Talk:Quranism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Non-Muslim critics of hadith.[edit]

I deleted a sentence in the Notable section on non-Muslim critics of the Hadith.

Non-Muslim scholars of Islam, such as Maurice Bucaille, John Esposito, Joseph Schacht and Cyrus Hamlin also criticise Hadith.[1][2][3]

The do not appear to be Quranists as per the definition given on the page, therefore i thought it wise to remove them from the section on notable Quranists. IrishStephen (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored it, because I don't see anything that says that section is for "notable Q"; it is just headed "notable". Anyway, if you don't like it in that section, it would be better moved elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Quraniyoon[edit]

i want to change the title to Quraniyoon. Any opinions? Pass a Method talk 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the reason behind your idea? I see no reason to change the title to Quraniyoon, besides, you'll get us into a big issue of how to transliterate قرآنيّون properly into English: Quraniyoon? Qur'aniyun? Qur'aniyyun? I believe that Quranism/Qur'anism is sufficient. --Agari (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the form most commonly used in spoken Arabic would be قرآنيين ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, change the title "Qur'aaniyuun", because they are not people who believe in the Qur'aan alone but people who believe the Western Colonialislism of the Qur'aan. In other words, they just like those who impose the Hadiith (Bible-subordinated) onto the Qur'aan, they are both Biblical!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.182.33 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Image is not of Quran[edit]

The image with file name "HolyQuran.jpg" is not a picture of any page in the Quran. From the text, it is most probably a book of prayers whose main text is in Arabic, and sub text in some other language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabil.mneimneh (talkcontribs) 13:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine - Overview[edit]

I think these two sections can be merged into one. I don't see why they're divided. Any ideas? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture is NOT a page from the Quran[edit]

The picture captioned "a page from the Quran in Arabic" is NOT from the Quran, but it is simply an Arabic prayer with the Persian translation under every line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.173.85 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

wrong image[edit]

previous image was not holy Quran it was a page of Mafatih al-Janan prying phrase, i changed it.Anvar11 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

History[edit]

The History section is, for the most part, entirely some random wikipedia editors thoughts. Further, there are no sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.127.37 (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to attempted addition of "Answer to Quranist Rejection of Orthodox Muslim Theology"[edit]

I did not perform the revert of this material, however I support said revert wholeheartedly: this article is specifically about Quranism and its rejection of the hadith, reasons for it, and what makes it unique. This article is not the place to initiate a religious argument or war, nor to show favor for one view over another: merely to present factual, encyclopedic knowledge of the subject at hand. This being the case, there is no room in this article for a dissertation on why people who do NOT ascribe to this belief think this belief is wrong. Even if the content is well written enough for a wiki article, if it belongs anywhere on the wikipedia at all, it is in an article or articles re: the opposing, hadith-centered beliefs, or another article entirely focused on the differences between the two. Since there cannot be proof of, evidence for, or a resolution to any of the claims made by either group for their position that could be recorded or relayed in any sort of factual manner, there can not be a resolution or reconciliation between them, Q.E.D., such an addition is counter-productive and not of value to this particular/specific article.

In short, adding a long, point-by-point breakdown in Article "A" about why people from Article "B" think the people in "A" are wrong is merely incitement of controversy at best, and bears all the hallmarks of the beginning of a religious flame/edit-war: you do not need a list of grievances and counter-points here for it to be obvious from the lead-in on that this belief system is in opposition or counter-point to another sect of the same belief system. That the Quranists think the Sunni and Shia are wrong--and vice-versa--is completely, screamingly obvious, and anyone wishing for more information or a specific breakdown of why can find that information by reading the contrasting article where they may draw their own conclusions: they do not need to be spoonfed. Besieged talk 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are interested can check these sites:

  1. http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/main.php (Quranism)
  2. http://sunnidawateislami.net/ (Sunni Islam)
  3. http://www.shia.org/ (shia Islam)

This is a sample listing - many more oriented websites are there - please spare Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC).

move[edit]

QuranismQuraniyoon – It would be in line with the arabic equivalent. Also a google search result of the new name gives more applicable results whereas the current name returns various questionable results. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:UE and WP:AT. Specifically, article titles "should be recognizable to readers." I wasn't familiar with this concept before, but "Quran-ism" is clearly an ideology relating to the Quran. "Quraniyoon" is... well, I would've guessed a proper name. A geographic name, perhaps. The redirect from the Arabic romanization is sufficient; the English form is more useful as a title for the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather clear instances of (possibly unintentional) POV pushing[edit]

Down in the history section, I found the following two instances of crystal clear POV pushing:

"Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive."
"Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims."

The second isn't as problematic as it does use the phrase "is regarded." The problem is that it doesn't continue by adding "by X, Y and Z." Look, nobody is going to argue that the majority of mainstream scholarship, whether Muslim or Western, regards Umar ibn Khattab as having made such claims. In order to neutralize this, it needs to be specified who regards him in this way, which is certainly possible with reliable sources.

The first is certainly more problematic. It's quite clear that the majority of scholarship - again, both Muslim and Western - do not attest to this claim. That doesn't mean the line needs to be deleted; it simply needs to be cited with Quranist sources and edited to say: "X, Y and Z claim that such beliefs were...etc." Again, nobody in their right mind will argue that this is the majority view. That doesn't make it right or wrong; it's not our jobs as editors to make those judgment calls. And that's the point. As it is, the line very clearly is trying to make a judgment call by asserting that the Qur'anist view is historically accurate; the job of editors is to present the different stated views, not weigh them. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the two examples you gave are an example of POV pushing. I think this particular section, and the article in general is well-balanced. For example, the sentences:
"Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive."
and,
"Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims."
is followed by:
"However, despite claims that Umar banned narrations of the Prophets traditions and hadiths, it can also be stated that the meaning of the Prophetic traditions, embodied in actions, was still being transmitted orally and by inherited practice.[46] Thus, for Sunni Muslims, the claim that Umar banned Prophetic narrations in order to make a statement that the Qur'an would suffice for Muslims bears little weight as the "Sunnah", which would later be codified in text (i.e. books of hadith), was known to be in practice - the best example of which includes the times for prayer and the method by which prayer is performed."
Contrastingly, the Ahle Hadith article says:
"The followers of the Ahl al-Hadith movement claim their beliefs and practices to be the same as those of early Muslims and, in particular, the Rashidun (rightly guided caliphs). The movement rose to prominence in the 9th century AD during the Abbasid era to counter the beliefs of Mutazilities.[14]"
This assertion is not immediately followed by an opposing viewpoint. The Quranism article has a section (when I first stumbled upon this article a few months ago, it was the largest section) devoted entirely to criticism of Quranism. There is no such section in the Ahle Hadith and Sunni Islam articles. If there's a problem with the history section, it's that both assertions (for and against Umar espousing Quranist views) are unsourced. This is something I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out. MezzoMezzo wrote:
"That doesn't make it right or wrong; it's not our jobs as editors to make those judgment calls. And that's the point. As it is, the line very clearly is trying to make a judgment call by asserting that the Qur'anist view is historically accurate; the job of editors is to present the different stated views, not weigh them."
I agree. And I think the article does just that. . . present the different stated views. Sunnis (who see themselves as "orthodox" and "mainstream" and others as "heterodox" and "fringe") see Quranism as a twentieth century bid'ah with no antecedents in Islamic history. This view is reflected in the history section, as I already pointed out. This view is reflected in the references. The 2nd reference, "The Qur’aniyūn of the twentieth century," says:
"Until very recently, the concept of the sunna, and it's legal authority, was never questioned. However, the twentieth century witnessed a number of individuals and groups, who under the guise of 'returning to the Qur'an' have rejected in totality, the legal authority of the sunna"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18027174/The-Quraniyoon-of-the-Twentieth-Century
The 53rd reference, "A Look at Hadith Rejecters' Claims," says:
"For the past fourteen centuries Qur'an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims."
[. . .]
"Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some 'scholars' arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target."
http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/response_rejecters.shtml
This view was also expressed in your edit summaries. You wrote:
"add tags - this is the result of modern day quranist views only, not mainstream scholarship"
and,
"to say this is ridiculous is the understatement of the year - it is not possible to bring a single reliable source to support this, and the entirety of scholarship in the middle east and the western world indicates otherwise as wel"
On the other hand, some Muslim and non-Muslim scholars dispute the historicity of this Sunni assertion and contend that Quranist sentiments date back to the early days of Islam. This view is reflected in the history section, as I already pointed out. It's also reflected in the references. In the 43rd reference, Prof. Aisha Musa wrote:
"This doctrine also has its roots in the early years of Islam. Although the term 'Qur'an alone' is not used in the early opposition to the authority of the hadith, the idea of the Qur'an as the only legetimate source of law and guidence is readily apparent, especially in reports about the second Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 22/643). Ignaz Goldziher, Nabia Abbott, and John Burton have acknowledged the significance of this idea in early Islam; however, it has largely been ignored or dismissed by most Muslim and non-Muslim scholars perhaps because the doctrine of duality of divine revelation eventually came override this concern and secured scriptural authority for the hadith alongside the Qur'an."
Aisha Y. Musa, "Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on The Authority Of Prophetic Traditions in Islam," Palgrave, 2008, pg. 9
Musa goes into more detail about Umar's rejection of hadith in other parts of the book (see pp. 22-29, for example). For a non-Quranist treatment of Umar and other prominent sahabas' rejection of hadith (and Sunni attempts to explain it), see Dr. Ali Nasir's textbook "An Introduction to Hadith: History and Sources," MIU PRESS, 2013, pp. 83-98.
Having said that, I agree with you that the article can be improved by citing references in the place that you mentioned. Melwood19 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Sir, either you're missing my point or I'm missing yours (the second is very possible). Here is what I'm saying. Look at this line:
Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive.
This is disputed. You have shown me references claiming this. I'm sure you're also aware that I can bring many references disputing it. The point isn't for us to have a debate here on the talk page to see which view is right and then reflect that in the article. If that's not what you meant than I apologize for misunderstanding but that's what your comment seemed to imply.
Take a look at the other claim:
Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims.
You have brought a source which supposedly supports this claim. I can also find sources which dispute it. Thus for me and you do compare sources here - again I am very, very sorry if that's not what you meant - is pointless. Per WP:NOTFORUM, the point isn't for us or anyone else to decide which sources are right and which are wrong.
On the other hand, I'm also not saying the sources which contradict these views be included anywhere other than the criticism section; they absolutely belong there and only in there. So I'm not trying to say the dispute should be stated in the body of the article; I'm only stating that we need to be clear that both claims are not universal views, but the views stated in specific sources. WP:IMPARTIAL evokes what I'm getting at here, in case my own explanation didn't make any sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please ignore my snarky comments. I was in a bad moon and distracted by something off-Wiki while writing that. Let's just focus on the wording/tone under discussion here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: "On the other hand, I'm also not saying the sources which contradict these views be included anywhere other than the criticism section; they absolutely belong there and only in there. So I'm not trying to say the dispute should be stated in the body of the article; I'm only stating that we need to be clear that both claims are not universal views, but the views stated in specific sources."
I disagree. Both the view that Umar objected to hadith and the view that he didn't are included, and should be included, in the history section. WP:UNDUE says:
"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
And WP:RNPOV says:
"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: 'Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Friseetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else.'"
I think you identified the main problem with this part of the history section in your previous comment. The sentences supporting both viewpoints need to be sourced. Melwood19 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking at your version now and to be honest, it is better actually. The language is more neutral which was my main point. I suppose the counter point, from a historical perspective, doesn't hurt either. I think we can call this case closed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I made an additional modification to one of the paragraphs to make the transition smoother. Melwood19 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"quranist"[edit]

Again the quranist sect is replacing Quran alone, with quranist, and twisting words. Nobody uses this phrase except their sect. And Ahle Quran, means people of the Quran, not "quranist". Nobody is a Quranist, any more than they are a Biblist. Please. (Or indeed recitationist, Quran means The Recitation). "Quran-alone" follower though, is something many use, and seems to capture the most linguistically correct version, of this (more rational) interpretation.

Also to associate it with a liberal movement is wrong. The Quran has conservative values, no-promiscuity, no-intoxicants, no-homophilia, no-criminality (transgression), and teaches good behaviour, and conservative clothing. And ofcourse monotheism and godconsciousness. "God has no partners".

Peace Be With You.

Salaam, Ove Karlsen. You wrote:
"Again the quranist sect is replacing Quran alone, with quranist, and twisting words. Nobody uses this phrase except their sect. And Ahle Quran, means people of the Quran, not "quranist". Nobody is a Quranist, any more than they are a Biblist. Please. (Or indeed recitationist, Quran means The Recitation)."
You're right that only a small group (those associated with Farouk A. Peru) refer to themselves as "Quranists". Many who follow the Quran alone refer to themselves as just Muslim. However, others refer to all those who follow the Quran alone as "Quranists" (including those who don't refer to themselves as such).
You wrote:
"Quran-alone" follower though, is something many use, and seems to capture the most linguistically correct version, of this (more rational) interpretation."
I've never seen/heard the name "Quran-alone follower" used. It's a bit too wordy. You can understand why someone might prefer to use "Quranists" instead. If you do a wikipedia search for "Quran alone," "Quranism," "Quraniyoon," "Ahl al-Quran," etc., it goes to this article. If you do a Google search for those terms, this article is among the top results. And the article itself explains that not all those who follow the Quran alone refer to themselves as "Quranists":
"Quranists may be referred to in various ways, for example Qurʾāniyūn (Arabic: قرآنيون‎ Qurʾāniyyūn) and ʾAhl al-Qurʾān (أهل القرآن) / Ahle Qur'an, both translating to "Quranites" (which is also used in English), Submitters, and usually by their opponents munkirū al-ḥadīṯ (منكروا الحديث) (i.e. "negators of Hadith" / "hadith rejectors"), or Quranism, or Quran aloners, as well as other terms.
[. . . .]
"Quranists generally consider themselves to simply be "Muslims", a term directly from the Quran. Some adherents refer to themselves as Quranists or Ahle Quran."
You wrote:
"Also to associate it with a liberal movement is wrong. The Quran has conservative values, no-promiscuity, no-intoxicants, no-homophilia, no-criminality (transgression), and teaches good behaviour, and conservative clothing. And ofcourse monotheism and godconsciousness. "God has no partners"."
There are some prominent followers of the Quran alone who are politically conservative (Richard Steven Voss comes to mind). Other followers of the Quran alone are politically progressive. There is no political litmus test for inclusion. Salaam.
Michael Elwood Melwood19 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Difference between Quranism and 'just a muslim'[edit]

Assalamualaykum

So here's another big error's been made in this article is assuming 'just a muslim' as a Quranism. One of the example is Indonesian Muslim, it is written that about 56% of "just a muslim" is a quranism. Notably, most of Muslims in Indonesia don't really know the sects in Islam, such as Sunni Salafi, Sunni Shafii, Sunni Maliki, Shia, Ahmadiyya, etc. Because of this, when you do a polling by asking samples to Indonesian Muslim of which sect they are in, they don't really know about that, consecuently, most of them just declare as 'just a Muslim", whether Indonesian Muslim are dominated by Sunni Muslim (the majority are Shafii scholar), and I bet, another Muslim countries with a huge number of "quranism" are probably in the same case as Indonesian Muslims.

Well, that's what on my view since I'm an Indonesian Muslim.

Thank you, and would be great if someone would notice this.

Wassalamualaykum.

Miftahul Faridl (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "So here's another big error's been made in this article is assuming 'just a muslim' as a Quranism."
The article doesn't assume all those who self-identify as "just Muslim" are "Quranists". The article says:
"It's not known what percentage of Muslims who don't identify with a sect also espouse Quranists beliefs. As many Quranists have a very individualistic interpretation of the Qur'an, rejecting sectarianism and organised religion as a general rule, it is difficult to gather an accurate estimate of the number of Quranists in the world today by doing a study of the Quranist organisations that exist."
It's possible that some who self-identify as "just Muslim" espouse beliefs similar to Sunnis or Shias. Conversely, it's also possible that some who identify as Sunni or Shia espouse beliefs that are similar to "Quranists". The 5th reference, titled the "Sectometer," points out that:
"The Sunni or Shiite test-takers found themselves in quagmire of contradiction with their own sectarian teachings. They learned that they were thirty, forty or even more than fifty percent infidels or heretics. Some of those who marked Sunni as their sectarian affiliation contradicted the Sunni teachings on most of the issues."
You wrote: "One of the example is Indonesian Muslim, it is written that about 56% of "just a muslim" is a quranism."
Again, the article doesn't say that all those who self-identify as "just Muslim" are "Quranist" (see above).
You wrote: "Notably, most of Muslims in Indonesia don't really know the sects in Islam, such as Sunni Salafi, Sunni Shafii, Sunni Maliki, Shia, Ahmadiyya, etc."
The 6th reference points out that some Indonesians were unfamiliar with some of the smaller sects that originate in Indonesia:
"Islam Liberal is a movement in Indonesia that prioritizes ethics over textual literalism. Only 16% of Indonesian Muslims think the movement is part of the Islamic faith, compared with 58% who do not. About a quarter (26%) are either unfamiliar with the group or do not know.
"Doubts also surround Aliran Kepercayaan, a mystical movement centered in Indonesia that combines elements of Islam with other religious traditions. In Indonesia, relatively few Muslims (5%) say the group is part of the Islamic faith, while fully 80% disagree. In Malaysia, just 9% say Aliran Kepercayaan falls within the bounds of Islam, compared with nearly two-thirds (66%) who have never heard of the group or do not know and 26% who think members of the movement are not Muslims."
You wrote: "Because of this, when you do a polling by asking samples to Indonesian Muslim of which sect they are in, they don't really know about that, consecuently, most of them just declare as 'just a Muslim", whether Indonesian Muslim are dominated by Sunni Muslim (the majority are Shafii scholar), and I bet, another Muslim countries with a huge number of "quranism" are probably in the same case as Indonesian Muslims."
Whereas some Indonesians didn't know about some of the smaller sects, I don't think it's believable that they don't know about the Sunni or Shia sects. It's more likely that they self-identify as "just Muslim" because they don't agree with Sunni or Shia beliefs (or sectarianism in general), not because they don't know about Sunni or Shia beliefs. I suspect that this is also true for those outside of Indonesia who self-identify as "just Muslim". Salaam. Melwood19 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to confirm that the original poster was right. Most Indonesians don't know/understand about the Sunni/Shia. Being an Indonesian, I remember when I was in high school in the US and a Arab Muslim teacher asked me whether I was Sunni or Shia, but I just stared at him confused and a bit embarassed because I didn't know which one I was... For many Indonesians, Sunni and Shia thing is still only a conflict in the news from far away in the Middle East.KaluQ84 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just Muslims is a stray from topic[edit]

this article is collapsing two things. ppl who do not bother with sectarian names with ppl who do not follow hadith. totally different items.--Inayity (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too and just checked here to see if it was being discussed. What I am seeing is a major violation of WP:SYNTHESIS; the section attempts to compare Non-denominational Muslims and Quranists. Three of the sources given are from Quranist sources which is an obvious issue of WP:QUESTIONABLE as well as Wikipedia:Fringe theories.
I used to be a Quranist and one thing I know is that for such a miniscule group, it's in their best interest to attach themselves to a much larger group (non-sectarian Muslims) whose beliefs are mild enough that they could really be attached to anything due to the ambiguity of what they (non-sectarian Muslims) actually believe.
This is on top of the fact that much of the information here is simply unrelated to the topic. The sentence about liberal movements within Islam in the last paragraph is sourced, but it has nothing to do with Quranism; likewise, the Pew Research poll toward the beginning is quoted and occupies much of the section space yet the bottom line is that the source given has absolutely nothing to do with Quranism. This just seems like an attempt to draw conclusions by the editor who wrote the section, which is a great, big Wikipedia:No original research violation with whip cream on the top.
I suggest deleting the unrelated sentences along with their sources in their entirety; those remaing tidbits which are relevant to the subject could be moved to the doctrine section in a blurb at the end about comparisons with other movements (such as the Mutazila comparison, I haven't checked the source but it seems legit). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree delete, but we can use the info (if not already mentioned) on non-denominational Muslim page.--Inayity (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I indented your above comment by one extra space if you don't mind. Anyway, I didn't even realize that the information should also be moved to the actual relevant page. Good call as there's no need for relevant sources to be lost totally; they just need to be put where they belong.
Shall we wait for another week or so to see if there is any further input? There might be more ideas like this, and I know that both User:Pass a Method and User:Melwood19 have contributed to this page in the past. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont think we have to wait, it is as you say SYNTH. But you can leave a message on User:Pass a Method page asking him to weight in. --Inayity (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with both of you. melwood added most of those, so its best to contact him. Pass a Method talk 13:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: I used to be a Quranist and one thing I know is that for such a miniscule group, it's in their best interest to attach themselves to a much larger group (non-sectarian Muslims) whose beliefs are mild enough that they could really be attached to anything due to the ambiguity of what they (non-sectarian Muslims) actually believe.

There's no incentive for Quranists to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are. However, there is an incentive for Sunnis to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are, and make others appear less numerous than they actually are. I used to be a Sunni, and one thing I know is that they attach a lot of importance to the belief that they're a majority. In their mind, being in the majority validates their beliefs, and conversely, being in the minority invalidates other people's beliefs. In the article on Sunni Islam, their majority status is mentioned in the very first paragraph. There's even a bogus claim that Sunnis are not only the largest Islamic sect, but also "the world's largest religious body" (even though Catholics are more numerous than Sunnis and the source cited makes no such claim).

Quranists tend not to believe that the validity of a belief is predicated on how many people believe in it because they believe that this constitutes an ad populum fallacy, and because they believe that Quran 6:116 says that following the crowd leads people astray.

MezzoMezzo wrote: This is on top of the fact that much of the information here is simply unrelated to the topic.

I disagree. It's relevant because many Quranists refer to themselves as just Muslims, and not Quranists. In fact, there was a controversy a few years ago when a Quranist wrote an article suggesting that they should call themselves Quranists and not Muslims. But his argument didn't seem to persuade many of them to do so. Some of them use the word Quranist in an adjectival sense to refer to their beliefs. But many of them don't use the word in a nounal sense to refer to themselves.

MezzoMezzo wrote: likewise, the Pew Research poll toward the beginning is quoted and occupies much of the section space yet the bottom line is that the source given has absolutely nothing to do with Quranism.

I think it should be removed, but not because it's irrelevant. Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same. I'm also going to remove the "non sectarian" heading and the tag and merge it with the "terminology" section. Melwood19 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no incentive for Quranists to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are. That's so silly that it almost betrays a stunning lack of objectivity. Quranists want to portray larger numbers just like other religious groups; they aren't some other-wordly beings who are disinterested in numbers. Try to be realistic about religious groups, especially when assessing articles like this one for bias.
It's relevant because many Quranists refer to themselves as just Muslims, and not Quranists. The opposite isn't the case, though, and that's the issue. Somebody saying they are "just Muslim" doesn't imply the exact specific details of their beliefs, and it's a stretch to assume that they share beliefs with such a small group. It makes as much sense as claiming that someone who says they're "just Muslim" must be Ahmadis, Druze, or any other minority sect, or to assume that someone who says they're "just Christian" is automatically a Presbyterian or Methodist, etc.
Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same. I kind of don't get it given your comments above, but the current version you did is a huge improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Very obvious intellectual dishonesty in the notable individuals section[edit]

Alright, I just searched through the individuals listed as Quranists who actually have Wikipedia articles. The red links are another issue for another time. Anyway, quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous. In a few cases, I checked the sources cited for proof that some individuals were Quranists and found that said sources didn't assert that at all. It seems as though an editor was trying to bolster the list of famous Quranists, throwing in random sources and hoping that nobody would double check.
All of my removals are in line with WP:NPOV and my rationale was provided in the given edit summaries. The individuals should stay out of the list until reliable sources can be brought here. Due to the obvious POV pushing that's occurred at this article, the sources should be discussed first and individuals can be added later; this is obviously a controversial topic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: Anyway, quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous.
"Modernist" and "Quranist" are not mutually exclusive terms. Like "just Muslim" and "Quranist," they sometimes overlap. You have a point about ambiguity, though.There are some that I'm on the fence about too like Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, Ma QiXi, and Maurice Bucaille. A good case can be made both for and against their inclusion. Pass a Method also questioned the inclusion of Alexander Russell Webb, and I questioned the inclusion of TaHa Hussein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Webb
MezzoMezzo wrote: All of my removals are in line with WP:NPOV and my rationale was provided in the given edit summaries. The individuals should stay out of the list until reliable sources can be brought here.
You didn't say what your criteria was for inclusion, but I can infer what it is from what you wrote here, your edits, and edit summaries. I inferred from them that your criteria for inclusion is a reliable source that calls them Quranist. But some of your edits don't follow your own implicit criteria. You removed some which, based on your own criteria, shouldn't have been removed. For example, you removed Shafie Ayar and Ma Qixi. You wrote in your edit summary that there's no mention of them being Quranists. But if your "rationale" for removing Ayar and Qixi was that there's no mention of them being Quranists, why did you also remove Asarulislam Syed and Tawfik Hamid? Syed's wikipedia article clearly mentions him being a Quranist:
. . . chief executive officer of Jannat Pakistan, a Quranist religious educational movement propagating Islam as Deen . . .
and,
As a Quran Scholar, Asarulislam won strong appreciation from other Quranist Scholars including the celebrated Dr. Shabbir Ahmed (writer) who acknowledging his scholarship named him "Cannon of the Quran".
And one of the references for the article says the same:
http://quaideazam.com/asarulislam/
The source which you removed for Hamid mentions his association with Quranists:
Former Jemaah Islamiya member Tawfik Hamid told me that it was Quranists who gave him the space to develop critical thinking and so helped wean him away from jihadism.
http://m.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/827vslni.asp
Though you don't think Hamid should be called a Quranist, you called him a modernist in your edit summary. Where's the "reliable source" for that? Why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists if you're just going to remove it regardless? And why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists when, as the wikipedia article on Quranism points out, many of them don't call themselves Quranists but just Muslims? Isn't a more reasonable criteria for inclusion what they believe, and not what they're called? For example, Yasar Nuri Ozturk's wikipedia article says:
His magnum opus, “The Islam of the Qur’an,” is considered one of the pioneering works of the “Back to the Qur’an” movement. Öztürk’s role in and contributions to this movement, along with the world of his thought, have been the subject of a large number of theses in Turkish, German, English and French at various international universities.
And the source, which you removed, said Ozturk's view of hadith was similar to Yuksel's view of hadith. But neither Ozturk nor Yuksel call themselves Quranists.
You removed Abdur Rab. You wrote in your edit summary, ""Abdur Rab" is just a redirect article and none of the Bangladeshi people listed there are Quranists". He wrote an article titled Fifteen Reasons Why Quran-only Islam (http://www.19.org/4863/fifteen-reason/) and a book titled Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from a Quranic Perspective. But, if I'm not mistaken, he doesn't call himself a Quranist either.

Peace be upon you. This understanding about Abdur Rab that he is not (does not call himself) a Quranist is blatantly mistaken. That he, a Harvard Ph.D., is a Quranist is well-proven by his latest book Rediscovering Genuine Islam: The Case for a Quran-Only Understanding, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014 (http://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-Genuine-Islam-Quran-Only-Understanding/dp/1495287173) - the latest of three successive editions of his book on Islam, written solely in the light of the Quran, two chapters of which each are devoted to a detailed, searching critique of the Hadith. The earlier editions of his book are titled Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from the Quranic Perspective, and Exploring Islam in a New Light: An Understanding from the Quranic Perspective (See website http://explorequran.org/). These are acclaimed by eminent scholars, such as Reza Aslan, Edip Yuksel, Riffat Hassan, Jeffrey Lang, and Khaleel Mohammed - the second edition also by Khaled Abou El Fadl. Jeffrey Lang's remarks in particular clearly point to Abdur Rab's sole Quranic stance: “Abdur Rab offers a comprehensive vision of Islam using the Quran as his sole religious textual source. He intentionally avoids the Hadith literature, which he believes, and argues, has done much damage to the message of the Quran. His work provides many very thought-provoking insights and should be a significant contribution to the ‘Quran only’ movement in modern Islam.” (See http://explorequran.org/endorse.html) Also worth noting are two reviews, one from Khaleel Mohammed and another from Edip Yuksel, which also reaffirm Abdur Rab's Quran-Only approach (See: http://explorequran.org/reviews.html). Abdur Rab's new, additional website is http://quranonly.com/. He has written many articles that use no Hadith references in support of his views (See his articles here: http://quranonly.com/my-articles/), one of which is presented to the 42nd NAAIMS Conference, organized by and held at Princeton University on Sep. 28, 2013 (available at https://naaims.org/uploads/Abdur_Rab_-_42FP.pdf). Three of his articles clearly justify rejecting the Hadith altogether - "The Story of How I Turned into an Advocate of Quran-Only Islam," (available at https://www.academia.edu/6926867/The_Story_of_How_I_Turned_into_an_Advocate_of_the_Quran-Only_Islam), "Fifteen Great Reasons We Should Embrace and Follow the Quran-only Islam," (available at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fifteen-Great-Reasons-We-S-by-Abdur-Rab-081202-982.html and also at http://19.org/blog/category/authors/abdurrab/), and "Does the Hadith have a Solid Historical Basis?". (available at http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis). Dr. Rab is a retired public policy analyst, who held important public positions including some with or for organizations, such as the World Bank, UNIDO, UNDP, and the Asian Development Bank. He has reviewed Aisha Y. Musa's book Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of the Prophetic Traditions in Islam, (available at https://www.academia.edu/3172436/Review_Article_Aisha_Musas_Hadith_as_Scripture_Discussions_on_the_Authority_of_the_Prophetic_Traditions_in_Islam_2008 and also at her Amazon book site). This information should amply justify reinstatement of Abdur Rab's name in the list of prominent Quranists.--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talkcontribs) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed Shabbir Ahmed, who was mentioned in Asarulislam Syed's wikipedia article. He doesn't call himself a Quranist either. You theatrically wrote in your edit summary, "for crying out loud, the guy has abook listing hadith which he accepts as authentic; how on earth is he being declared a quranist here?"
But you're confusing the issue of authenticity and authority. Being a Quranist doesn't require rejecting all hadith as inauthentic. The wikipedia article for Quranism itself says:
The extent to which Quranists reject the authenticity of the Sunnah varies. . .
The literature produced by Quranists discusses this issue. For example, in an article titled Identifying Assumptions in the Hadith/Sunnah Debate, Richard Voss wrote:
The assumptions that underlie the respective positions of proponents and opponents of hadith and sunnah generally revolve around what is meant by “discarding” them. The opponents of hadith and sunnah are concerned only with the question of sanctity [of upholding God’s word], their proponents, on the other hand, are concerned with the prescriptive vacuum that they fear would be created if all the world's Muslims suddenly do away with their volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the transcribers of the oral traditions of the early Islamic era. In a given debate, therefore, the Submitter [the advocate of following the Quran alone] may think that “discarding” hadith and sunnah means merely resisting the belief that they could serve as a source of divine guidance, while the advocate of hadith and sunnah may think it means doing away with information valuable for providing insight into certain aspects of early Islamic history. In such a debate, the debaters could reach a consensus if each realizes what the other assumes is understood from the outset.
and,
As for the other point, Submitters do not deny the historical validity of much of hadith.
http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/sp/1996/apr/page1.html
Prof. Aisha Musa discussed this issue in her book Hadith as Scripture (pp. 4-5, under the subheading "Authenticity versus Authority"). And I also discussed this issue with another editor on my talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Quranism_talk_page
And you also removed Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, neither of whom called themselves Quranists. You theatrically wrote in your edit summary: "wow....straight up blatant lying here! the tribune article doesn't mention anybody rejecting hadith in their entirety, not Khan and not Ali, and the other source is just the main page of a muslim proselytizing website"
Again, being a Quranist doesn't require rejecting hadith in its entirety. And the Tribune article associates both Khan and Ali with the Ahl al-Quran movement:
A bright young scholar with a PhD from Heidelberg and currently involved in postdoctoral work at the University of London, Ali Usman Qasmi, has given us a brilliant book: Questioning the Authority of the Past: The Ahl al-Quran Movement in the Punjab (OUP 2011) on a very significant movement in the understanding of the Holy Quran.
Presided over by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s ‘rational’ exegesis of the Quran, the ulema who sought to reinterpret the scripture thus included Aslam Jairajpuri, Maulana Ahmaduddin, Maulvi Chiragh Ali and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez — a work on Hadith of the last-named being banned in the more literalist-Hanbalite Gulf and likely in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/233531/a-matter-of-interpretation/

If you define a Quranist strictly as one who rejects the authority and authenticity of the Hadith in its entirety, Abdur Rab well qualifies as a Quranist and the removal of his name from the list of prominent Quranists is clearly unjustified (Refer to additional reference on Abdur Rab above).--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talkcontribs) 16:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The other source isn't just the main page of a Muslim proselytizing website as you claim. It's a paper written by Abu Ruqayyah Farasat Latif. On page 6, he also associates Khan and Ali with the Ahl al-Quran movement:
Dr as-Saleh as- Saleh states that in addition to Parwez’s Tulu’l Islam movement,three other Qur’aniyūn groups operate in Pakistan. They are: Umāt Muslimūn ahl thikr wa’l Qur’ān, Umāt Muslimūn, and Tahrīq Tahmīr Insān. The ideological impetus for all four groups can be traced back to the works of Sayyid Ahmed Khan (1817 -98), known as the founder of the modernist movement in the Subcontinent. He subjected the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth to ‘rational science’, resulting in a metaphorical interpretation of the many of the tenants of the Muslim belief. Khan held that it was not obligatory to follow a legal ruling from the ḥadīth. Chiragh ‘Alī2 further developed the view of his teacher Khan, holding that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic (Ahmad, 1967: 59-60).
http://www.academia.edu/3452285/The_Quraniyun_Of_The_Twentieth_Century
Ironically, Latif is a Sunni who stated that his aim for writing the paper is:
By examining the arguments of the Qur’aniyūn, the research will show that their views on the concept, status, and history of ḥadīth are seriously flawed, and contradict both the Qur’an and historical fact
Is he part of the conspiracy to "bolster the list of famous Quranists" too?
MezzoMezzo wrote: Due to the obvious POV pushing that's occurred at this article, the sources should be discussed first and individuals can be added later; this is obviously a controversial topic.
Some POV pushing has definately occured at this article. . . but not of the kind that you're suggesting. Although WP:CRIT suggests that religion articles should have a "criticism" section, the Quranism article is one of the few Islam-related articles that has one (the main article on Islam, and the articles for Yazdânism and the Nation of Islam being the other ones). When I first came accross this article, it was the largest section ("Besieged" discussed this in one of the sections above).
This is the second time you've accused me of POV pushing. And this is the second time I've had to disabuse you of that notion. I certainly hope you don't make a habit of this and I won't find myself here several months from now writing another lenghty defense of my edits. After all, some of your edits on this article could also be perceived as POV pushing. For example, removing "famous" people from the list and drawing a hard line between overlapping terms like Quranist, modernist, non-denominational, and liberal Muslim, has the effect of reinforcing your opinion (and the broader Sunni opinion) of the movement as "fringe" and a "minuscule minority". Nevertheless, I assumed your edits were made in good faith and didn't hurl accusations of "POV pushing," "intellectual dishonesty," and "straight up blatant lying" your way. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd extend the same courtesy to me. Melwood19 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I inferred from them that your criteria for inclusion is a reliable source that calls them Quranist. But some of your edits don't follow your own implicit criteria. That isn't my criteria, those are the criteria used on religion articles for Wikipedia. This was reached after long discussions on the talk page for Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri led to a check on various Wikipedia discussion boards. If you like, I can trudge through the discussions and provide the wikilinks, given some time. As for me not always following it, then that's a matter of gross error on my part in which case I obviously should be reverted.
Syed's wikipedia article clearly mentions him being a Quranist. Absolutely correct; it makes that clear early on. I was opening many pages and searching for the term, and somehow I must have mixed that page with another or something along those lines. I'm not sure how I missed it.
The source which you removed for Hamid mentions his association with Quranists. The President of the Comoros studied Islam in Iran and thus has an association with Shi'ism, but he isn't a Shi'ite. The point I am making is that an association in which one person learns positively from another group doesn't make them a member of said group; Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group.
Though you don't think Hamid should be called a Quranist, you called him a modernist in your edit summary. Where's the "reliable source" for that? I don't need one because I didn't add that to his article.
And why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists when, as the wikipedia article on Quranism points out, many of them don't call themselves Quranists but just Muslims? Again, the rules for ascription to this religious group aren't different from the rules to ascription to any other group. If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period.
Isn't a more reasonable criteria for inclusion what they believe, and not what they're called? That's absolutely not reasonable because what a person believes is up to interpretation. Either reliable sources designate a person as belonging to a certain religious group, or they don't. It's not up to us editors to engage in our own original research and decide how to categorize people.
And the source, which you removed, said Ozturk's view of hadith was similar to Yuksel's view of hadith. But neither Ozturk nor Yuksel call themselves Quranists. Yuksel is widely acknowledged as a Quranist and reliable sources cannot be found to that effect. I did not find any reliable source positively describing Ozturk with that term.
You removed Abdur Rab. It's a disambiguation page. It shall remain removed.

Please see the new objections to the removal of Abdur Rab noted above. The removal of his name does not stand justified in light of the new information about him inserted above.--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talkcontribs) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed Shabbir Ahmed, who was mentioned in Asarulislam Syed's wikipedia article. He doesn't call himself a Quranist either. And so he will not be listed here, for reasons explained above.
And you also removed Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, neither of whom called themselves Quranists. This only supports their removal.
Is he (Latif) part of the conspiracy to "bolster the list of famous Quranists" too? No, he isn't a Wikipedia editor.
WP:CRIT suggests that religion articles should have a "criticism" section... Unrelated to our discussion.
This is the second time you've accused me of POV pushing. No it isn't. I didn't accuse anybody in particular of POV pushing here, I just said that somebody is doing it. In the absence of any explanation from you or anyone else (I didn't check the article history because I didn't need to, I know POV pushing when I see it and speaking generally is less confrontational), there really aren't any other conclusions to be drawn.
For example, removing "famous" people from the list and drawing a hard line between overlapping terms like Quranist, modernist, non-denominational, and liberal Muslim, has the effect of reinforcing your opinion (and the broader Sunni opinion) of the movement as "fringe" and a "minuscule minority". If you really want to argue that anybody who is modernist, non-deniminational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, start a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. You're going to lose such a discussion, by the way, but if this upsets you then don't complain to me as I can't change the policies of the encyclopedia.
I'm going to actually review that part of the article now and remove anyone else who is not explicitly noted as a part of this religious group - taking care, of course, to look a lot harder this time and avoid other blatant errors such as the issue with Asarulislam Syed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: That isn't my criteria, those are the criteria used on religion articles for Wikipedia. This was reached after long discussions on the talk page for Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri led to a check on various Wikipedia discussion boards. If you like, I can trudge through the discussions and provide the wikilinks, given some time. As for me not always following it, then that's a matter of gross error on my part in which case I obviously should be reverted.
It is indeed your own idiosyncratic criteria and not the criteria used for religion articles on Wikipedia. And the discussion that occurred on the Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri talk page has no bearing on the discussion happening on this talk page. It certainly doesn't have the force of a Wikipedia guideline to be applied to all other religion articles.
MezzoMezzo wrote: Absolutely correct; it makes that clear early on. I was opening many pages and searching for the term, and somehow I must have mixed that page with another or something along those lines. I'm not sure how I missed it.
It's besides the point whether Asarulislam Syed is called a Quranist or not. This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.
MezzoMezzo wrote: The President of the Comoros studied Islam in Iran and thus has an association with Shi'ism, but he isn't a Shi'ite. The point I am making is that an association in which one person learns positively from another group doesn't make them a member of said group; Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group.
I wasn't using the word association in the loose sense that you're using it. I meant Tawfik Hamid is associated with Quranism in the same sense that Ahmed Subhy Mansour is associated with Quranism, and Colonel Sanders is associated with fried chicken. Hamid's articles even appear on the Ahl al-Quran website:
http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/profile.php?main_id=4197
MezzoMezzo wrote: Again, the rules for ascription to this religious group aren't different from the rules to ascription to any other group. If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period.
I don't know why you think that every editor who disagrees with you must not be aware of Wikipedia guidelines. I know what the guidelines are and they're not what you say they are. And I'm not ascribing beliefs to people who don't openly proclaim them.
MezzoMezzo wrote: That's absolutely not reasonable because what a person believes is up to interpretation. Either reliable sources designate a person as belonging to a certain religious group, or they don't. It's not up to us editors to engage in our own original research and decide how to categorize people.
Again, you seem to think I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are. WP:EDITDISC says:
Editors should exercise their discretion to make sure that relevant sources and claims are reflected fairly.
[. . .]
It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia. We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules, we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. This task requires the application of judgement and discretion in order to create a neutral and readable encyclopedia.
The policy on original research is sometimes misconstrued as a blanket prohibition on any application of judgement or critical thinking by editors. The intent of that policy was never to turn editing into an unthinking task, and our articles into mere compilations of published data.
And WP:COMMONSENSE says:
Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.
This is not an article about Quranists, but Quranism. And the notion that someone who espouses beliefs in line with Quranism, as defined in reliable sources, doesn't warrant inclusion in an article about Quranism just because they don't call themselves Quranist is patently absurd. It's even more absurd when you consider that reliable sources say that many of them don't use the word Quranist as a self-appellation.
MezzoMezzo wrote: Yuksel is widely acknowledged as a Quranist and reliable sources cannot be found to that effect. I did not find any reliable source positively describing Ozturk with that term.
Widely acknowledged by who? Only several paragraphs earlier you wrote: "Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group." As I pointed out in a previous comment, Yuksel doesn't call himself a Quranist. But you'd still include him in an article about Quranism because he's "widely acknowledged" as a Quranist? I think Yuksel and the others should be included in the article not because they or someone else calls them a Quranist, but because the ideas they advocate comes under the scope of the ideas covered in the article on Quranism.
MezzoMezzo wrote: And so he will not be listed here, for reasons explained above.
So now the criteria for including Shabbir Ahmed is back to him calling himself a Quranists? What happened to being "widely acknowledged" as Quranist? Shabbir Ahmed should be included in an article on Quranism because his ideas come under the scope of such an article. And so he will be listed here, for reasons explained above.
MezzoMezzo wrote: This only supports their removal.
No, it doesn't support Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Chiragh Ali's removal. Despite not calling themselves Quranists, their ideas come under the scope of the article on Quranism. And numerous reliable sources attest to their association with Quranism:
. . .sections of the Muslim intelligensia rejected hadith literature as de facto legitimations of social-religious and political practices. Chiragh Ali, for instance, refused to accept the hadith as authentic sources of Islam, asserting that all sorts of political systems could be and have been defended by an appeal to them. The Quran, he argued, was the only authentic source to which Muslims could look back, hence, any social-political formulation had to be based solely on a proper interpretation of the Quran.
Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pg. 54
There are, however, some modernist schools in Islam which reject the authenticity of hadith, and reject it in toto. The Indian Muslim, Chiragh Ali (d. 1894), a colleague of the modernist Sir Sayyid Ahmad, attacked hadith literature even more sharply than Ignaz Goldziher did at the same time in Europe. His attitude is likely to have strengthened the aversion of the traditionalists and especially the Ahl-i hadith (a fundamentalist movement) against Sir Sayyid's reformist tendencies.
Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, State University of New York Press, 1992, pg. 54
Islamic modernists' most influential work came in critiquing the corpus of Hadiths. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, some Muslim intellectuals concluded that the Hadith tradition was not at all a reliable representation of Muhammad's message. A few of these thinkers went so far as to reject altogether the authoritativeness of the prophet's precedent.
One of the most influential intellectual movements in the Muslim world in the twentieth century was the Ahl-e Quran, the "People of the Quran," also known as the "Quran-only" movement, which emerged and flourished in South Asia. This approach to Hadiths and the Quran built on the work of Chiragh Ali (d. 1895), an Indian who worked in the civil service of the local ruler of Hyderabad. Ali rejected all sources of Islamic law and dogma except the Quran and called for a reinterpretation of Islamic law based on the ideals of humanism (such as rationalism, science and non-religiously-based ethics). If the Quran did not provide any comprehensive vision of law or dogma, that was no problem; Ali claimed that Muslims had always been supposed to revise their law in accordance with the needs of the times. As part of his radical reforms, Ali rejected consensus as a type of proof.
Jonathan A.C. Brown in Islam in the Modern World, Routledge, 2013, pg. 20
Similarly, in the the field of historical criticism, the question of Hadith comes under discussion. On this point, again, Muhammad 'Abduh maintains that one does not incur infidelity to Islam if one doubts any given Hadith, but Hadith must be accepted on principle and in general. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, most probably aided by his colleague, Maulavi Chiragh ' Ali, rejects all Hadith. One may say that the method adopted by Sayyid Ahmad Khan was more thorough-going and consistent, and its conclusions are more radical than those of Muhammad 'Abduh.
Peter Malcolm Holt, ‎Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam:, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 645-646
MezzoMezzo wrote: Unrelated to our discussion.
It's more related to our discussion than that discussion about Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri. You claimed that "obvious POV pushing" had occurred at this article. Yet the article, though not perfect, is relatively well balanced and is one of the only Islam-related articles with a criticism section (something which WP:CRIT suggests religion articles have).
MezzoMezzo wrote: No it isn't. I didn't accuse anybody in particular of POV pushing here, I just said that somebody is doing it. In the absence of any explanation from you or anyone else (I didn't check the article history because I didn't need to, I know POV pushing when I see it and speaking generally is less confrontational), there really aren't any other conclusions to be drawn.
WP:GF doesn't require that you specifically name the editor(s) you assume are editing in bad faith. Besides, people can put 2 and 2 together. And if you know POV pushing when you see it, why are you so oblivious to your own?
MezzoMezzo wrote: If you really want to argue that anybody who is modernist, non-deniminational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, start a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. You're going to lose such a discussion, by the way, but if this upsets you then don't complain to me as I can't change the policies of the encyclopedia.
And If you really want to make the Straw man argument that I said that anybody who is modernist, non-denominational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, go ahead. But you're going to lose that argument because I specifically said in two previous comments that:
It's possible that some who self-identify as "just Muslim" espouse beliefs similar to Sunnis or Shias. Conversely, it's also possible that some who identify as Sunni or Shia espouse beliefs that are similar to "Quranists".
and,
I think it should be removed, but not because it's irrelevant. Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same.
Moreover, I've provided six reliable sources on this talk page that movements like Quranism, modernism, etc., sometimes overlap. You've provided zero reliable sources that said movements are mutually exclusive. Melwood19 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The inconsistencies, personal attacks and POV pushing is now obvious enough to call you out on it and I really am disappointed that you're choosing to go this route. Let's cut to the chase about our disagreement here:
Does a person sharing some ideas with a religious group warrant asciption to said religious group by Wikipedia editors?
Does the overlapping of ideas among several religious groups mean that a person ascribed to one can also be categorized under the other? You've claimed that you do and don't hold this idea above, but your rant ends with the implication that overlapping does mean we can cross-categorize, so I will assume that's the position you hold.
If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?
My position is that your edits constitute a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, whether you claim the issue is of one of POV or not. Thus I feel strongly that this issue must be taken to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. There is also the more general Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is mainly a place where the communtiy points editors in the right direction or a good starting point. Take your pick, I'm comfortable with either one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: The inconsistencies, personal attacks and POV pushing is now obvious enough to call you out on it and I really am disappointed that you're choosing to go this route.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, you didn't remove Edip Yuksel from the list because he's "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. But you removed Chiragh Ali from the list (who, like Yuksel, is also "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist) because he didn't call himself a Quranist. But I'm the one who's being inconsistent?
You accused other editors here of everything from "intellectual dishonesty" to "straight up blatant lying," but you're the one who's being personally attacked?
And you've been editing the article in such a way to make the group fit your perception of it as "fringe," but I'm the one who's POV pushing? Okay, got it!
MezzoMezzo wrote: Let's cut to the chase about our disagreement here
We cut to the chase a long time ago. Now you're just repeating the same piffle over and over again
MezzoMezzo wrote: Does a person sharing some ideas with a religious group warrant asciption to said religious group by Wikipedia editors?
We're not talking about just "some ideas," but the main idea of the group in question. An idea which only the group in question advocates.
MezzoMezzo wrote: Does the overlapping of ideas among several religious groups mean that a person ascribed to one can also be categorized under the other?
This is a textbook example of the Either-or fallacy. Yes, sometimes they can be categorized under more than one group (and we're not talking about different religious groups, but movements within the same religion). That's why some of the people on the list of Evangelicals like Johnny Hunt are also on the list of Baptists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southern_Baptist_Convention_affiliated_people#Living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_Christians#Pastors_and_preachers
And that's why some of the people on the list of Quranists like Ghulam Ahmed Pervez and Syed Ahmed Khan are also on the list of modernist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Modernism#A_list_of_alleged_Islamic_Modernists
But all the people on the list of Evangelicals aren't on the list of Baptists and vice versa. And all the people on the list of Quranists aren't on the list of modernists and vice versa. I don't know why this is such a difficult thing for you to grasp.
MezzoMezzo wrote: You've claimed that you do and don't hold this idea above, but your rant ends with the implication that overlapping does mean we can cross-categorize, so I will assume that's the position you hold.
I hold the position that they sometimes overlap, not that they always overlap (that's a straw man of your own making).
MezzoMezzo wrote: If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?
No, they cannot be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors. But we're not talking about undercover Quranists here. We're talking about people who are "widely acknowledged" as being Quranists, and whose association with Quranism is attested to in reliable sources (like Chiragh Ali, for example).
MezzoMezzo wrote: My position is that your edits constitute a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, whether you claim the issue is of one of POV or not.
And my position is that your edits constitute a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE.
MezzoMezzo wrote: Thus I feel strongly that this issue must be taken to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. There is also the more general Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is mainly a place where the communtiy points editors in the right direction or a good starting point. Take your pick, I'm comfortable with either one.
I was going to say that dispute resolution may not be necessary because I could have accepted Inayity's last edit (and because I don't have as much time to be able to participate in a dispute resolution noticeboard during the week as I would during the weekend). But after seeing your last edit claiming that Chiragh Ali's association with Quranism is "in dispute" when almost every scholarly work includes him among the intellectuals who espoused Quranist beliefs, I think we should seek dispute resolution too. I'm going to do a RFC since it seems to require less of a time investment than a DR/N. Melwood19 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sad more straw men, intellectual dishonesty and personal attacks. I am happy to see that you've backed down on this edit for the most part, as that was essentially what caused this dispute. You're also accurate in pinpointing that the current dispute revolves around Chiragh Ali, whom you reinserted here.
There are a number of sources given to support the statement "His (Khan's) student, Chiragh Ali, went further, suggesting that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic." I'm already seeing a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, as the 70th source for the article - A matter of interpretation - most assuredly does NOT support that statement. The sole mention of Ali says:
"Presided over by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s ‘rational’ exegesis of the Quran, the ulema who sought to reinterpret the scripture thus included Aslam Jairajpuri, Maulana Ahmaduddin, Maulvi Chiragh Ali and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez — a work on Hadith of the last-named being banned in the more literalist-Hanbalite Gulf and likely in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa."
There's nothing there about him suggesting anything at all, it just drops his name. Of the other sources given, one is a link to academia.edu - generally not considered a reliable source - and others which do appear to be reliable as they are from respected publishing houses.
Here's the problem though, Melwood: you're a proven POV pusher and we can see here a clear violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and I already found multiple other violations of that policy in previous versions of this article. I can no longer assume good faith, and I would like to see the full quotes in question from each and every one of these quoted sources. I don't trust that they say what you're claiming they say because you have not demonstrated a strong understanding of the relevant policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I started a noticification for the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#RfC_on_inclusion_in_lists. Does anybody like the idea of choosing someone at random from Wikipedia:Feedback request service as well? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: I am happy to see that you've backed down on this edit for the most part, as that was essentially what caused this dispute.

I didn't back down on the edit. I removed them to conform with a clearer, narrower criteria of inclusion per the Manual of Style:

. . .the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming

MezzoMezzo wrote: You're also accurate in pinpointing that the current dispute revolves around Chiragh Ali, whom you reinserted here.There are a number of sources given to support the statement "His (Khan's) student, Chiragh Ali, went further, suggesting that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic.". . . . Of the other sources given, one is a link to academia.edu - generally not considered a reliable source - and others which do appear to be reliable as they are from respected publishing houses. Here's the problem though, Melwood: you're a proven POV pusher and we can see here a clear violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and I already found multiple other violations of that policy in previous versions of this article. I can no longer assume good faith, and I would like to see the full quotes in question from each and every one of these quoted sources. I don't trust that they say what you're claiming they say because you have not demonstrated a strong understanding of the relevant policy.

There you go again with the personal attacks. And stop acting like you're only now not assuming good faith, when you didn't assume good faith from the very beginning. I already quoted the sources in my previous comment. Here they are again:

. . .sections of the Muslim intelligentsia rejected hadith literature as de facto legitimations of social-religious and political practices. Chiragh Ali, for instance, refused to accept the hadith as authentic sources of Islam, asserting that all sorts of political systems could be and have been defended by an appeal to them. The Quran, he argued, was the only authentic source to which Muslims could look back, hence, any social-political formulation had to be based solely on a proper interpretation of the Quran.

Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pg. 54

There are, however, some modernist schools in Islam which reject the authenticity of hadith, and reject it in toto. The Indian Muslim, Chiragh Ali (d. 1894), a colleague of the modernist Sir Sayyid Ahmad, attacked hadith literature even more sharply than Ignaz Goldziher did at the same time in Europe. His attitude is likely to have strengthened the aversion of the traditionalists and especially the Ahl-i hadith (a fundamentalist movement) against Sir Sayyid's reformist tendencies.

Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, State University of New York Press, 1992, pg. 54

Islamic modernists' most influential work came in critiquing the corpus of Hadiths. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, some Muslim intellectuals concluded that the Hadith tradition was not at all a reliable representation of Muhammad's message. A few of these thinkers went so far as to reject altogether the authoritativeness of the prophet's precedent.

One of the most influential intellectual movements in the Muslim world in the twentieth century was the Ahl-e Quran, the "People of the Quran," also known as the "Quran-only" movement, which emerged and flourished in South Asia. This approach to Hadiths and the Quran built on the work of Chiragh Ali (d. 1895), an Indian who worked in the civil service of the local ruler of Hyderabad. Ali rejected all sources of Islamic law and dogma except the Quran and called for a reinterpretation of Islamic law based on the ideals of humanism (such as rationalism, science and non-religiously-based ethics). If the Quran did not provide any comprehensive vision of law or dogma, that was no problem; Ali claimed that Muslims had always been supposed to revise their law in accordance with the needs of the times. As part of his radical reforms, Ali rejected consensus as a type of proof.

Jonathan A.C. Brown in Islam in the Modern World, Routledge, 2013, pg. 20

Similarly, in the the field of historical criticism, the question of Hadith comes under discussion. On this point, again, Muhammad 'Abduh maintains that one does not incur infidelity to Islam if one doubts any given Hadith, but Hadith must be accepted on principle and in general. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, most probably aided by his colleague, Maulavi Chiragh ' Ali, rejects all Hadith. One may say that the method adopted by Sayyid Ahmad Khan was more thorough-going and consistent, and its conclusions are more radical than those of Muhammad 'Abduh.

Peter Malcolm Holt, ‎Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam:, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 645-646

Melwood19 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't back down on the edit. I removed them to conform with...
You were the one who re-inserted them here, and then User:Inayity - NOT you - removed them here. You're not remembering things properly and instances like this will cause problems in communication.
I already quoted the sources in my previous comment...
You are correct and I am mistaken; the high volume of your insults, personal attacks and total inability to admit when you're wrong caused me to reply with this brief comment, however even when personally attacked it was still my responsibility to complete reading your comments in full. That being the case, the issue with Chiragh Ali seems to be resolved now which is an improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: You are correct and I am mistaken; the high volume of your insults, personal attacks and total inability to admit when you're wrong caused me to reply with this brief comment, however even when personally attacked it was still my responsibility to complete reading your comments in full.
So even when you make a mistake, it's still my fault? Stop trying to assess blame. We've been arguing for a whole week. And I don't want to be here arguing for another week.
MezzoMezzo wrote: That being the case, the issue with Chiragh Ali seems to be resolved now which is an improvement.
I agree. Let's move on. Melwood19 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
And what is this thing you inserted which Inayity had to remove? have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism? I thought you said we as editors were no longer assessing via original research who is a Quranist and who isn't? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: And what is this thing you inserted which Inayity had to remove? have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism?
It's called a section lead (in it's entirety it read, "The following is an incomplete list of people who have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism"). As I pointed out in a previous comment, the Manual of Style suggests that lists have a brief section lead to clarify the criteria for inclusion:
the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming
MezzoMezzo wrote: I thought you said we as editors were no longer assessing via original research who is a Quranist and who isn't?
That's what I said, and that's what I continue to say. Melwood19 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the gross incivility on your part makes this discussion rather difficult. You said:
So even when you make a mistake, it's still my fault?
Yet I never assessed blame; in fact, I apologized and make clear that I committed an error. Your reaction here is difficult to understand. This is similarly confusing:
It's called a section lead...
I know what that is, but you appear to be playing games with your fellow editors now. As Inayity pointed out, you're switching the standards to people people who have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism. Once again, this will cause us to fall into original research. It's about who is noted in reliable sources as being a Quranist, not merely contributing ideas. What you inserted flies in the face of much of the progress I and apparently Inayity thought was made here.
Regarding Ali and the I agree. Let's move on comment, you've done your part but I'm not ready to move on. Responding to your unfortunately rude comments took my (sadly limited) Wikipedia time yesterday and today, so I didn't actually read what you posted about Ali thoroughly yet. Give me a day or so to get back to you as I will have more free time then, I was just noting that you had made a positive contribution, I finally realized that and you deserve thanks for that. I'm not ready to review those comments in depth yet though to be honest I didn't make this point clear at all before. Just wait another day or so and we can move on then. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Upon proper review of the sources you have provided - something very belated on my part - I not only renew my opposition to the inclusion of Chiragh Ali in the list of notable Quranists but also to the inclusion of Syed Ahmad Khan. You provided four reliable sources, and not one of them refers to either individual as Quranists. They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research.
Now, if you want to mention both men in the history section as people who held similar ideas to the Quranist movement then I think you have a much stronger case there. The history section of articles on religious movements often mention individuals who held similar ideas to the movement. But the bottom line is that we have no basis for declaring either man to expressly be members of this religious movement. The matter really shouldn't require much more explanation at this point. We have this RfC open and the default duration should continue for another three weeks if I understand correctly, there really isn't much else to do except wait for further feedback from other editors and perhaps try to find proper, official means to publicize that RfC. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: "You provided four reliable sources, and not one of them refers to either individual as Quranists. They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research."
You initially claimed that you "doubt the sources claiming Chiragh Ali discounted all hadith literature". And you claimed that it was this that constituted OR. You said, "If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period." I provided sources that the person in question held said beliefs and wrote: "The sources will tell the editors whether the person in question advocates Quranism, even if they don't call themselves Quranist (so there's no need for editors to engage in original research)."
Then you started claiming that what constitutes OR was him not calling himself or being called a Quranist. You said, "They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research."
But the article itself says, "Quranists are be referred to in various ways" and "Quranists generally refer to themselves simply as "Muslims"". So how can ascription or self ascription as Quranist be a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists? Your interpretation and application of the wikipedia OR policy defies commonsense.
MezzoMezzo wrote: "Now, if you want to mention both men in the history section as people who held similar ideas to the Quranist movement then I think you have a much stronger case there. The history section of articles on religious movements often mention individuals who held similar ideas to the movement."
You can do that if you wish, as a compromise between our two positions. I disagree with your interpretation and application of wikipedia policies, as I explained above. But I don't intend to argue this point further over my holiday vacation.
MezzoMezzo wrote: "But the bottom line is that we have no basis for declaring either man to expressly be members of this religious movement."
Yes, we do have a basis to declare them part of the Quranism movement. That's what the sources say. In fact, the same source that's used for Chiragh Ali (the 73rd source, pg. 20), is also used for Edip Yuksel (the 89th source, pg. 21). Neither is called a Quranists, but both are treated as part of the Quranist movement. The source says:
Islamic modernism and its Quran-only trend have thrived among Western Muslim scholars. Although they have not always held explicit Quran-only positions, many have ignored Hadiths in their discussions of Islamic Law and dogma, as is the case with American Amina Wadud's revaluation of the traditional Islamic view of gender. The Quran-only movement has continued among some Tukish intellectuals, such as Edip Yuksel and his collegues, who have published the Reformist Quran, an English translation and explanation of the holy book written without consulting hadiths.
MezzoMezzo wrote: "The matter really shouldn't require much more explanation at this point. We have this RfC open and the default duration should continue for another three weeks if I understand correctly, there really isn't much else to do except wait for further feedback from other editors and perhaps try to find proper, official means to publicize that RfC."
We've reached an impasse. I continue to insist on a commonsense application and interpretation of wikipedia policies, and you continue to insist on your interpretation of the policies. You can follow through on the aforementioned compromise if you wish, or you can wait for the RfC to run its course. Melwood19 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that I still think you're misunderstanding a number of Wikipedia policies. When you ask:
But the article itself says, "Quranists are be referred to in various ways" and "Quranists generally refer to themselves simply as "Muslims"". So how can ascription or self ascription as Quranist be a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists?
Then the answer is simple: ascription or self ascription is a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists just as it is on a list of Ismailis, Bahais, Hanafis, Jehovahs Witnesses, Zen Buddhists and any other religious group. No religious group earns special treatment via Wikipedia policies. If a religious movement has many supposed followers who simply don't self ascribe or don't speak out and thus aren't ascribed to it by anyone else, then that religious group will simply have a shorter list. That's how Wikipedia works.
Your interpretation and application of the wikipedia OR policy defies commonsense.
Please explain.
Now, regarding the possibility of mentioning the two individuals in the history section you said:
You can do that if you wish, as a compromise between our two positions.
Well, I don't wish to do that. As I said, I just think you would have a stronger case. This article isn't a compromise between two individuals; we would need to wait for this RfC to run its course and then maybe, depending on the outcome of that, a discussion regarding my theoretical suggestion could take place but it takes deliberation. I've seen discussions on contested/controversial articles like this one drag on for months, that's just how it is if Wikipedia is to be improved.
Yes, we do have a basis to declare them part of the Quranism movement. That's what the sources say.
No, and I thought you had backed off from your earlier intellectual dishonesty on this one. I've finally checked the sources you gave above and have done so several times. The sources don't call Chiragh Ali or his teacher Syed Khan Quranists, period. I don't even know why you would bother saying this since your position seemed to have switched again - based on what you said above - to Quranists not requiring ascription in reliable sources to be considered Quranists.
By the way, the quote you provided only mentions Yuksel. I'm not sure how that is relevant here. You also made one other comment:
I continue to insist on a commonsense application and interpretation of wikipedia policies, and you continue to insist on your interpretation of the policies.
So your application is commonsense, and mine is not, but you haven't explained why...? That isn't very civil and you can make your point without framing the discussion in such a biased way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Shopping list[edit]

See WP:LISTPEOPLE For one, how long do you plan to make it? Should we include every single Quranist that has ever lived with a Wikipedia page. Also the tone of those entries violates Wikipedia with the peacock terms and fan styled writing. So 1. the list is too long and should not even exist in my opinion. 2. the inclusion criteria needs R.S. Right now some of those ref are weak and fail inclusion, as you need very strong sources per WP:BLP to say someone is this religion or that religion.3. The tone also seems to be like a POV agenda pusher, I am starting to see a pattern of advocacy. So I would say the list is long enough and we should now use the talk page before making it any longer. You can therfore pick the most notable people and leave it at that. --Inayity (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, and you reminded me of the following line at WP:LISTPEOPLE:
From above, though, it seems like this issue is headed toward dispute resolution. User:Inayity, does that jive with you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the burden is really on the person pushing the stuff. But i feel the additions compromise the quality of wikipedia and we are here to make articles better. he now has all kinds of options including request for comments etc.--Inayity (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Inayity wrote: See WP:LISTPEOPLE For one, how long do you plan to make it?

A better question would be how short do you plan to make it?

Inayity wrote: Should we include every single Quranist that has ever lived with a Wikipedia page.

No. But since Quranists are such a "minuscule minority," if you were to include every single one that has ever lived, it would still be a very short list. At least that's what I've heard from a "neutral" Sunni editor.

Inayity wrote: Also the tone of those entries violates Wikipedia with the peacock terms and fan styled writing.

I noticed some peacock terms too. I'm going to edit that out.

Inayity wrote: So 1. the list is too long and should not even exist in my opinion.

The list isn't too long as it exists now. And it should exist because it helps readers find other relevant wikipedia articles. Although some editors seem to think it's "widely acknowledged" who's associated with Quranism, most readers don't know. Which is probably why they're reading the wikipedia article to begin with.

Inayity wrote: 2. the inclusion criteria needs R.S.

The section doesn't need more RS. How many reliable sources do you need to establish that Chiragh Ali advocated Quranist beliefs, for example? What it needs is a section lead that states and clarifies the criteria for inclusion:

. . .the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming

Inayity wrote: 3. The tone also seems to be like a POV agenda pusher, I am starting to see a pattern of advocacy.

I'm starting to see a pattern of POV pushing and advocacy too.

Inayity wrote: So I would say the list is long enough and we should now use the talk page before making it any longer. You can therfore pick the most notable people and leave it at that.

No one has actually made any additions to the list in nearly three months. The last addition was made by 192.249.47.175 on September 23rd. Most of the recent edits (including mine) have been subtractions and, ironically, I've made the most. I restored some sourced ones to the section that MezzoMezzo removed. My problem is that the subtractions he's making are arbitrary and based on his own idiosyncratic definition of Quranism and Quranist, rather than based on reliable sources. Melwood19 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources you provided to claim that Ali is a Qur'anist, one of them clearly does NOT support the claim, and I already saw such WP:V violations in that section before. I don't think you have a strong grasp of that policy given your mistaken belief that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can infer what religious denominations people belonged to, and I can not consent to his addition until each and every single one of those claimed quotes from the sources is shown here to prove that they fall in line with Wikipedia's verification policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: I don't think you have a strong grasp of that policy given your mistaken belief that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can infer what religious denominations people belonged to, and I can not consent to his addition until each and every single one of those claimed quotes from the sources is shown here to prove that they fall in line with Wikipedia's verification policy.
There you go again with the straw man arguments. In previous comment you asked: "If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?"
And I answered: "No, they cannot be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors. But we're not talking about undercover Quranists here. We're talking about people who are "widely acknowledged" as being Quranists, and whose association with Quranism is attested to in reliable sources (like Chiragh Ali, for example)." Melwood19 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a strawman argument because you truthfully have not demonstrated a strong grasp of the relevant policy. You changed your position after our discussion, but this is a recent change from your exhaustive arguments that we should be able to determine what a subject's religious affiliation is based on our (editors) own judgments of their specific beliefs. We switched the discussion several times - your backing down from the above mentioned edit being one instance - and the signal this sends to others is that you're only now becoming aware of many of the relevant policies. Even the recent gaffe with the verifiability is one example.
It's a moot point by now as the issue seems solved for the most part, but keep in mind that myself and likely other editors will start watching this page due to the gross incivility you've displayed here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo wrote: It isn't a strawman argument because you truthfully have not demonstrated a strong grasp of the relevant policy.
It is a straw man argument because I never said that editors could determine who's a Quranist based on original research.
MezzoMezzo wrote: You changed your position after our discussion, but this is a recent change from your exhaustive arguments that we should be able to determine what a subject's religious affiliation is based on our (editors) own judgments of their specific beliefs. We switched the discussion several times - your backing down from the above mentioned edit being one instance - and the signal this sends to others is that you're only now becoming aware of many of the relevant policies. Even the recent gaffe with the verifiability is one example.
You said, "quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous"
However, I pointed out that the words Quranist and modernist were not mutually exclusive, and occasionally overlap.
You said, "Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group."
However, I pointed out that many people who are called Quranists, like Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, didn't call themselves Quranists. The word Quranist is analogous to the word Existentialist. The man who is considered the founder of Existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, didn't call himself an existentialist. Martin Heidegger, who contributed much to existentialism, also didn't call himself an existentialist. The word existentialist was applied to them by later scholars. And so both appear on the list of existentialists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_existentialists
Putting Kierkegaard and Heidegger on a list of existentialist, even though they didn't call themselves that, is not OR because scholars classify their thought as existentialist. And putting Khan and Ali on a list of Quranists, even though they didn't call themselves Quranists, is not OR because scholars classify their thought as Quranist. We've always been in agreement that editors can't attribute beliefs to a person based on their own research. Where we disagree is whether an editor can exercise any editorial discretion and common sense at all. Your insistence that they can't struck me as wikilawyering and Rationalized JDLI.
MezzoMezzo wrote: It's a moot point by now as the issue seems solved for the most part, but keep in mind that myself and likely other editors will start watching this page due to the gross incivility you've displayed here.
It is a moot point. We've resolved the main point. As for my supposed "gross incivility," I've always been civil with you. You even noted my civility to you on my talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Quranism_talk_page
Melwood19 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is just confusing. You claim: I never said that editors could determine who's a Quranist based on original research, yet earlier you said about Asarulislam Syed:
This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.
And then about others:
I meant Tawfik Hamid is associated with Quranism in the same sense that Ahmed Subhy Mansour is associated with Quranism, and Colonel Sanders is associated with fried chicken.
And your general claim: And the notion that someone who espouses beliefs in line with Quranism, as defined in reliable sources, doesn't warrant inclusion in an article about Quranism just because they don't call themselves Quranist is patently absurd.
It would make more sense for you to simply distance yourself from those comments. When you deny making such comments - and those are absolutely calls for OR - it just makes you look like someone in the mood to argue, which in turn causes other editors to scrutinize your edits more.
You also say that: I pointed out that the words Quranist and modernist were not mutually exclusive, and occasionally overlap, yet this again leans toward OR. If someone is a modernist then they are a modernist; that doesn't allow us to list them as a Quranist, Sunni, Shia, Rastafarian or anything else. As for your Martin Heidegger, who contributed much to existentialism, also didn't call himself an existentialist comment, then please review Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I made reference to the Qadri discussion due to the policies and guidelines which were brought up, not because it exists. Your comments seem to lean toward the latter here.
Regarding your last comment of You even noted my civility to you on my talk page, then this is silly enough but it still warrants a reply. The comment you're showing me is from six months ago. My surprise as your rudeness and tendency toward insults is about this most recent discussion, with winners such as accusing me of believing in conspiracies for disagreeing with you on points of POV, stating to me that "every editor who disagrees with you must not be aware of Wikipedia guidelines," and the sarcastic rhetorical question: And you've been editing the article in such a way to make the group fit your perception of it as "fringe," but I'm the one who's POV pushing? Okay, got it! All of this in reaction to comments of mine which were not even directed at you in the first place.
I hope you will read my comments here and pause to give some thought. I had no problem admitting that I overreacted during our discussion six months ago. I wish we could see some honest reciprocation here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Asarulislam Syed is one of the few who advocates of Quranism who calls himself a Quranist rather than just a Muslim (so there's no original research involved in putting him on a list of Quranists). As for the overlap between Quranism and modernism, I'm not telling you something that you don't already know when I say that movements in Islam occasionally overlap (like salafism and modernism, for example). The sources will tell the editors whether the person in question advocates Quranism, even if they don't call themselves Quranist (so there's no need for editors to engage in original research). You pointed out that Edip Yuksel is "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. This doesn't constitute original research because he is indeed included in scholarly sources among those who advocate Quranism. Same with Chiragh Ali.
MezzoMezzo wrote: I hope you will read my comments here and pause to give some thought. I had no problem admitting that I overreacted during our discussion six months ago. I wish we could see some honest reciprocation here.
I'm not disregarding what you said. Like I said in my previous comment, I think we're in agreement. I hope we can bring this discussion to a end and not extend it over the weekend (and especially not over another week). Melwood19 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that we have made some sort of progress here with your retraction of certain points, assuming I have not misunderstood. You say here:
Asarulislam Syed is one of the few who advocates of Quranism who calls himself a Quranist rather than just a Muslim (so there's no original research involved in putting him on a list of Quranists).
And this conflicts with your previous statements which I quoted above:
This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.
The latter is a clear error in light of Wikipedia's policy on original research, but the former is spot on. I will assume that the former is now your official position, which will make sorting this article out a lot easier. I am still a bit confused by this, though:
As for the overlap between Quranism and modernism, I'm not telling you something that you don't already know when I say that movements in Islam occasionally overlap (like salafism and modernism, for example).
If a person calls himself a modernist or reliable sources call him a modernist, he is a modernist. If these two criteria are not met, then it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that he is a modernist based on our own judgment. The same goes for Quranism or any other religious movement. It shouldn't require this much discussion or dispute. Here's where you make a huge error, though:
You pointed out that Edip Yuksel is "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. This doesn't constitute original research because he is indeed included in scholarly sources among those who advocate Quranism. Same with Chiragh Ali.
And as I pointed out, the part I highlighted in bold here simply isn't true. Reliable sources mention Ali's beliefs but the ones you provided here do not state positively that he or Syed Ahmed Khan belonged to any sort of a movement. Unless there are more explicit sources that we aren't seeing here but the onus is on you to provide them at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Chiragh Ali be removed from the list of advocates of Quranism?[edit]

Non-Admin Closure: The obvious policy-backed consensus is to not include Chiragh Ali for lack of a WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Chiragh Ali warrant inclusion in the list of advocates of Quranism or should he be removed? Melwood19 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Doesn't warrant inclusion, one claimed source doesn't verify the claim, others are suspect as explained below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Does not merit inclusion There are too many problems to even begin fixing the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Does not merit inclusion--Inayity (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • I doubt the sources claiming Chiragh Ali discounted all hadith literature because the editor who inserted those sources, Melwood, misunderstands site policies. Although he backed down from adding three other individuals for whom evidence of Quranism was scant, he still insists people can be included in the list of Quranists even if reliable sources don't claim that - he thinks that if somebody shares some beliefs with Quranists, editors can infer adherence. We have seen that one of the sources which Melwood claims supports Ali rejecting all hadith does NOT claim that. This violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, given with what editors view as Melwood's POV pushing, demonstrates a competence issue about understanding site policy due to bias. If Melwood can show that every one of the remaining sources truly do support the claim - per WP:CHALLENGE as his violation of verifiability have damaged the assumption of good faith - I can drop my opposition. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC seems to have completed[edit]

User:Chris troutman, User:Melwood19 and User:Inayity, a bot has formally removed the RfC template as the amount of time has run out. The three of us who responded were in favor of removing Chiragh Ali, I am assuming that Melwood is still in favor of keeping him.
Now, I'm reading at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and it references Wikipedia:Consensus (which is tricky because consensus boils down to quality of arguments rather than a vote count, and who judges quality?) and Wikipedia:Closing discussions (which puts us in the same quandary.
So, what is the consensus here, then? The RfC was open for a month, three saying the individual doesn't warrant inclusion with one detailed explanation (from me), one saying he does warrant inclusion. I wish the RfC had been more decisive but I think we must determine consensus on our own here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I had an issue like this once. Low voter turnout does make an RFC sticky. Some guidance states that one option is to non-admin close with no consensus. That might not only be unpopular but also not solve your problem. You can relist the RFC as many times as you need to and see if others chime in.
To my mind, the majority of the respondents were swayed by your arguments, and Melwood19 did not successfully refute it. Close this RFC and remove Chiragh Ali; let Melwood19 raise a complaint.
Perhaps a compromise would be to remove the entire list of supposed Quranists and integrate them into paragraphs about their contributions to Quranism or their criticisms of Hadith, rather than list them as an ascribed identity. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This is actually how it should be done in class A articles. List, like pictures of famous people representing something always cause issues. In this case it is not helping the article. But Integration would.--Inayity (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing another figure[edit]

I will also remove Syed Ahmed Khan. For those with the patience to search through the discussions above, it was established that no reliable sources refer to Khan as a Quranist. Given that the removal of Chiragh Ali was based on the same reasoning, I think it's fair to remove Khan as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing reliable sources linking Aslam Jairajpuri to the movement, either. He shared some of their beliefs but he doesn't seem to be ascribed to the entire group. Do we have anything on this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

abrogation and Sunni View[edit]

What is Abrogated? According to some scholars the Qur'an abrogates only the Qur'an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101. According to them the Qur'an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur'an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi'i. [For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit., pp. 12345; for a brief summary of Ash-Shafi'i's views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi'is Risala, Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.] Others are of the opinion that the Qur'an may abrogate the Qur'an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53: 34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:  Qur'an abrogates Qur'an.  Qur'an abrogates sunna.  Sunna abrogates Qur'an.  Sunna abrogates sunna. [Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.]
This is a copy and paste but the sources can be checked.--Inayity (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I added a line break in your comment above if you don't mind. Anyway, is it a copy paste from the actual source cited right there or from some website? A high volume of copy paste jobs on Islamic articles on Wikipedia are from Muslim discussion forums or polemical sites which themselves are copy pasted from books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have not verified it but it came from here Ummah.com and I think proves the point that AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH are not only via Quran, but can include other things.--Inayity (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Zakir Naik's interpretation is that revealed scripture does not contradict other scripture, though I guess you could call additional specificity of scripture to be abrogation. To that end, the Sunna is not revelation and could not abrogate the Qur'an.
This is another case where discussion of an attributable point of view is needed. There's a difference of opinion and I don't know enough about Islam to say what a Quranist would prefer. Naik is my personal favorite Islamic televangelist and he's (like most Quranists) very much a literalist as far as scripture is concerned although he supports the Hadith as a needed commentary on the scripture. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny you should mention Naik because in my research he was the best person on this topic. But an ip editor deleted Nasikh could include Sunna/Hadith, but there is a difference of opinion, it is not 100% Qu'ran only. Some things in the Qu'ran are no longer practiced and applicable by Ijma (like slavery).--Inayity (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned, attributable points of view are needed. Quranists disagree among themselves regarding naskh just as Sunnis do (not sure about the Shi'a). The biggest problem is finding enough reliable sources on this specific point though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision[edit]

The item on circumcision contrasts Sunni Muslims, who regard circumcision as obligatory, with Quranists. for whom it plays no role. But in the entry for Quranists, it is stated that both male or female circumcision play no role in Islam as they understand it. This could create the impression that Sunni Muslims in general find both forms of circumcision to be required or encouraged by their faith.

Although there are some Sunni Muslims who do practice the form of female genital mutilation called female circumcision, it is not practiced by most Sunni Muslims, including those who live in Sa'udi Arabia. Thus, where it is practiced among Sunnis, it is practiced because it had been present as a cultural practice prior to the advent of Islam in those areas.

Of course female circumcision, where present as a cultural practice, will be reinforced by the emphasis on female chastity in Islam, but that is more complicated and not clearly a difference between Quranists and others. Quadibloc (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Quadibloc: The portion on the Sunni view is unreferenced and we could use more specification on the topic. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice performed by Muslims, but not a strictly Islamic practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Islam[edit]

A very prominent Quran centric Muslim. I think he needs to be on the list as he has a very large "following". See his website http://quransmessage.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.22.41 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Muammar Gaddafi and Mohamed Talbi be added?[edit]

Muammar Gaddafi was a Quranist who rejected hadith although there's no much info about it but his wikipedia page states that. Also. Shouldn't he be on the list of prominent Quranists? Or it's just for branch's scholars rather than followers? Mohammed Talhi is also a Quranist, you can even find his lectures on Youtube about Quran-alone approach. 109.188.125.107 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes because he was threatened to take back that claim else he would be executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatrixAnthro (talkcontribs) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Quranism Or Quran Only Is A Liberal Movement Within Islam?[edit]

There was a thread in a quranist forum I was a member of, asking whether the quranists in that forum would describe themselves as liberal or not. They (myself included) would describe themselves more as fundamental instead of liberal (particularly in how we read/interpret the sacred text). In my area, the quranists have their own community and the liberal Muslims have their own community and we're not really aware of the other community, but either way both are classified as tiny, deviant, heretical sects by the majority. Whereas mainstream Muslims might mistakenly group us, quranists together with liberal Muslims, I think we would consider mainstream Muslims and liberal Muslims to be closer to each other because both groups (mainstream Muslims and liberal Muslims) still follow the Sayings of the Prophet. On the other hand, liberal Muslims might consider Quranists to be closer to mainstream Muslims because both are fundamental. But this is all just 'my original research'. I just want to start a discussion to question this statement and if possible even to remove this statement and add a clarifying statement that 'Quranism is actually not a liberal movement within Islam'. What do you people think?KaluQ84 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hamlin, Cyrus. "Among the Turks", 1878. p. 82
  2. ^ Esposito, John (1998). Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press. p. 67. ISBN 0-19-511234-2. 
  3. ^ http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/cults/anti_muslim_hadithrejectors.html