Template talk:Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Template-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Edit request on 17 August 2012[edit]

please remove the ahmadiyyahs from the tribes list 122.169.135.174 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Deontalk 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2013[edit]

Good evening, I should like to request the inclusion of the terms "islamofacism" and "Radical Islam" in the green drop down to the right titled "Islam", at the very least under 'Other'. It's not like Wiki to cherry-pick... 46.26.122.170 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and added Criticism of Islam as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013[edit]

Islam is NOT about sects/denominations as mentioned. This is completely wrong info. Syadmustafa (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. When making edit requests, please make your request(s) as specific as possible, in the form of "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?) 12:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014[edit]

Can someone please check why pics of pigs (Sow_with_piglet.jpg) are showing up on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_in_Islam when the same template is used and it shows up fine on other pages. The image should be (Allah-eser-green.png). Thanks.

Thanks Arjayay, but the image is still there. 94.201.239.211 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done this vandalism has been reverted and the user has been blocked. Arjayay (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If it appears on any more pages, just purge them and they should be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ahmadiyya[edit]

IF YOU BELIVE THAT THEY ARE PART OF A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CLASSIFY THEM UNDER one of these:

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO WRITE Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari as well!!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) An editor has removed the link to the article on the Ahmadiyya movement from the template. The rationale given is that the movement is not considered to be a denomination of Islam by other Muslims. The relationship between the Ahmadiyya movement and the rest of Islam seems to resemble the one between the Mormon Latter Day Saint movement and the rest of Christianity. Both self-identify as a denomination of Islam and Christianity, respectively, and both are characterised as non-Islamic and non-Christian by those who do not belong to the respective denominations. Just as the Mormon movement is linked to from the {{Christianity}} template, so it makes sense to link to the Ahmadiyya movement from this template. I am not saying that because it's done one way there, it must be done the same way here, but rather, I quote it just to point out how similar cases are being handled elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Of course, this is only based on a cursory comparison of the relationship between the denominations and their respective religions. Either way, whatever the final decision, it should be grounded on consensus, so I think that it is important that this is discussed properly. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Opposition Just because someone claims to be a Islamic sect does not make them Islamic. Let's examine the Ahmadi position: The idea that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not the final messenger (as Ahmadi's don't distinct between the words rasul and nabi) Prophethood (Ahmadiyya) The declaration of faith in Islam: There is no God but God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. - The shahadah In defiance of the shahadah one cannot be called an Islamic sect. Even shias accept the first line and then say that ali is the wali. But they still accept the base. The Ahmadis undermine the first premise. Therefore, they are not an Islamic sect but a seperate religion.

The ahmadiyya sect or religion debate should not be settled by Mormon analogies rather it should be settled by the rational and empirical facts which govern the Islamic theological position. I think the matter is quite clear, objectively, and despite all analogies, the rational position tells us not to change it otherwise. (Wiki id2(talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Keep for the obvious reason that Wikipedia is not there to decide on someone's faith. This matter has been discussed a trillion times, see for example the talk pages of Ahmadiyya and Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their archives. Maybe an FAQ page Talk:Ahmadiyya/FAQ should be created because these complaints keep on coming. Thank You.--Peaceworld 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Counter Wikipedia doesn't decide one's faith, I agree. Facts classify faith It is rational that on a meritocratic basis, the Ahmadiyya movement may call itself Muslim but it is too much on the fringe. An example is the Baha'i faith. They too claimed at one point that they were an Islamic sect, but eventually accepted that they might have stuff in similar but they are different in essence. An example is: Abrahamic religions. We do not say that Islam and Christainity and Judaism are the same because they worship one God. They have a common shared geographical and scriptural tradition married with political and social objectives. The Ahmadiyya is entirely different from these categories. It originated in the subcontinent and does not accept the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a final prophet. I'm not desecrating the Ahmadiyya community, I'm trying to establish the objective fact - which is that as much as they want to be the Islamic religion the objective facts (not the Pakistani constitution or executive orders - but the rationale behind it) provides a view as to why it is not a sect but a seperate religion in it's own right. A religion which is based on the Islamic traditions as Islam is upon Juadaeo-Christian ideals - so Ahmadiyya is not a sect per se. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

  • Dear Wiki id2, in religious spheres facts are not determined by consensus'. There is a greater consensus among Muslims that "Peace be upon him" should be written after writing the name of the founder of Islam, yet we do not see Wikipedia adopting this method. There is a greater consensus that Islam is the the only true religion that exists at present, yet we do not see Judaism (which happens to be equally as "fringe" as Ahmadiyya sect in terms of numbers) declared as a false religion of today in Wikipedia articles.
  • The Bahai faith is a non-example because the members of the faith consider themselves to be non-Muslims and a completely different religion altogether. Not that it matters, I could equally turn this round and say that many Muslims and non-Muslims alike consider the religion to be a non-Abrahamic religion, yet it is considered an Abrahamic religion on Wikipedia.
  • Theologically speaking, Ahmadis carry out all the fundamentals of the Islamic faith including the Shahadah (which you mistranslated as there is no word "last" in it), the 5 daily prayers, Fasting, Charity and Pilgrimage to Mecca.
  • The only fact is that a large group of Muslims consider Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslims. If we suddenly started treating opinions as facts, Wikipedia would be a very different place. Thank You.--Peaceworld 08:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No that is not true. Your mind is dogmatic regarding your first point Refutation 1: I never said Ahmadiyya is a 'false religion' Don't get reactionary. I said that Ahmadiyya is a 'seperate religion' from Islam and not a sect of Islam.
Refutation 2: Yes Muslims say that Islam is the right religion - wikipedia doesn't adopt it. should not. Because, the religious community trying to establish objective facts and wikipedia counts other religions in trying to establish the truth. But within the Islamic community and those who study Islam, there is an agreement on the objective facts on what makes a Muslim
Refutation 3: I never ever said that word "fringe" referring to ahmadiyya' in the derogatory sense. Do not compare Ahmadis to Judaism on the basis of small numbers - the fact that you do actually suggests you tacitly acknowledge the fact that Ahmadis are a seperate religion from Islam.
Refutation 4: I do not hate Ahmadis, in fact I have met many educated ones at events of the Pakistani community and PTI in Oxford. But the objective reality is that it is difficult to objectively classify Ahmadis as Muslims given the fact that they're position the the Prophet Muhammad is not a final prophet is not supported
Refutation 5: You compare "pbuh" to not being used. Again that is a matter to those external to the community and different for those within. A Christian would not expect me to cross and nor would I ask him to read the Kalim; the fact that you are raising up these childish points suggests you are not interested in actual intellectual debate but only making the selective points that you want to do so.
Your second point is utterly false: the majority of scholarly consensus regards Islam as an Abrahamic religion. Wikipedia is not based on opinion. It is based on facts true. But the simple reality is that the scholarly consensus exists that the Ahmadis are not a sect of Islam because they do not consider the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the final messenger of God. Ahmadiyya do have the right to call themselves an religion, but they do not have the right to consider themselves a sect of the religion because they do not follow the main premise which underpin it. That is an objective fact. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC))

  • I never said that you said that Ahmadiyya was a false religion. Your argument is that because Ahmadis are smaller in number & that there is a consensus (although you will find many non-Ahmadi Muslims who do consider Ahmadis to be Muslims e.g. 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, similarly 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia & 12% Indonesia) among Muslims, therefore Ahmadis should be regarded as non-Muslims. I gave you 2 of 100s of examples, one of which was that there is a consensus among Muslims that Islam is the only correct religion alive today. In views of this, every small faith should be regarded as false. Hence I gave an example of Judaism, although I could have given any other faith that is equal or less in terms of the number than Ahmadis. But then you cherry pick: "wikipedia counts other religions in trying to establish the truth". Why just religions, why not other sects?
  • There is no universal agreement "on the objective facts on what makes a Muslim". There are many Shia Imams who have passed fatwas against Sunnis and Sunni Imams who have passed fatwas against Shias. Besides, you cannot just exclude the Ahmadiyya community from the "Islamic community and those who study Islam". Surely, their view counts. Do Sunnis and Shias together hold a monopoly over the definition of a Muslim?
  • "Your second point is utterly false: majority of scholarly consensus regards Islam as an Abrahamic religion". My point was about Bahai faith...
  • I said it before and I say it again, the fact that Ahmadi Muslims self-identify as Muslims is enough of a reason for them to be recognized as such The fact that you just said that "they do not have the right to consider themselves a sect of the religion" shows us your discriminatory views. According to you even the Ahmadis don't have a right to call themselves Muslims. Enough said, I see no need to discuss further. Good day.--Peaceworld 07:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The surveys do not matter in who makes a Muslim. I'm not talking about consensus. I'm on about scholarly consensus - the overwhelming majority of Sunni and Shia scholars accept the other as Muslims. Only a small minority dehumanise sunni or shia. The overwhelming majority accept that sunnis, shias and even IBADIS are Muslims. There is no such scholarly consensus of a wide variety of Imams such as Al-Azhar or even Qom scholars or Islamic states on whether the Ahmadis are a Islamic sect or not.
(Wiki id2(talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC))

1. When you quote me!!! Quote what I said completely!!!! I said Ahmadis should not call themselves Muslims because they do not follow the premise which underpins the religion. I even highlighted it in bold. Don't quote selectively in order to portray me as a bigot. I even said that "I respect the ahmadiyya community" I have said they should "not be persecuted" etc. You said about me: "According to you the ahmadiyya do not have the right to call themselves Muslims". They do not lose the right to call themselves because they are Ahmadiyya. 'They do not have the right to self identifcation (just as any other sect would not) because they do not follow the premises which underpin Islam. Don't try to spin doctor what I say.'

  • We are here for facts. Wikipedia is objective.
  • The reality is that even in Pakistan - Ahmadiyya is not a sect it is a religion in its own right. Persecuted yes. Persecution is wrong completely. But it is considered to be not a sect but instead a completely seperate religion. The documentation reflects this.
  • If Stalin self-identified as a democrat as per the constitution of the USSR, it doesn't make him one. Wikipedia is about rationale not about self identification. Just because Ahmadis call themselves Muslims doesn't make them objectively so.
  • The objective fact stands that it is a part of Islam that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet. Whether a person believes it to be true or not is another matter. But that is the Islamic position. The Ahmadiyya' religion is not recognising the Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet. Therefore it cannot be considered a sect.

This is not about religious views or faith views. It is certainly not about self-identification. It is the rational and empirical reality which is that the Ahmadiyya sect does not adhere to the most fundamental part of Islamic principles therefore it cannot be considered an Islamic sect. (Wiki id2(talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not owned by the Pakistani government. Many countries treat Ahmadis as Muslims. In many reliable sources they are considered Muslims. Scholar's are not just non-Ahmadi Muslims. There are many Ahmadi and even many more non-Muslim scholar's, who all recognise Ahmadis as Muslims. As for some reliable sources, here are some, that copy and pasted from Talk:Ahmadiyya

--Peaceworld 14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To be quite frank referring to an article by BBC News about an Ahmadi saying Ahmadis are Muslims is not objective, not an academic analysis, therefore it is ludicrous to present here because it is not unbiased!! it does not make a difference. The objective reality is that the country in which the Ahmadis have significant population, in Pakistan, they are not considered muslims but instead a seperate religion. There is no point providing links to articles because in the end these are some interpretations and are mostly by news outlets - what the Guardian or Geo TV says doesn't decide who a muslim is. The rational and objective reality does and that is the respective constitutional amendments to the Pakistani constitution. The only country with an Ahmadi population of more than one million - and it is not considered an Islamic sect but a seperate religion in it's own right. (Wiki id2(talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC))

And before you refer to the Indian supreme court ruling, remember that in Pakistan the Supreme court has already ruled the amendment declaring Ahmadi's non muslims as constitutional and correct to the objective reality. The priority of the Pakistani decision has to be given because that is where the overwhelming majority of Ahmadis are, if they are not an Islamic sect but a seperate religion than that is how it has to be recognised and given priority over to the Indian one. The second reason it has to be prioritised over the Indian one is that (Wiki id2(talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC))

Dear Wiki id2, you have some narrow sense of objectivity. What evidence is there that the views of the Pakistani government is rational and objective? You consider the views of Ahmadi-bashing, narrow minded group of individuals who sanction persecution of Ahmadis by law as objective. No one in their right mind would consider the Pakistani amendment as objective. The law itself decries the Universal Charter of Human Rights and therefore lacks its "objectivity." But the views presented by 1000s of news outlets, published material, 100s of books are only "some interpretation", off course --Peaceworld 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am personally not in favour of listing any sects on this template for various reasons. This template would be better by doing away the entire section on denominations. If we really do need a sect section, I think we should only list Sunni Islam and Shia Islam per WP:WEIGHT as both these are the main sects and account for 97 to 98% of Muslims. For the hundreds of other minority sects, we can put "other" and link it to the main article Islamic schools and branches where Ahmadiyya and other sects can be discussed. This seems to be the only reasonable and fair solution, in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The Template:Christianity seems to have no issue with listing even smaller sects. The denominations section would become a little too empty. Besides, it is still fair, even if the list of all sects is included.--Peaceworld 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Regards to he point of peaceworld: It was an accident, I was writing a post as well you see, here it is the Pakistani judicial system, now independent of government, is a moderate system, it is within the Islamic tradition and it's ruling on what makes a Muslim sect has to be given priority in a discussion about IslamItalic text over a decision of a secular court staffed of justices who do not know about the Islamic tradition. The word objective is not narrow. It means to be the truth. "Ahmadi-bashing?" - Wikipedia contains rules that you do not make arguments personal. I am stating what the law of a country of 180 million and a democratically elected government which passed it says. I have also said that "ahmadi's are presecuted. Persecution is wrong completely" - do not try to spin doctor me as some right wing bigot. I am not, I'm here for the rationalism and the empirical reality which is that the views of the Pakistani government are not objective. But the views of the Pakistani political system, and the constituionality of the law by the supreme court, which is apolitical and a law which has stood the test of time amongst a population which is deeply religious allows us to determine what makes a sect and what makes a seperate religion. There are 1000s of news outlets and 100s of books which support the me as well as you. That does not make your position valid.(Wiki id2(talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC))
The Pakistani law does not decry the universal charter of human rights. That guarantees freedom of religion. Ahmadi places of worship are actually protected as per the Pakistani constitution, "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;" -says the objective resolution which is annexed into the constitution. the Ahmadi's are protected as a minority!! They are a seperate religion. They universal charter of human rights doesn't talk about sects and ahmadis! You are given your religious freedoms in the constution today! You are not considered an Islamic sect but rather a seperate religion! You are even entitled to minority seats in both the Parliament and the Senate! Ergo It does not violate that universal charter of human rights! (Wiki id2(talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC))
Amendment of the Pakistani Penal Code 298C states Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.. Yep, you got it, great freedom for Ahmadis to practice their religion, Islam!--Peaceworld 16:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to talk about persecution. Which is completely wrong. Even Islam says so. Yes that law is wrong. Ahmadis ought to be allowed to proseltyize. But that was passed under a mlitary dictatorship. Wheras the constitutional amendment which affirmed the finalty of prophethood (as rejected by ahmadis) was approved by the correct democratic process and had a 2/3 majority in parliament. Even today, Ahmadis are regarded by supreme court as a minority which ought be protected see:
]http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/Pakistan/220075-Affective-laws-needed-to-protect-minorities-right] t makes sense about what Mar4d said. Sunnis and Shia's are about 98% of all Muslims, make it simple, put Sunni, Shia and Other. There we can have a list of all denominations including five percent, ibadi, sufis (which is debatable itself as to whether sufism actually transcends the sunni-shia sect debate as sufis can be either sunni or shia etc..) and there we can have a special section which will say that many scholars dispute the right of Ahmadis or Mahdavias to call themselves Muslims. It can cover both sides. Something which this template cannot do. Sunni, Shia and Others That makes logical sense. I think we can agree on this point. Because it will make the template more brief and clean looking as well (Wiki id2(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC))

Then we can put in sections of the other which specifies both the Ahmadi position and the dispute which the overhwelming majority of Muslim scholars have with Ahmadis. (Wiki id2(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC))

You said "e.g. 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, similarly 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia & 12% Indonesia) " Spin doctoring the stats!! < br /> "In South Asia and Southeast Asia, Muslims tend to be skeptical of regionally or locally based religious sects. For example, Ahmadiyyas, members of an movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in India in the late 19th century, are not widely considered to be Muslims (see Glossary, page 112). Out of the five countries where this question was asked, only in Bangladesh do more than a quarter (40%) of Muslims believe Ahmadiyyas are Muslims. In Indonesia and Pakistan, a majority of those interviewed state that Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims, while in Malaysia and Thailand most either have not heard of the group or do not know if it is part of the Islamic tradition". - [1] Page 93 The argument from surveys which you tried to do has pretty much been blown out of the water (Wiki id2(talk) 09:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC))

When Pakistani black laws clearly dictate the faith of a certain sect, it is not protecting minorities. It shows Pakistan governments inability to comprehend what protection of minorities even means. These disgusting Blasphemy laws have been condemned by Human Rights agencies, such as Amnesty and HRW. It is clear, Pakistan is not in the position to objectively determine someone's faith. Besides, to constitutionally determine someone's faith is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights anyway.
If Muslims have the right to determine the religion of Ahmadis, the non-Muslims too have the same right. You cannot have it one way. It's a two way street. I gave the example of the survey to state that Muslims do not universally consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. However, give or take a few countries, Ahmadis are considered Muslims in the entire world. Even, in Africa where there are millions of Ahmadis, their places of worship are called mosques, they are recognized as Muslims. Go to the Americas, Europe, the Pacific Islands, Ahmadis are treated as Muslims. I'm quite confident that you will struggle to provide even half a dozen reputable sources, free from state intervention, which describe Ahmadis as non-Muslims or of belonging to a separate religion. This excludes much of Pakistani media, as calling Ahmadis Muslims, would potentially send the editors to jail, and thus such media outlets are not free. Much of your argument is non-nonsensical: If Muslims consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, do not forget they also consider much of world's religions to be kafir and false. So you should probably set up a proposal in Judaism, Bahai Faith, Sikhism to declare them as officially false religions. As I've stated earlier, Template:Christianity has no problem listing even tinier denominations, I do not see why the Islam template should get special treatment. It is pretty clear that your support for Mar4d's idea has been motivated by your intent of removal of Ahmadiyya. The fact that you requested 1,2, 3 a number Wiki acquaintance to sway the consensus in your favor could be subject to meatpupptery.--Peaceworld 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • NOT metapuppetry I asked those users to comment on their own viewpoint. Here. I did not say that they have to back me. Therefore, that is a false accusation which I will take up for arbitration
  • "Persecution is wrong completely" I said that. I'm saying that self-identification is not enough. The objective fact is that just because Stalin called himself a democrat as per the constitution of the USSR it does not make him one.

It is the right of the state to categorise people for the purposes of their faith for the purposes of census, conscription and economic policy decisions etc.. I am taking Pakistan as an example of a country where in the census the ahmadis are regarded as a seperate faith. I never defended the blasphemy law. Do not make this about politics. The Blasphemy law is wrong. There should be freedom to criticise anyone. But the State, even in developed nations uses census to classify on faith basis, they do categorise the faith - that does not contradict UDHR. Ahmadis being classified as a seperate faith does not contradict UDHR. If the Pope decides to excommunicate someone from the catholic church e.g. for paedophilia. He is no longer a catholic. That does not contradict UDHR as no one has criticised the Church for it. Islam does not have a Pope. But it does have a scholarly community. Ahmadis are not on the sect list, but on the faith list of the Pakistani census. The blasphemy law does contravene the UDHR, as does most of Ordinance XX - I agree with you. But the sectarian matters are not included in UDHR.

In fact you cannot even used the UDHR to justify your position.
1. You consider Ahmadiyya to be apart of the Islamic faith, not a separate religion. So they are not subjected to UDHR, as the religion clause of UDHR does not apply to sects. As you consider Ahmadiyya a sect of Islam.
2. Therefore the Islamic rules determine whether they are a sect or not.
3. The rejection of both sunni-shia-ibadi-sufi and RATIONAL assessment of the Islamic doctrine of the Finality of prophethood as cited by the Majority (not all) but majority of Islamic scholars sunni (saudi arabia (home of Islam), pakistan etc.) along with Shia scepticism in Iran therefore acts as the power, by analogy, which the Pope has to excommunicate anyone from the catholic church. Because from that point on they won't be catholic. Whether UDHR likes it or not. Shows that Ahmadi's can't be regarded as Muslims because intellectuals have determined that it falls outside of the ambit of all of Islam non-deonminational. As the Finality of prophethood is a universal Islamic belief akin to Tawhid.
4. Therefore Ahmadis are not Muslims. But a seperate religious faith. Who have every right to be protected from persecution, as per the UDHR once Islamic rational thought (aql), (fiqh) and ijma (scholarly consensus) has determined it so not to be a sect but rather an independent religion. Which from then on becomes subject to UDHR religion clauses as it is a SEPARATE religion.

Background color[edit]

Please remove the background color, and user green border instead. 212.76.244.105 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support this, but will wait to see if there are any objections. Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. * No objections from me, just please sandbox the changes and I'll be happy to carry it out under BRD. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 01:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: --Islam90 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Objection. Want it to stay green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki id2 (talkcontribs)
the borders are green, the image is green. it's rather green :) Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014[edit]

The movement "FIve-Percent Nation" is listed on this series template as a denomination of Islam, however, it is not related to Islam, but to the New Religious Movement known as The Nation of Islam. It should appropriately be (and is) listed as part of the Nation of Islam series under offshoots. It should not be linked to Islam.

Thanks. ParsonJody (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

YOU ARE PROTECTING AN INCORRECTLY PREPARED ARTICLE or TEMPLATE whatever you call it!!!! just very FUNNY[edit]

THERE ARE A LOT OF MISLEADING DEFINITIONS[edit]

| list5title = Denominations[edit]

You cannot call Fist of all Islamic schools and branches as SUB-Denominations[edit]

| list5 =

You cannot equate those listed above with the following tariqah/party/club/whatever the name you call[edit]
THIS TEMPLATE IS NOTHING BUT JUST AN INSULT TO 2 BILLION MUSLIMS[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population". Pew Research Center. October 7, 2009. Retrieved 2010-08-24. Of the total Muslim population, 11-12% are Shia Muslims and 87-88% are Sunni Muslims. 
  2. ^ "Religions". CIA World Factbook. 

ISLAM IS DIVIDED INTO 3 MAIN SECTS[edit]

Five-Percent Nation, Mahdavia AND Ahmadiyya is not amongst them.... 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THE OTHERS ARE MISLEADING, less than 1% AND SHOULD BE WRITTEN DIFFERENT PLACES, THEY ARE LIKE Babism & Bahaism[edit]

YOUR TEMPLATE IS awkwardly PREPARED & ILL[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AHMADIYYA[edit]

This is something like Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which is not Muslim belief. Ahmadiyya is a NEW RELIGION with its own prophet...similar to Bahá'í Faith and Bábism which have their own prophet. Otherwise Judaism and christianity are supposed to be the same religion.. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Since its inception in 1889, the Aḥmadī movement has been one of the most active and controversial movements in modern Islam." — Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John et al. Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014.  --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
IT IS A SUB*GROUP OF WHAT:

YOU CAN PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE with these Five-Percent Nation and Mahdavia..wherever they belong to!! otherwise YOU ARE CREATING new CATEGORIZATION???68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

ISLAM IS DIVIDED INTO 3 MAIN SECTS[edit]

68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IF YOU BELIVE THAT THEY ARE PART OF A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CLASSIFY THEM UNDER one of these[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

if you write ahmadiyya then YOU HAVE TO WRITE Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari as well!!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IF THEY ARE MUSLIMS THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO APPROPRIATE PLACES[edit]

in your template:

  • Alevi & Alawi ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% OF ALL MUSLIMS

BIGGER COMMUNITIES AND MADHHABS ARE NOT SHOWN.....

  • but SMALL GROUPS LIKE ahmadiyya ARE WRITTEN AS IF THEY ARE A MAJOR BRANCH OF ISLAM
  • THESE ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING, YOU NEED TO CORRECT THEM AND STOP PROTENCTING THIS TEMPLATE SINCE YOU DONT KNOW THE TOPIC68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

INSTEAD OF THESE BIGGER GROUPS LIKE Alevi & Alawi AND Druze & Nizari[edit]

You are putting less important and small communities LIKE

as if they are MAJOR branches.... 68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij[edit]

  • Any group or sect which cannot be classified under one of these is not a part of Dīn of Islam.
  • If you believe that it is a part of Dīn of Islam, so place it under any one of these: Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
  • In addition, Alevi & Alawi are a part of the Dīn of Islam and THEY HAVE 1% population, then place it into template clearly
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
  • IF YOU CANNOT, I.E. YOU ARE NOT EXPERT ON THE TOPIC just stop it O. K.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that they are major branches. You say that they are not part of the Dīn of Islam. That's great, maybe they aren't. We don't take a position on that. It does not matter what editors say nor even what the truth is. We just follow what reliable sources say; see the core policy WP:V. Friedmann, Yohanan (2014). "Aḥmadiyya". In Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John et al. Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third ed.). Brill Online. Retrieved July 8, 2014.  That's a citation from a reliable source which says that Aḥmadiyya is a part of Islam. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THEY SHOULD BE ON PROPER PLACES IN YOUR TEMPLATE[edit]

The following groups have larger populations...

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

HAVE more members than Ahmadiyya, BUT YOU NEVER MENTION ABOUT THEM IN THE TEMPLATE!!!

ON THE OTHER HAND, MINORITY PARTIES LIKE Five-Percent Nation OR Mahdavia IS BEING PRESENTED LIKE / THE EQUIVALENT OF Sunni & Shi'ite
therefore your template is absolutely WRONG and should be CORRECTED

68.100.172.139 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources say that those groups are parts of Islam and not parts of Shia Islam or Sufism?
Why is the template absolutely wrong?--Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 20:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO CLASSIFY ALL SECTS UNDER ONE OF THESE:

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

WHY DONT YOU MENTION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

AS YOU DID IN Ahmadiyya 68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do I have to classify all sects under one of those three? Under which of those do you think Ahmadiyya should be classified?
And I'm not sure what your question is asking. All of those things are mentioned many times throughout the encyclopedia. Are you asking why they are not included in this template? There is no expectation that every sub-grouping be included in this template. Shia Islam is included. Those sub-groups are largely included in the Template:Shia Islam and the Template:Ismailism templates. The Bektashi order is included in Template:Sufism. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

THERE ARE BIGGER GROUPS/ SECTs than AHMEDISM[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template

WHICH ARE NOT IN THE TEMPLATE WHY DONT YOU PUT OR LIST THEM IF AHMEDISM IS ANOTHER SECT PUT IT SOMEWHERE BUT IT ISNT THE EQUIV OF sunni more than a billion nor equiv of shi'ite more than a 100 million

according to your logic?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly you have a private template of Ahmadiyya[edit]

Similarly you have a private template of Ahmadiyya as well. Therefore you cant put them there otherwise you have to put Druze & Nizari ++ Alevi & Alawi as well they are on Ismaili template O.K. Ahmadiyya is on Ahmadiyya template do you understand?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.172.139 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying that "Ahmedism" is the "equiv" of Sunni. Members on the template are not determined merely by the size of the associated population. I've never read a single reliable source about the Gülen movement, so I certainly wouldn't try to put it on this template. No, I do not understand everything you've written. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

please See French Template for Ahmediyye and Others[edit]

Template:Islam (FRENCH) SO THAT you may perform the necessary corrections68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the necessary corrections? And why are they necessary? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Aḥmadī movement IS NOT A MAIN BRANCH OF ISLAM[edit]

THE MAIN BRANCHES ARE[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij

if you claim that it can NOT be put under one of these titles, then it is a new religion, but not islam.

Since you are able to put all the following groups like

Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement under one of these THREE main branches, namely Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij, in a similar way, you can classify Aḥmadī movement under one of them. If you claim that it is so special and cannot be classified under one of the 3 main branches of Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij; then the members of these groups, namely Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Assasins, Gulen movement CAN CLAIM that they are very special as well. In that case, the names of Gulen movement, Alevi, Alawi, Druze, etc. SHOULD BE written besides the Aḥmadī movement, this is my opinion.

After examining this Template:Islam (FRENCH) Template:Islam in French, I've seen that they moved Aḥmadī movement under NEW MOVEMENTS, you may prepare a similar section and place Aḥmadī movement, Din-e Ilahi, Khojas, Nation of Islam, Five-Percent Nation, Malcolm X, Mahdavia under the title of NEW MOVEMENTS IN ISLAM. French template listed all these groups under Courants non reconnus par l’orthodoxie:

SEE: Template:Islam (in FRENCH) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of what members of groups can claim. Members of groups can claim whatever they want. It's not even a question of what reliable sources can claim. It's rather a question of what reliable sources do claim.
No one is saying that the Aḥmadī movement is a "MAIN BRANCH OF ISLAM". You say that if I claim that it cannot be put under one of those three titles, then it is a new religion. That's just original research and is not allowed on this encyclopedia. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 06:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LOOKS ABSOLUTELY WRONG[edit]

yOUR Aḥmadī movement is just an equivalent of the following:

And you are just missing them..THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU HAVE TO LIST THEM AS WELL..AS THEY DID IN Template:Islam (in FRENCH) you are just incorrectly copying from other sourses 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEMPLATE, ISLAM IS A PART OF Aḥmadī movement[edit]

YES ISLAM IS A PART OF THESE THINGS:

BECAUSE YOUR TEMPLATE JUST GIVES THEIR NAMES AS ISLAM...THAT JUST SHOWS YOUR INADEQUACY IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE ONLY THESE

REPRESENT ISLAM GO AND READ A LITTLE BIT OF THIS Template:Islam (in FRENCH) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC) YOU ARE ASKING ABSCURD QUESTIONS AND EVEN THIS SHOWS YOR INCOMPETANCY IN THE AREA IF YOU ARE GOINGTO PREPARE IT DO IT PROPERLY YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO WILL DECIDE ON THIS JUST LESS THAN 0,1% OCCUPIES YOUR TEMPLATE: THIS

CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ARE THESE GUYS AN WHY SHALL WE LEARN ABOUT THEM??? 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEMPLATE, ISLAM IS A PART OF Aḥmadī movement[edit]

LOOKS ABSOLUTELY WRONG[edit]

yOUR Aḥmadī movement is just an equivalent of the following:

And you are just missing them..THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU HAVE TO LIST THEM AS WELL..AS THEY DID IN Template:Islam (in FRENCH) you are just incorrectly copying from other sourses 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEMPLATE, ISLAM IS A PART OF Aḥmadī movement[edit]

YES ISLAM IS A PART OF THESE THINGS:

BECAUSE YOUR TEMPLATE JUST GIVES THEIR NAMES AS ISLAM...THAT JUST SHOWS YOUR INADEQUACY IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE ONLY THESE

REPRESENT ISLAM GO AND READ A LITTLE BIT OF THIS Template:Islam (in FRENCH) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC) YOU ARE ASKING ABSCURD QUESTIONS AND EVEN THIS SHOWS YOR INCOMPETANCY IN THE AREA IF YOU ARE GOINGTO PREPARE IT DO IT PROPERLY YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO WILL DECIDE ON THIS JUST LESS THAN 0,1% OCCUPIES YOUR TEMPLATE: THIS

CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ARE THESE GUYS AN WHY SHALL WE LEARN ABOUT THEM??? 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

otherwise delete sunni[edit]

we have a template for sunni as well you can delete it since totally abscurd!68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

you have to put these as well because I m telling you[edit]

The following groups have larger populations...

Dīn of Islam[edit]

  • Alevi & Alawi - THEY HAVE NEARLY 1% population of Dīn of Islam, then place it into template clearly!!
  • Druze & Nizari ARE NOT SHOWN WHICH ARE MORE THAN 1% population of Dīn of Islam, so place it into the template
EVEN THE FOLLOWING SECTS[edit]

you are putting any group you like randomly into your template[edit]

YOUR TEMPLATE INCONSISTENT WILL ALL OTHER LANGUAGES: OUT OF 40 SECTS OR BRANCHES ONLY THOSE YOU LIKED PLACED THERE68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

why[edit]

BECAUSE Alevi, Alawi, Druze, Nizari, Gulen movement AND Alavi Bohra are MISSING!!!! 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

are you from one of these[edit]

Five-Percent Nation or mahdavia SORRY but since you are a muslim, I have to ask you because your template is telling us to ask you 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

yarsan[edit]

Once upon a time you were defending yarsan was a member of islam you have forgotten so quickly dear professor of islam 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism[edit]

you forgot to put this into your template: Islamic terrorism maybe somewhere at the bottom between ahmadiyya and mahdavia is a good place for this, it may help to the reader to see faster what you are doing there... 68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I read your Ahmadiyya page and UNDERSTOOD that Islam is a branch of Ahmadiyya , thanks a lot for the preparation of this illuminating article!! THEY HAVE 5 MORE PROPHETS, ISLAM HAS ONLY ONE THATS WHY ISLAM IS A SECT OF AHMADISM68.100.172.139 (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You can put christian terrorism (like Lord's Resistane Army or religious-skinheads) and Zionist terrorism (like Israel's unlawful attacks on Palestinian civilians) to relevant templates too. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion elmasmelih.Septate (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ahmadism SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER OF OF THESE GROUPS[edit]

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
THEN EITHER (1) IT'S NOT ISLAM
OR (2) IS A NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probably undivine one i.e. it's divinity is an open ended question..
YOU HAVE TO THEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for these residual groups
WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THE Dīn of Islam
A PROPER TITLE MAY THE unclassified tariqah of islam
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones

68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have to regroup them? Why do we have to invent a new title? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 21:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the following groups

cannot be caytegorized under

Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij
WHAT IS SPECIAL WITH THESE GROUPS SO YOU WRITE THEM SEPARATELY?
WHAT IS SPECIAL WITH Alawi and Gulen movement SO THEY DONT APPEAR ON THE TEMPLATE??
WHAT WAS YOUR CRITERIA?
YOU JUST RANDOMLY ELECT SOMETHING AND PUT BESIDES Sunni - Shi'ite - Khawarij AS IF IT WAS A FUNDANMENTAL GROUP??
IT IS COMPLETELY RANDOM YOU PICK Mahdavia AND PUT IT THERE
IT IS COMPLETELY RANDOM YOU DID NOT PICK Alavi Bohra AND DID NOT PUT IT THERE
EVERYTHING IS RIDICULOUS ON THIS TEMPLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

68.100.172.139 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So you say that because those groups cannot be categorized under one of Sunni, Shi'ite, or Khawarij, therefore we have to regroup them and invent a new title. They are not currently grouped under one of those three, so how does the fact that they cannot be so categorized mean that they have to be regrouped? It seems that fact would only mean that they have to be regrouped if they were erroneously categorized under one of those three groups. They are not.
No one is saying that any of the groups are special or that they are fundamental. Listing them as denominations means only that they are that: denominations. It does not mean that they are fundamental, popular, or special. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 23:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

missing uncategorized sects[edit]

where will you put these then they are like ahmadism, can not be categorized as well.

68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Malcolm X was a person, not a denomination.
And remember that we follow what reliable sources say. Which reliable sources say that Din-e Ilahi and Khojas are sects of Islam and do not say that they are part of any other of the already listed sects? For example, the one source listed for Khoja says the opposite: "The term Khōjā is not a religious designation but a purely caste distinction that was carried over from the Hindu background of the group. Thus, there are Sunnite Khōjās and Shīʿite Khōjās." [2] The one source for Din-e Ilahi does not say that it is a denomination of Islam. [3] --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
need a section on uncategorized sects then. Ahmadiyya says they are new vision for sunnis, it can be categorized somewhre under sunni then..there are a lot of groups like them but you dont want to admit..for example druzes, gulen movement is a new vision but they are sunni68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
So you say we need a section on uncategorized sects: Why do we need such a section? Do you have a reliable source which says that the Ahmadiyya are a Sunni group? --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

suggestion for Denominations[edit]

Documentation icon Template documentation

Please note

  • To expand the section appropriate to a particular page, use {{Islam|name}}, where name is the first word of the section's name in lowercase—e.g., {{Islam|texts}}.
  • To expand all the sections, use {{Islam}} or {{Islam|all}}.
[[Category:Islam templates| ]]
[[Category:"Part of a series on" templates|Islam]]

Denominations[edit]

you may consider the following:
| list5name = denominations | list5title = Denominations | list5 =

As I see from this talk page there has been already a great deal of complaints about this section..maybe you consider this suggestion as a solution. It looks like this list will continue to increase in the near future. Whenever a new sect emerges you can continue to add into your list.
68.100.172.139 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC) It may be better to put into alphabetical order68.100.172.139 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

2nd suggestion[edit]

Sufi person is already belong to sunni/shia or another group because sufism is not a school but a current

if you like you may include sufism under other currents since sufis belong to a madhhab as well.68.100.172.139 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

3rd suggestion: more illuminating one[edit]

since these are the true denominations

all denominations are explicitly shown

68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 68.100.172.139 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This final template clearly shows that Ahmadiyya is non-Sunni[edit]

It explicitly indicates who is Sunni and which denomination is shia. Then, everybody understand that Ahmadiyya is Muslim but neither Sunni nor [[Shia]. In addition, everybody sees ibadi is not a part of khawarij but islam like Ahmadiyya. I believe this final version satisfies everybody without offending anybody. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014[edit]

under DENOMIANTIONS of Islam there are a few Muslim sects, one of them Ahmadiyya. Beside Ahmadiyya in brackets the word kuffar is written. This is not a complaint i simply want the word kuffar removed on behalf of my religion. This word kuffar is considered a very rude word meaning unbeliever this word mostly refers to people in Islam. Because it says kuffar beside the word Ahmadiyyat it would lead people to interpret the Ahmadiyyat Muslim Movement as a wrong sect of Islam. Although Ahmadiyyat is the true Islam. Please change "Ahmadiyya(kuffar)" to "Ahmadiyya. PLease and Thank You WaleedMangla (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry User:Technical 13, but the request was correct and I've removed what was indeed a highly derogatory word. The template shouldn't use words commenting on the different denominations, it should only have the appropriate wikilinks. We wouldn't put "not Christian" next to a listing of Christian denominations. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgot. It was only added 2 days ago, it doesn't require consensus to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)