if you want to know about a religion you should ask its followers or study its primary sources. The primary sources of Islam i.e. Quran and Hadith are clear on this issue that Prophet Muhammad is last prophet and based on these primary sources, there is consensus among Muslims that Ahmadis/Qadianis(quite recently founded group) who claim to followers of false prophet are non-Muslims/apostates. Moreover, the international Muslim bodies such as International Islamic Fiqh Academy, OIC and Muslim World League also declared them non-Muslims.

Similarly, based on above mentioned facts, the national assembly of Pakistan held detailed discussions on the topic and gave full opportunity to Ahmadis(Qadianis) to present their opinion, at the end it concluded that the followers of this group are not Muslims and thus Pakistan officially declared them non-Muslims. Prior to this many courts in Pakistan(some even before creation of Pakistan) had ruled that Ahmadis/Qadianis are not Muslims. Following is the timeline of these events:

February 7, 1935:

Munshi Muhammad Akbar Khan, B.A., LL.B., District Judge of Bahawalnagar in his ruling declared Qadianis are non-Muslim.

March 25, 1954:

Mian Mohammad Saleem Senior, civil judge Rawalpindi, in his ruling declared that Qadianis are not Muslim.

June 3, 1955:

Sheikh Mohammad Akbar, associate judge District Rawalpindi, in his ruling declared Mirzais (Qadianis) non-Muslim.

March 22, 1969:

Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq Gorigia, civil judge in family court, declared that Mirzais, whether Qadiani or Lahori, are outside the fold of Islam.

July 13, 1970:

Civil judge Samaro of the District Mirpur Khas declared Mirzais non-Muslim.

1972:

Honorable Malik Ahmad Khan, commissioner Bahavalpur, declared that Mirzai are a different group than Muslims.

1972:

Honorable Chaudry Mohammad Naseem, civil judge Rahim Yar Khan, wrote in his ruling that Qadianis can not preach or make their worship places in Muslim localities.

April 28:

The Assembly of Kashmir (Independent) passed a resolution declaring Mirzai a non-Muslim minority.

June 19, 1974:

The Assembly of province of Frontier passed an unanimous resolution demanding that Qadianis be declared non-Muslim.

September 17, 1974:

The National Assembly of Pakistan declared Qadianis a non-Muslim Minority. The Rabita Aalim-e-Islami followed with a similar announcement.

April 26, 1984:

The Government of Pakistan issued an ordinance which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan. According to this ordinance, all followers of Mirza Ghulam (Qadiani and Lahoris) were declared to be non-Muslims and were prevented from using Islamic terms and symbols to try to misguide Muslims. Both Qadianis and Lahoris contested this ordinance in the Federal Shariah Court and claimed it to be against Shariah and their civil rights.

July 15, 1984:

The Federal Shariah Court considered the argument presented by the advocates of Qadiani (Mr. Mujib-ur-Rehman) and Lahori (Captain Abdul Wajid) groups and the defense offered by the Government (Sheikh Ghiass Muhammad and Dr. Syed Riaz-ul-Hasan Gillani). After consulting numerous experts on Constitution and many learned Muslim Scholars belonging to every schools of thought, the court rejected the challenge of Mirzais (Qadianis and Lahoris) and upheld the Ordinance issued by the Government of Pakistan.

Moreover, at-least two non-Muslim states' sole religious bodies have declared Ahmadiyya/Qadianis non-Muslims i.e. 1) Gambia's "Islamic Supreme Council" 2) Singapore's "Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura(Islamic religious council of Singapore)"

Why pick individual one or two opinions in presence of already existing consensus of Global Muslim Community all over ages, stressed again and again by Ummah. I think you don't know much about consensus(Ijma), it is one of the primary sources of Shariah and once established is binding upon all Muslims to come in future. There is a Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: “Allah will not cause my ummah to agree on falsehood; the hand of Allah is with the jamaa‘ah (the main body of the Muslims).” At-Tirmidhi (2167) Classed as hassan(good) by al-Albaani. Last time the consensus was re-stressed by the Council of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, which is a subsidiary of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, during its second session, held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 10th to 16th Rabee‘-uth-Thaanee, 1406 AH (22nd－28th December, 1985 CE) which stated Qadianis/Ahmadis are non-Muslims/apostates. And now stop quoting Ahmadiyya page or consensus reached there, it is a separate article having no link with other one. If you still have issue with content on this page discuss those in talk page of this article. Thanks

All Wikipedia community should take notice especially admins I am following Wikipedia norms while editing i.e. "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."(Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution section "Follow the normal protocol") but @Nawabmalhi is bent on edit-warring and removing refrenced material repeatedly. Any one(admin/user) can confirm from revision history. --Khubaib.m (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section expanded to summarise the distinctions

I came to this article hoping to find out what the main differences between the branches were and found that it required too much reading just to get an outline of the distinctions. I have therefore summarised as best I could the rest of the article in the lead section, which now seems to me to make the article considerably more useful to someone on my position.

I realise there is the unfortunate phenomenon of “lead creep”, where everyone adds what they think is most important until the broad outline totally disappears, but I still think it would be useful to add a little more – perhaps in a second paragraph – explaining any major consequences the distinctions have in terms of beliefs and practices – my approach was more historical, as that was the information most readily available – and noting any geographical and political dimensions of the branches — all, of course, with a suitably broad brush.

PJTraill (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that Nawabmalhi has twice removed the lead ([1], [2]), calling it “WP:POV … unorganised and illogical” in his edit summary; I feel that it is not POV, being derived from the rest of the article. I claim no expertise on Islam, but felt confident that my lead accurately summarised the article as I found it; the structure also seems to me very reasonable and the information helpful. This was the text removed:

This article summarizes the different branches in Islam. While all branches recognise the Qur'an, they differ in which other authorities they acknowledge; in particular the question of the Succession to Muhammad separates the Sunni, who acknowledge the elected Rashidun Caliphs and their descendants, from the Shia, who acknowledge the Imams or descendants of Muhammad; these two branches are then subdivided by their views on the further course of the succession. Further branches are the mystic Sufis, who rely more on contemplation while recognising some Imams (or in some cases Caliphs); the Quranists, who acknowledge only the Qur'an as a canonical text; the Kharijites, who rebelled against the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib. Various sects founded by later leaders also claim to be forms of Islam, such as the Ahmadis and Mahdavis in India; the Messiah Foundation International in Pakistan; and Moorish Science, the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters in the United States. To some extent Sufism cuts across the other branches since many Sufis recognise some of the same authorities, moreover Sufism is regarded by some mainstream Islamic scholars as a name for the inner or esoteric dimension of Islam, though others regard it as not Islamic at all. This article also summarizes Islamism – the view that Islam is also a political system – and Liberal movements within Islam based on Ijtihad or (re-)interpretation of the scriptures.

Could it be that this has given offence: “Various sects founded by later leaders also claim to be forms of Islam”? Should we perhaps say “Various movements … are also regarded as forms of Islam”. Or is the second sentence too long? I invite Nawabmalhi or anyone else who sees problems in this text (or finds it acceptable) to discuss it here, indicating which statements they object to and/or proposing a better organisation. If nobody responds in a week or so, I shall probably restore the lead once again — but if other, more knowledegable, contributors discuss it I may leave them to take the appropriate action. PJTraill (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@PJTraill The main problems are that the section is too long, there is no need for such a messy and un-organised paragraph when there is clear and concise list write below the Introduction (In the form of the table of contents). In my opinion, there is no need to list the sects in wordings and groupings which people mind although I know you have good intentions. Almost all of the division between Islamic Sects are caused by opinions of leadership may it be the Sunni-Shia split, Khawarij, various leaders of the Sufi Orders, may it be reformist sects like the Ahmadiyya or divisions between the Shia etc. That is why I support this version:

This article summarizes the different branches and Schools of jurisprudence in Islam. While all branches recognise the Qur'an, they differ in which other authorities they acknowledge; in particular the question of the Succession to Muhammad . This article also summarizes Islamism – the view that Islam is also a political system – and Liberal movements within Islam based on Ijtihad or (re-)interpretation of the scriptures.

--Hope this helps! Nawabmalhi (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I posit we remove the clause "in particular the question of the Succession to Muhammad" as well. It is rather hard to give a succinct, accurate and neutral overview of all branches in the lede. So, let's go with bare minimum. – nafSadh did say 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nafsadh I think that maybe the most discrete and all encompassing way, but is their any group that did not diverge based off a leadership related issue?--Thank you Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Shia-Sunni sect was created based on this issue. However, later sects were not based on this issue. Say for Quranists, Ahmadiyya, or NOI -- none of these discuss much on succession issue. Only thing constant amongst all sect is Quran. Also, there are probably differences about interpretation of Quran. For example, Ahmadiyyas do interpret the "seal of prophecy" differently. – nafSadh did say 03:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, for your examples (I think Quranists fit best), as Ahmadis diverged partially on basis of leadership (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Mahdi and Messiah) from Sunnis, while NOI based on the idea for Godly leadership of African Americans. Either way, the Quranist example is more than enough.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sufi Orders

Sufi Orders are not a part of Islamic schools and branches since they may be either shia or sunni depending on the order.. This sect. should move to tariqat. 68.100.164.21 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You should take this to Talk:Islam, as you'll get a better response.--Peaceworld 11:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding sub-section: Quranic Commands Against Sectarianism

I've just added a section right at the top for this, using verses from the Quran and a cited article from DAWN. Since this is a wiki article under the branch of Islam, no other source is as primary as the Quran and its views need to be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

classical v Modern

Sakimonk, your recent changes separating into two classes is unwarranted primarily because a significant movements/subsects are rather modern such as Wahhabism, Salafi movement, a number of political movements etc, sufi orders etc.--Peaceworld 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are all movements within Sunni Islam which though. Honestly peaceworld, my edit is the best compromise, as you can see in the recent edits - others strongly don't even want ahmadiyya listed in Islam at all. At least I have included but made a clear distinction in case people remove it again because they disagree. Sakimonk ^talk 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk Yes these are movements within Sunni Islam, but equally Sunni Islam is filled with modern movements. And its not just Sunni Islam. Another point is that we originally had a subsection of subsection of subsection of a section. Now we have a subsection of subsection of subsection of subsection of a section. That makes reading a little bit difficult. See it for yourself: It appears that Ahl al-Hadith is NOT under Salafi Movement which is not the case.--Peaceworld 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahl al Hadith is a distinct fiqhi movement which is distinct to Salafism - ahl al hadeeth advocate derivation of fiqh based on the strongest hadeeth evidence. Salafism however is distinct as it is not w.r.t. to fiqh - it is a revivalist movement (primarily a reinforcement of classical athari theology and the disbandment of innovations (bid'ah)). With regard to fiqh many salafis tend to be also advocates of the ahl al hadeeth approach but a huge number of Salafis (perhaps even most) adhere to a madhhab e.g. Sh Albani was staunchly ahl al hadeeth but Sh Uthaymeen and Sh Bin Baz were very traditionally Hanbali. Allahu alim - Allah knows best but this is my understanding of the topics. Sakimonk ^talk 13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sakimonk: Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. My concern was with the format. It affects readability. Please see my previous reply. --Peaceworld 18:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

MODERN

The usage of MODERN gives wrong impression. i.e. When we say Modern Physics, it implies that the laws of classical mechanics were not sufficient or not accurate enough. So we have invented the laws of Modern Physics like Quantum Mechanics. On the contrary, in Islamic schools, the word "MODERN" does not mean that these new schools are making some corrections over the teachings of the classical madh'habs. Actually, these NEW CURRENTS are not being recognized as the true teachings by the classical branches like Sunni or Shia, and they are not making some corrections over the classical ones. Therefore, the word MODERN should be replaced by NEW CURRENTS / MADHHABS. 68.100.166.227 (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Muslim: Introductory Para

The definition of Muslims only as the followers of Quranic teaching is not right as the musilm is a person who basically believe, " Allah as all-worshiped, the Qur'an as the final scripture and believe in the finalization of prophet-hood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)". Kindly correct and arrange the article accordingly. Thanks.--M J Adil 11:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M j adil (talk • contribs)

Hanif Islam?

It was recently added by an anon-IP, classified under Quranism. The given source (obviously primary) refers to a linguistically poorly written website. The text in the current article says not to confuse it with Hanif, i.e. "Islam" from pre-Muhammad times such as practiced by Ibrahim. Apart from the latter use of Hanif, I cannot find any secondary source on Google News or Books about this supposedly Quranistic movement. Does anyone know more about Hanif Muslims and if they are Wikipedia-worthy? - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a pre-Islamic monotheism. The Quran uses this terminology specifically towards Abaraham. "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Rather he was a ḥanīf, a muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists." Quran 3-76. Hanif has nothing to do with Islamic schools and branches since it was never codified. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have been telling in the third sentence. There's the pre-Islamic Hanif and then there's this "new Qur'anistic" Hanif. My question was about the second Hanif. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The pre-Islamic hanif and the Qur'anistic Hanif are the same thing. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sufism

There is a huge portion on this. Is this really necessary? Are they really Islamic schools or just Tasawwuf?

212.253.113.51 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Schools of Islamic theology

are the divinity or creed schools and have nothing common with Islamic branches.. 212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Assalaamu Alaikum. Why are these 2 sub-topics separate when they seem to show similar things "Main traditional branches", "Schools of jurisprudence" ? Verycuriousboy (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be an ʾImāmī sub-heading under the heading of “Islamic Schools of Theology”, cf. aṣ-Ṣudūq, al-Mufīd, ash-Sharīf al-Murtaḍà, Khʷājaħ al-Muḥaq·qiq Naṣīr ad-Dīn aṭ-Ṭūsī, al-ʿAl·lāmaħ al-Ḥil·lī, Mul·lā Ṣadrā, ʾAhmad al-ʾAḥṣāʾī, al-Hādī as-Sabziwārī, al-ʿAl·lāmaħ aṭ-Ṭabaʾṭabaʾī, Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣubḥānī. S.H.R.R. (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Madhhab

Islamic schools in Islam are really known as Madhhabs. 212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, madhhab is usually reserved for schools of fiqh and not for schools based on other classification criteria such as aqidah or tariqah. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Muslim denominations

are different than Islamic schools. For example, Ahmadiyya is not an Islamic school but a Muslim denomination. 212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• To anyone interested: Muslim denominations previously was a redirect, but was recently transformed into an article that -in my opinion- duplicates the scope of Islamic schools and branches. While some of the movements listed here are not considered traditional "schools", the nomer "branches" is what covers all the other Islamic movements, am I right? I'd welcome some third party input about whether or not Muslim denomintions should become a redirect again. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: I agree. There's room for debate about the name of this article, but I think having a separate Muslim denominations article is clearly redundant. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The word Islamic school may refer to two concepts: Madhhab (fiqh school) and schools of Islamic theology (creed-aqidah school). But, a specific Muslim denomination may follow a combination of these two schools, i.e., one fiqh school + another aqidah school. In this way, different denominations may emerge following the same madhhabs.

212.253.113.51 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic branches/denominations/etc have been defined in various ways, and that's what this article is about. That's also why it has "branches" in its title, as HyperGaruda pointed out. In Christianity the word "denomination" has a somewhat specific meaning rooted in the organizational and doctrinal history of Christianity. For other religions, it's used as a vague term roughly equivalent to branch, group, subdivision, or current. So, it doesn't make sense to have one article on "branches" and another one on "denominations". Eperoton (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

you have different pages for the following titles though 212.253.113.51 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the goal of this article is to provide a navigation aide for people who want to know what schools/branches/denominations/etc exist within Islam. Some of these groupings, like madhhabs, schools of theology and Sufi orders, is a coherent subject in itself, and there are separate, more detailed articles devoted to them. Eperoton (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the following two cannot be within the scope of a denomination, because they don't represent anything alone, but a denomination may have something common with them:212.253.113.51 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Schools of Islamic theology: Do they really represent a denomination alone? Schools of Islamic theology are not denominations.
2. Tasawwuf schools: Are they really schools or denominations? Their members may create a denomination but they are not specific schools, in my opinion.

212.253.113.51 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of a denomination is, but in common English, a religious denomination is just any subgroup of a religion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not sure why we're discussing the difference between schools and denominations here. Since we don't have a rationale for the existence of Muslim denominations article, it's probably time to take it to AfD. Eperoton (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, Textualist approach: Athari is not from the denominations of Islam. If someone is athari he should also be something else. For example, athari + salafi together may be sufficient to define a denomination..212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) alone

Similarly, Maturidi alone will not define a denomination, Maturidi is a school. But Maturidi + Hanafi defines a denomination. 212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're engaging in WP:OR. We recently rounded up major academic sources on the Atharis (see the last two sections in Talk:Traditionalist Theology (Islam)), and there was none of that arithmetic you propose. Eperoton (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You haven't got the idea. I said, athari is not an islamic denomination. Neither maturidi nor ash'ari is an islamic denomination. But they are Schools of Islamic theology.

We are repeating the same thing again and again. If you don't want to understand don't ask the same question again and again. Kalam can not be an islamic denomination. you can not write Kalam as a denomination as you did in this article. But of course the title is not Islamic denominations. If you change the title to Islamic denominations or anything related to this you cannot introduce Kalam as a denomination. 212.253.113.9 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're referring to. Aside from your idiosyncratic interpretation of the word "denomination", this article barely uses the word. Eperoton (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This message is for those people who claims that the page Islamic schools and branches is equivalent to Muslim denominations. Islamic schools and branches includes some information about Muslim denominations. But if someone is just interested about the Muslim denominations, they don't need to learn everything about the all type of Islamic schools and branches which is too confusing.212.253.113.9 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Denominations

These denominations can be deleted from the Islamic schools, now. 212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Schools of Islamic theology are not Muslim denominations. Hence this should be written carefully. Ash'aris alone are not denominations. But you may say some/all Shafi'is are Ash'ari, as well.212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

kalam is not a Muslim denomination. Similarly, Batiniyya is not a Muslim denomination, but Alevis and Isma'ilis are from Batiniyya.212.253.113.51 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This source begs to differ and calls ‘Ilm al-Kalam a denomination. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you claim that Kalam alone is a denomination, then we should ask about their madhhab. Are they Hanafi, Maliki or Hanbali? Because we define the denominations in terms of these terms? 212.253.113.70 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that in common English: denomination = branch = subgroup = subdivision = subcategory. Of course it is possible that people belong to multiple "denominations", depending on what classification scheme is used. Forget the idea that someone can only belong to one denomination. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

We are not taking about the English here but Muslim denominations. I think you have to study the related pages first. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I know what is written on the related pages; I think you should study a dictionary. This article contains an overview of all those schools (both schools of fiqh and schools of aqidah) and branches/denominations/subgroups/subdivisions/streams of Islam. These groups are not necessarily groups of people, but groups of ideologies. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you try to learn the subject by dictionary it will be difficult for you, better to read the other Wikipedia pages carefully.

212.253.113.70 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The important point is that you cannot write/mention the schools of aqidah if this is the denominations page. Why don't you tell to the people what the Muslim denominations are. That's why you need Muslim denominations page since they are NOT identical to schools.212.253.113.70 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are. If you would have checked a dictionary, you would have seen that "denomination" is synonymous with "school". See for example Collins' entry about denomination. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If, as you claim ilm al-Kalam, maturidi or ash'ari were Muslim denominations, they should be mentioned or listed under Muslim denominations in this template-Islam

But, the template-Islam, Denominations section is in contradiction with your remarks. I've attached the template-Islam with Denominations section open. None of the Schools of Islamic theology are listed under the section Muslim denominations. If, as you claim ilm al-Kalam, maturidi or ash'ari were Muslim denominations, they should be mentioned or listed under Muslim denominations in this template-Islam. Since non of them are listed, the readers assume and understand that they are not Muslim denominations but just Islamic schools perhaps. On the contrary, Sufism is listed under Muslim denominations.

212.253.113.70 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a denomination

They are simply an ethnic organization Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

since this is not the denominations page, that modification need to be done in the Muslim denominations page

212.253.113.70 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 - Pruning

Just in case anyone was wondering why I am mass-deleting stuff: I am following up on Peterkingiron's advice of pruning excessive details, with which I fully agree. This article is an overly detailed mess, while it should be more of an index of more detailed subarticles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is going to take a few days though, especially the complex section about Shi'ism. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed some details that were excessive or duplicated under subsections, and I've moved the diagram to Shia Islam. A lot more pruning still left to do there. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

And it's not just about size. It looks like there may be much OR, confusion between aqidah and fiqh, and misuse of sources in the "Batini jurisprudence" section, which extends to the detailed articles. However, I'm not familiar with this topic, so I can't tell apart right from wrong at a glance. Eperoton (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have checked a few subarticles and each one has been touched by our anonymous IP from Turkey. It appears he/she believes that the tr-wikipedia is infallible and that en-wikipedia should take over everything from them. Well, here's some advice for the IP: check the sources before you transfer information from the Turkish to the English wiki, because tr-wiki is often wrong. See for example my remarks at Talk:Batiniyya#July 2016 - References do not support the text. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Operation Prune. cӨde1+6^TP 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I went ahead and pruned the Shia section. I kept the word count even with the Sunni section (mostly because there was so much material, mostly obscure and unneeded details that are better left to the mains.) In any case, feel free to add/modify/correct any thing I subtracted. I tried to leave as many of the redirects to the main articles as I could. cӨde1+6^TP 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Decisive action! I added a summary of the madhhabs, but the rest still needs some verification, particularly the dubious category of Batiniyyah jurisprudence. Eperoton (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Another major problem with this article is that the following sections are actually just sub-sections of Sunnis:

• Sufism
• Wahhabism
• Salafism
• Ahl-e-Haidth
• Jamaat-e-Islami
• Ash'arism

These sections shouldn't exist independently from Sunnism. They can just be given a short summary, within the Sunni section, with a link to their mains. This would greatly reduce the sprawling word count (removing the need for sub-sub sections e.g. all the Sufi 'orders' would not be needed at all) and also go a long way in reducing the level of confusion on the subject in general. It would be a major change though, so it merits a discussion. cӨde1+6^TP 15:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty is that this article has to reflect multiple "axes of classification": sectarian, jurisprudential, theological, traditional/modern, and "mystical" (for lack of a better term). The Other section can be called something like "Recent branches", if Mahdavia is moved elsewhere. I don't think it's possible to subsume the theology section under sectarian branching, because some of these movements predate the theological dimensions of the Sunni/Shia split, and Mu'tazilis were neither. Likewise, according to The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, "Being a Ṣūfī has nothing to do with the Sunnī-Shīʿī split". I agree, however, that the list of Sufi orders has much excessive and unedifying detail. Eperoton (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there will be a lot of confusion and overlap with the axes ("sectarian, jurisprudential, theological, traditional/modern, and mystical"). For example, Jurisprudence defines the Traditional and Sectarian axes. Theologically, the split is really only between the rationalist (e.g. mutazalis, Gulens, quranists etc.) and the dogmatists, with the later containing the traditionalists made up of all the sectarians, which follow the main schools of jurisprudence... And the 'mystical', that's too narrow a category that only contains Sufis. But as soon as you expand it to a philosophical arena, then it includes the theological, containing both the Ashari and the Mutazalis, which were opponents of each other... Also the 'modern' category would be weird, because some of the 'modern' sub-sects (e.g. Jamaat e Islami) are actually following traditional jurisprudence, where as some of the older schools of thought (mutazalis) are actually rationalist in the modern sense. But anyways, just food for thought, there won't be any quick fixes in any case... cӨde1+6^TP 17:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Another option is to restructure the article into sections based on each axis of classification, e.g. Sunnism/Shi'ism/Kharijism under "Political branches", the schools of jurisprudence in a separate section like the current schools of theology, mystical branches/tariqah, and so on. There may be a bit of repetition, but I think this way the article at least conveys the message that there are multiple ways to classify Islamic ideologies. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I agree that the article should aim to clarify the different ways of classification, and making a separate section for jurisprudence would serve that goal. I would use a term like "Main traditional branches" for the Sunni/Shia/Khariji split. It has its roots in politics but it became much more than that. Then Ahmadiyya and New American denominations can go under "Recent branches", which is too messy a category to handle systematically. Eperoton (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

But how would one separate jurisprudence (legal doctrine) from politics? All the schools of jurisprudence define the basis for legal (and therefore political) authority. Below are some sources which trace the political histories of all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence, their competitions with each other, patronage by different caliphates etc. (I hope you guys applied for free JSTOR access via wikipedia:)

• http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399350
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399283
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/164699
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/176293

The same thing applies to the Shia schools of jurisprudence, in even more stark terms because of the emphasis on the Imams. Even the Mutazalis, the most philosophical group within the article, were plenty political, as their views (officially endorsed by the Abassids at one time) also defined "how legitimate authority should be held and obtained in Islam." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20833040).

... But maybe I'm just nitpicking too much... Perhaps for the purposes of an encyclopedic article we can ignore this overlap for the sake of simplicity... cӨde1+6^TP 03:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, certainly a complex subject, but one we should be able to sidestep here. Eperoton (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links

213.205.198.46 , you've been edit warring to keep the external links. Per WP:EL, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So, please give us some substantive, guideline-based justification for including these links:

• The Four Sunni Schools of Thought - an essay about the major Sunni maddhabs, which is relevant to only a small part of the article
• Online Islamic Learning - dead link (!)
• Sufism - Islamic Science of Spirituality - a personal website, in violation of WP:ELNO, #11

One could imagine an authoritative website about the various schools and branches that would be broadly relevant to this article. None of the sites above fall into this category, with the possible exception of the first one. Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic schools and branches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010050756/http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf to http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819140154/http://www.theasa.org/conferences/asa04/panels/panel21.htm to http://www.theasa.org/conferences/asa04/panels/panel21.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic schools and branches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327110031/http://www.yabahu.com/ to http://www.yabahu.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213015820/http://www.amerasianworld.com/islam_in_kazakhstan.php to http://www.amerasianworld.com/islam_in_kazakhstan.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125113410/http://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2015/04/nli-muslim-blood-drive to http://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2015/04/nli-muslim-blood-drive
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cfr.org/world/cultural-terrorism-wahhabi-islam/p5234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Traditional" Islam

@Manipulateus: thanks for citing a source. There are still problems with this addition, however. This a list, not a chart, so it would be more appropriate incorporated in the body of text rather than as a figure. More generally, if we make note of the religious polemics over whether Salafism is "traditional" or not, we need to attribute those views. The source you found isn't really attributable: the section in question isn't signed and we can't attribute it to the publisher in light of the disclaimer at the start. Eperoton (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, if you feel its more appropriate to include the information in the body of text I have no objection but a classification chart would make the distinctions easier to understand regardless. Also it is by nature that classification charts often resemble lists (refer to the charts for the classification of various living things). If you still feel it could resemble a more traditional chart you are welcome to improve on it. Secondly, I am not sure whether there is any major claim by Salafis to represent traditional Sunni Islam as Salafism itself claims to reform wrong practices that infiltrated traditional Sunni Islam. That would make Salafism a "reform", "back to the source" "fundamentalist" branch of Sunni Islam and this is supported by the source in the reference. The disclaimer you were referring to includes the publisher only. If you still feel that this chart is more unreliable than many other charts in Wikipedia, please feel free to provide a source or two that indicate alternative "polemical" views if there are any.--Manipulateus (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Traditional" doesn't have a direct equivalent in Arabic that's used by either Salafis or non-Salafis. It's a self-designation adopted by some anglophone Sunnis who follow classical jurisprudence, which has also been used by some academic sources to refer to those anglophone currents. This is discussed at length in Kasper Mathiesen, "Anglo-American 'Traditional Islam' and Its Discourse of Orthodoxy," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 13 (2013). I'm not aware of any academic source using the term "traditional" to exclude Islamic fundamentalists in general. In fact, Salafi theology is often called traditionalist, though in a different sense of the word. Per WP:NPOV, we can't adopt tendentious terminology simply based on usage by some religious groups and a source like the Muslim top 500. I'll add a sentence on this reflecting mainstream academic references. Eperoton (talk)

Contrary to what you said, your academic source does not specifically refer to some Anglophone group as traditional Islam and clearly distinguishes between traditional Islam and fundamentalist currents such as Salafism, although it makes it clear that the classification arose from Anglophone academic circles. Why should we not ascribe any credibility to the Anglophone academia? More so when there is no rival claim to what it says?--Manipulateus (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh, what part of the source are you referring to? It makes the scope of the term clear right from the opening sentence: "Since the late 1980’s a current or denomination that is often referred to as Traditional Islam has crystallised within the broader landscape of Sunni Islam in the English-speaking world." This obviously doesn't refer to the four Sunni madhhabs, schools of kalam, Sufi orders, and other entities which didn't start in the 1980s. Also, please consult WP:CITEHOW and in the future include the relevant pages and other bibligraphical details in your citations. Thanks. Eperoton (talk)

Madhabs

Hi

In the article there are confusion between madhabs (schools) and branches. We know the madhabs of sunnismn but not shia madhabs. So each branch of shia have one madhab of the notion does not exist in shia? --Panam2014 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya is not Muslim or sunni cast or branch . Need correction and plz remove it .

Its is declared by government of Pakistan and school of thoughts and beliefs that Ahmadiyya is not a branch or sect of Islam or any sunni sect. Here is a helpful link that you can trace deobandi school of thoughts India and much more material.

Government of Pakistan - Law for Ahmadis Imran8here (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A government, a court, or another branch of a religion has no right to tell a group of people what they are or are not. Wikipedia doesn't take sides in such disputes. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Abul ala maududi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)