Template talk:Sunni Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

hadith collections[edit]

imam ahmad's musnad should be listed, it is one of the earliest and most comprehensive collections, and its system of cataloging ahadith set precedent for all the other collections. definitely important. 72.70.30.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadi[edit]

Ahmadi is not a shool of thought in Sunni Islam. In fact they are not considered muslims at all. → AA (talk) — 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not considered Muslims by 'Muslim' scholars, however in any secular or encyclopedia resource you'll find the under the label of Islam. And according to Wikipedia rules I believe, if the group considers themselves something, we must consider them that to an extent as well. Not so far as labeling Mormons as Jews, but enough to allow sects such as the Ahmadiyya to be called Muslim. However, Ahmadiyya mainly does not have its place on this template for two reasons: they see themselves as essentially a movement that surpasses most likely the bounds of both Sunni Islam and Shi'ah Islam (though it doesn't), and second, Ahmadiyya is neither a school of fiqh nor a school of qalam as we have listed here. However, in order to rectify this and other problems, I made a new section for 'movements'. --Enzuru 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe WP:UNDUE would apply in this case. It is reasonable for the opinions on whether Ahmadiyyas are considered Muslim to be made in the article on Ahmadiyya (and maybe to an extent on general Islam articles). However, when things are drilled down into the actual differences (e.g. Sunni/Shia or Fiqh), then the criteria for entry into that classification must be adhered to. Are there any sources which support the view that Ahmadiyyas are Sunnis? → AA (talk) — 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
as i said in the edit summary, i don't think there's a single source that claims Ahmadiyya is a part of Sunnism (i don't believe that even the Ahmadiyya themselves claim this). attribution of Ahmadiyya to Sunnism looks like a case of WP:FRINGE/WP:REDFLAG. ITAQALLAH 09:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I will research this further, but keep the following in mind, that the mainstream Ahmadiyya accept the first four Rashidun khilafat as well as tend to cite Sunni books of hadith (such as here on a Lahori website: http://www.muslim.org/islam/bukhari-corr.htm) and even claim that Bukhari and Muslim are the most accurate books (from an Ahmadiyya booklet online: "Judged on the basis of accuracy, the two most authentic books are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim") . Their current khilafat continues the khilafat of the first five, not necessarily the entire khilafat Ummayad and on. I understand this is all debatable and so forth, so will look for an Ahmadiyya source where they claim to be in the folds of Sunnism. --Enzuru 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think the current version of the template looks perfect. It's short, concise, and avoids any controversy. Just my two cents, good work guys. MezzoMezzo 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What is Sunnism? (rhetorical question)[edit]

So, if one goes to the Shi'ah template, or the Ismaili one, or the Alevi one, one sees right away how these groups differ from other Muslims. But what about Sunnis? Like the other templates, the stuff under 'beliefs' is so general most of it applies to every other group. There needs to be something that points out the belief in the sahaba, their uprightness, the rashidun caliphs, and the conflicts of the sahaba between themselves.

The problem? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sunni_Islam&diff=135335163&oldid=135335015 Anything about these issues is Sunni-Shia oriented. Now, that's true, they are very Sunni-vs-Shia oriented. But how can we avoid that, after all, that's what we're basically comparing to? I agree, we need to state what makes Sunnism unique without making it sound like we're purposely comparing with the second biggest branch, but how do we go about doing that? --Enzuru 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more appropriate for Talk:Sunni Islam rather than this template. → AA (talk) — 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You might be right, I just have a weird habit of organizing a template first and then using it as a checklist of what needs to be done. We'll move the discussion to there then. --Enzuru 08:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sunnism may be used to describe both jurisprudential positions as well as creedal ones. on the jurisprudential side, it refers to using the divine legal sources and applying the understanding of the early Muslim generations. this is typically presented as the four extant legal schools. on the creedal side, it usually means recognition of `aqidah at-tahawiyya, which is accepted by all Sunnis. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Salafism[edit]

I would like to know why isnt Salafi under the four schools of thought in the template. Moshin (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a movement, not one of the four schools of Sunni fiqh. --Enzuru 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect. There are many 'schools of fiqh' not only four. 209.94.209.206 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been many schools of fiqh, some of which have died out. However, Salafism is not a school of fiqh! ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It is correct to state that slafiism, ahlehadis,are all one principal school of thought.

In the first place to divide sunni islam as four schools is wrong. It should be divided as Taqleedi and Tahqeeqi schools.. Under taqleedi the four schools should be described and under tahqeeqi salafi school —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdunnoor Patankar (talkcontribs) 15:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Design[edit]

I think the design for the Sunni template is very bland and dull. The Islam template, Shia template, Ismailism template, Ali template, Muhammad template, and Islamic Culture template are all much better designed and aesthetically pleasing than the Sunni one. What does everyone think? I believe the design should be changed. --Stallions2010 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been coming up with ideas for a while now. The issue I'm running into is that historically, there has been very little art that is specifically "Sunni Islam" art, unlike there has been for Islam, Shi'a Islam, Ismailism, Ali, Muhammad, and other things. If I put up calligraphy of Abu Bakr, it wouldn't be correct. The best thing I've figured so far was calligraphy of the four Rashidun, so I played around with that. First attempt wasn't so good, so hopefully I'll try again. Any suggestions would be wonderful. --pashtun ismailiyya 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds like a good idea. I think you're right - the four rashidun are the only distinct form of Sunni art that I can think of, as well. Any idea when the new template might be done? --Stallions2010 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Salafi and Wahabi movement not different.Wahabism is name given to Modern Day salafis by Scholars around the world.There is also discussion on merging both these topics.They cant be mentioned separately.Shabiha (t) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The term Salafi is from SALAF (Arabic for predecessors, the rightful predessors in shariah's terms) Salafis are termed Wahabi's by Sufis, another name for Salafis is Ghair Muqalled as they do not follow a specific imam blindly while Sufis have many orders called Tareeqah and they on the other hand mostly adhere to one school of fiqh / imam out of the four (hence termed Muqallid) but are divided further. Muqallids (blind followers of these 4 schools and their subdivisions like Deobandia) all have their own books of Fiqh.

The real difference in Sufis and Salafis is the Aqeedah (belief) e.g. sufis believe Allah's presence in everyone, everything and everywhere while Salafis reject this. Sufis mainly believe that all the Rightful prophets are as much alive (in their graves and are being taken care of for their worldly needs like food etc) as we are in this world now and many more. Salafis also differ in matters other than Aqeedah and the difference is lesser or greater as per the school the Muqallids follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.4.211 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second largest school?[edit]

This is just from a reader, but i noticed in reading some articles on the schools that two of them claim to have the second largest following.

Maliki in its intro: It is the second-largest of the four schools, followed by approximately 25% of Muslims...

Shafi'i later down in a heading of demographics: The second largest school of the Sunni branch of Islam in terms of followers, the Shafi`i madhhab is followed by approximately 29% of Muslims worldwide.

Since i don't know much about this, i just thought someone more versed in these things should know.90.184.163.76 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the Zahiri madhhab[edit]

I would like to suggest the addition of the Zahiri madhhab onto this template, along with the four main madhhabs. My reasoning is as follows:

  1. The Zahiri school is not extinct and still has scholars active in teaching it, as is evident from the Arabic version of the article which can be seen here.
  2. The Arabic version of the template on Sunni Islam includes the Zahiri school along with the main madhhabs, making the total number of madhhabs on the template five instead of four, as can be seen here.
  3. As a returning and hopefully soon to be active volunteer, I offer to take it onto myself to search for English-language material on this school, even translating if need be. The topic is of interest to me and I feel it will be of interest to other readers of Wikipedia as a niche topic as well. With time, I think enough information can be provided on this school of thought (in English, the Arabic articles are already detailed) to make such articles worthy of inclusion along with the main madhhabs.

I look forward to the ideas and input from other editors! MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make a page for the Laythi Madh`hab to remove the dead link, however I hope someone will contribute properly, possibly transfer the translated text from the arabic article. Sakimonk (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made the Laythi madhhab and Awza'i madhhab pages and have also created a page for the Imam of the Laythi madhhab Al-Layth ibn Sa'd. Sakimonk (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
That's great work; there's actually a book about the Awza'i madhhab and it's fundamentals available in bookstores in the Middle East right now. Perhaps if someone downloads it from waqfeya dot com, they could translate some bits and strengthen the article.
Also, someone included the Zahiri madhhab under extinct schools. That is commonly thought, but untrue. Zahiris are around but are very few, and most of them are university professors or doctoral students at colleges in North Africa. In fact Feqhweb, the largest and most famous Arabic website for fiqh, allows the Zahiris a small subforum to discuss their views, so the school is very much alive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the above information, though I would have to respectfully disagree and will outline in the following (please note that "the four" obviously refers to the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafee' and Hanbali madhhabs):

1) Ibn Salah narrates ijma' (consensus) on the impermissibility of following any other madhhab other than the four Schools of Orthodox Islam [Amdatul Saalik]. For an Islamic viewpoint on ijma', Imam Nawawi relates in his 'Maqasid', "The one who contravenes ijma' [consensus] knowingly and calls others to such an innovation, is not only regarded as a 'Blameworthy Innovator' [bid'a] but it is obligatory to rebuke them and abstain from them..." However, that is just a Muslim viewpoint on ijma', as aforementioned.

2) [Extract from prominent fatwa]: In Maraqi as-Sa’ud, Sidi Abdullah Ould Hajj Ibrahim says,

“The consensus today [in Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa] is on the four, and all have prohibited following [any] others.” Bracketed statement added.

3) Perhaps most significantly, the Amman Message, which Wikipedia and secularists seem to be near-obsessed with (please note no derogatory tone intended), states:

"Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim."

The point being a distinction has been made between traditional Thahiri/Dhahiri and the modern-day school. One would infer that the Amman Message is placing the modern-day Thahiri/Dhahiri outside the fold of 'Sunni Islam'.

In addition to this, the 'sanad' (chain of transmission of knowledge), which is an absolutely fundamental principle within 'Sunni Islam', was severed long ago. That is why the Dhahiri madhhab should correctly be listed under extinct schools of law, since there is a great distinction to be made between the extinct Dhahiris and the ones today, with the latter referred to in the Amman Message.

It should be noted that no-one denies that today there are those ('scholars') who are well-versed in the Dhahiri maddhab (as any scholar can pick up a 1000 year old book and teach themselves), the issue lies as to whether there are any significant number (not like 100) of lay Dhahiri Muslims who adhere solely to the madhhab, and if this is the case, whether they are to be considered from 'Sunni Islam' considering prominent fatwas, especially the Amman Message which non-Muslims love citing ServantofAllah93 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I really can't accept the information provided here. There are a few points to be brought up:
1. The views of Muslim scholars doesn't make a difference in this matter, in regard to the views of some that only four madhahib are considered. If we go to many of these same traditional Sunni scholars, the Twelver Shia shouldn't even be included within Islam, yet the Twelver Shi'ites consider themselves Muslims. Wikipedia is not here to take sides.
2. An unbroken sanad is not fundamental in Sunni Islam and there is simply no other way to state this. It is essential in Sufism, yes, but the majority of Muslims are not Sufi, Salafi or part of any movement for that matter. This, requirements such as this should be left out.
3. The issue of the Amman Message is simply semantics. This is very clear, as if Zahiris are not Sunnis then what are they - Shi'ites? Ibadiyyah?
4. If there are scholars and layman both who follow this madhhab - and there are, especially at the universities of North Africa - then the mahdhab is not extinct. This is simple. One can say that their numbers are insignificant and their influence is microscopic, but they are not extinct and thus don't belong in such a category.
Wikipedia is not a place for promoting certain views or taking the "fatwas" of Muslim thelogans as objective evidence at the expense of all other views; it simply provides information and the readers make their own decision. Given that you acknowledged that there are living, there really shouldn't be any more discussion necessary for the point that the Zahiri madhhab, love it or hate it, isn't extinct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can cede the first point you make, it is a valid point, and that's fine. With regards to the second point, having a sanad of transmission of knowledge is fundamental to Orthodox Islam (emphasis on Orthodox). Some classical scholars considered it impermissible to study texts on your own, while the majority said you could do it, but that you would never reach the heights of those who took from a teacher. It is irrelevant to 'Sufism'. The third point, it is not simply semantics, and I'm not sure if you mean semantics anyway or another word? Anyway, the Amman Message is clear (and pivotal as well, considering like I said that non-Muslims (scholars) again and again refer to it as the base definition of Islam. Per the Amman Message, the Dhahiri is neither Sunni, Shi'ite or Ibadi - it is on it's own, outside of these three sects. Me and my mates revived Jariri, now we should also include it because four people entails inclusion on Wikipedia. Obsiously this is would not be true. Following this logic, Mu'tazilite claim to still exist, though again in minute numbers like the Dhahiri, so de we put them under Schools of Theology - obviously not. Even if there were significant numbers, referring back to the Amman Message, the Dhahiris are neither Sunni, Shi'ite or Ibadi. Hope that's all good and clears it up :) but thanks for your first point, you were correct ServantofAllah93 (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, this view regarding sanad is held by later scholars, not traditional ones. The sanad/ijazah system was controversial among the early scholars, with some accepting it as valid and others (especially hadith scholars) rejecting it due to pervieved abuse and oddities. Now, if you would like to include a section explaining that the Sufi movement claims that this is the traditional view while Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and some Deobandis disagree and say it isn't the traditional view, then we can do that on a separate sandbox page, reach a compromise to display all views, then move it back onto the main article; something so contentious shouldn't be pulled through a chain of back-and-forth changes which might confuse regular readers.
As for the Amman Message, then I think you're being a bit disingenuous there. The Amman Message includes Sunni, Shi'ite and Ibadi in terms of creed, with Sufis and true Salafists falling under the Sunni category. It does not mention a fourth group and considering that all Zahiri scholars are considered within Sunni Islam, it seems to be more of an oversight than anything due to the group's small numbers; it is not explicitly stated that they form some sort of a fourth group, and due to the fact that nobody in the whole of the Muslim world claims the existence of a fourth group, we are safe to infer that Zahiris are still within Sunni Islam as a minor/non-mainstream view.
The Jariri example doesn't count, as the Zahiris are not simply a few guys reviving the school; Zahiri fiqh is included in some aspects of Islamic law in Morocco even though most of it is Maliki. In addition, a number of Yemeni hadith scholars also began taking on the ideas of the school around 200 years ago, and their students from India have started a movement which includes most non-Hanafi Sunnis in India and Pakistan, the Ahle Hadis. On top of all this, the scholars of the Ghumari family in Morocco have a long chain including their Zahiri fiqh, Sufi tariqa and Salafist worldview, displaying an interesting synthesis. This is all beside the general revival of the ideas as noted by a number of non-Zahiri scholars at Azhar and elsewhere, with Zahiri professors of Islamic law and Islamic civilization found all over North Africa. Always keep in mind that lack of knowledge of something doesn't mean knowledge of a lack of that thing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The addition of Zahiri school can't be done on the basis of a minor view.The school does not come under four schools of fiqh/Jurisprudence of Sunni Islam.I have reverted.There is consensus in its removal. Shabiha (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed above, and due to the lack of response I assumed consensus in favor of adding it. Thus, your comment that there is consensus over its removal is wholly inaccurate; please review WP:CONSENSUS and try to actually give a reason why it should be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems consensus was not achieved so can we continue this discussion please? I would like to know, is there an English language peer-reviewed reference which states clearly and simply that Zahiri is one of the 5 Madhabs of Sunni Fiqh? F.Tromble (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge consensus above, as one of the participants (Shabiha) was discovered soon after that post to be a sockpuppet of a user with a personal problem with me, and was just stalking across several articles to be a pest.
As for it's consideration, then this has come in the way of political statements but academics, from what I have read, don't seem so concerned with delineating a specific number. If you check the Zahiri article, the comments for the King of Jordan and former PM of Sudan are mentioned there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I can find online [1] overwhelming majority view is that there are only 4 Madhabs and Zaahiri is not one of them. That there are more than 4 seems to be a Fringe view. Moreover the only websites which seem to mention Zahiri as a Madhab seem to have been influenced by Wikipedia and so must be discounted. The opinion of politicians has little baring on religion. It might be (along with your MB suggestion below) that you might be better placing both in a template on Political Islamism rather than Sunni religion.

If however you are certain that these are not political tools used by Islamists but genuine religious movements I think you really need to bring a reliable source which can show this is not a Fringe view or it will have to be removed due to wiki policy even if there were consensus to keep it. Will be interested to read what you can produce. F.Tromble (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why a school of jurisprudence would be associated with Islamism. The Amman Message, which was signed by scholars of all major Muslim schools of thought, mentions it; it bears little relation to Islamism if you read the article. The sources provided in the Zahiri#Modern_history section are quite sufficient as well. Considering the Amman Message's signing by all major figures of Sunni, Shi'ite and Ibadhi Islam as well as the mentions in reliable sources of the school's revival during the last century, I don't see why it would be questioned.
Well, with Shabiha I see why it was questioned. That guy was following me around just to disagree on every article I was commenting on. Aside from that, I don't see what the issue is. Reliable sources as well as scholarly consensus have recognized the school as extant. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to produce one of these "reliable sources" and a reference to this "scholarly consensus" you mention to prove that it is a Sunni Madhab. According to these [2] there are only 4 Sunni Madhabs, not 5. By the way you can not cite Wikipedia (or any of its mirror publications) as a source. Concerning the "Amman Message" signed in 2004, I think you are touching upon Original Research here, (and there is no indication in it that Zahiri is to be counted as a Sunni school) but putting that aside for the moment, the gates or "doors of ijtihad are closed" as of about 500 years ago right?[3] So any attempt to re-open them can not really count as traditional Sunni Islam. I would have no objection to you inserting it under a section about Islamic reform though if you want.

Waiting for your peer-reviewed sources... F.Tromble (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I did not cite Wikipedia; I mentioned that you can find the sources in those sections.
Indeed, many Sunni Muslims claim there are only four madhhabs and the gates to ijtihad are closed. This is their dogmatic belief. Many Muslims also believe that the Ahmadiyya are infidels, but on Wikipedia counts them as Muslims because reliable sources mention that. Wikipedia is based on what is found in sources, not dogma.
As for original research, then sir, you need to review WP:OR. The Amman Message recognizes the school, and so say it isn't Sunni is sophistry; the key figures in the school are Sunnis, as one will note upon reading about both the ancient and modern ones. They obviously aren't Shi'a or Ibadhi.
I have told you where the reliable sources can be found, already right here on Wikipedia. The school is Sunni and always has been, and while an extreme minority it obviously isn't extinct nor is it reformist (any old madhhab is different from [[Liberal movements within Islam]).
I know that you're new, but there is a limit by which someone can refuse to get the point. Please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as well. You were already pointed to where reliable sources on the issue can be found, right here on the site. If you remove the school from the template after this, you will be in violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and it won't be a pleasant experience for anybody involved. Please take the time to read this guideline along with what original research actually is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

All I am asking of you, is to produce a reliable source mentioning 5 Sunni Schools. I assure you there is no need to threaten me, I am hearing you, but I not sure you are hearing me. I am simply trying to discuss this issue rationally and calmly. I take it that you yourself are a representative of the Zahiri school and consider yourself to be a Sunni and I am interested in your unusual POV although I am not sure it belongs here. I appreciate that you have gone to a lot of effort to research and insert your opinion on other pages at Wikipedia and I appreciate how long you must have been building up those articles. It is very impressive original research and should be published but again I think perhaps somewhere other than here. To say every Madhab which signed up to the 2004 Amman Message is Sunni and to disagree is sophistry raises several contradictions (Jafari Madhabs also signed up to the Amman Message so would you say are Sunni too?). A reliable source which does not originate on Wikipedia which says there are 5 traditional Sunni Madhabs rather than 4 and that the 5th is Zahiri would be wonderful. Still awaiting your sources. F.Tromble (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I know you're trolling me right now. Anybody who takes a look at your comment is going to know that. You can play it this way if you want but I guarantee that you won't gain the desired result by doing so.
Here's the thing, you're not being rational and calm. You assume I am some kind of Zahiri rep without proof; all I did was disagree with your misunderstanding of site policies (you are brand new here, after all). You have no basis for assuming that and it's incorrect, by the way. Secondly, you're subtle insults and lack of respect are inappropriate. You're not more than subtly accusing me of POV pushing "on other pages at Wikipedia and I appreciate how long you must have been building up those articles." That's not cool. You might think it's sly, but it's a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
You're also being blatantly dishonest about what I said to you earlier. I never claimed that every madhhab which signed on to Amman is Sunni; I think you know that as well, given your passive aggressive behavior both with me and with just about every other editor you've interacted with since creating your account.
I already pointed you to where the sources explaining that Zahiri is Sunni and not Shia or Ibadhi can be found. The only one pushing a fringe theory is yourself, which I refrained from stating until now as the general knowledge of Wikipedians is usually not an issue but when you're being this rude, there's no other way to say it. Check out the sources at Dawud_al-Zahiri#References and Zahiri#References. The only discussion among scholars was whether or not Zahirism is still extant, not whether or not it was Sunni, and it's understandable that some wouldn't know it is still extant due to the low numbers. I gave you the reference sections there; go do the research.
As far as I am concerned, the issue with you is closed as you haven't brought any reasonable comments here. Additionally, your rudeness here and with multiple other editors is noticed. Expect to hear from me and others elsewhere shortly, as your conduct is getting to the point where even your new status here isn't much of an excuse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If "trollying" someone means "teasing", I assure you I am not. I assure you there was no slight or insult intended to you by my assuming that you must belong to the Zahiri school of thought which you were (?still are?) supporting. I could not have imagined someone who seemed to be the only editor on wiki promoting this school as Sunni might be so offended as my mistaken assumption. In fact I was only trying to impress you, and I sincerely apologise that you took so much offence at this innocent and I see now obviously flawed assumption. What "theory" do you think I am pushing besides asking for a source? Just a book title a page number and a quote something like that would be ideal. I don't think it is right to present Zahiri as a 5th Sunni Mmadhab when every source I can find says there are only 4, unless you can show me one where it says very simply, exactly what you are suggesting here. My pure intention has only ever been to ask for a reliable source about there being 5 traditional Sunni Madhabs (the 5th being Zahiri) instead of 4 as you have claimed. I re-iterate that this is not about whether or not Zahiris exist (we both know there are sources about that) this is only about whether they are, as you are proposing, a generally ignored 5th traditional Sunni Madhab, or whether this is just an extremely minority opinion. I would like besides continually asking for you to produce a source to be not afraid to respond to anything else you type in case you get wound up by it. What can I do to offer you an olive branch of peace?

If possible it would be nice to get back to the topic now please? Source. "There are 5 Sunni Madhabs rather than 4 and the 5th is Zahiri as it says on page ... of the book ... by ..." It would be great if you could fill in the gaps for us please. Sincere best wishes. :) F.Tromble (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This was a much better response on your part. It still isn't totally honest, as the way you Wikilinked NPOV and OR was trolling, but if you're ready to get past it then I'm ready to get past it. Anyway, the scholarly discussion actually was, around the 1950s, over whether Zahiris still exist, hence the most common claim up until that point that there were only four Sunni madhhabs; not because they made tabdee' of Zahiris, but because they thought they were extinct. In the same sense, nobody denies that Jariris or Awzai'is were Sunnis (though they really are exctinct, as far as I know).
I will try to jump off and find what you're looking for, it's been a while. I think it should take ten minutes or so to go back through everything I've collected while finding sources for articles here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The most interesting source for which I have a physical copy is Islam and Literalism by Robert Gleave. If you can get to page 149 I believe it is, you will find Gleave's mention of Zahirism along with "other" Sunni schools - a passing mention like most, as the fact that Zahirism is not Shi'ite or Ibadhite is/was taken for granted by most historians. Similarly, you will notice that in page 95 of Scott C. Lucas' work on Sunni hadith literature, Ibn Hazm - the most significant Zahirite jurist - is included on the list. Again, it isn't dwelled upon because it would be like specifying Malikis as Sunni - it's considered obvious and taken for granted.
A more blunt explanation is by Devin J. Stewart, who has a lot of work on the lesser known Sunni madhhabs - Zahiri, Jariri, Laythi, etc. On page 154 of his Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, he explains how the view that there are only four Sunni madhahib arose later - there were initially six, as the Zahiri and Jariri schools were also included. Looking at Madhhab#Development bring a bit of a shock, then. In the opening paragraph:
"One interpretation is that Sunni Islam was initially[when?] split into four groups: the Hanafites, Malikites, Shafi'ites and Zahirites.[2] Later, the Hanbalites and Jarirites developed two more schools; then various dynasties effected the eventual exclusion of the Jarirites;[3] eventually, the Zahirites were also excluded when the Mamluk Sultanate established a total of four independent judicial positions, thus solidifying the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools.[1]"
And one paragraph down:
"Ibn Khaldun defined only three Sunni madhhahib: Hanafi, Zahiri, and one encompassing the Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali schools.[6][7] Shi'ite historian Ibn al-Nadim named eight groups: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Zahiri, Imami Shi'ite, Ahl al-Hadith, Jariri and Kharijite.[3][8]"
Obviously I did find these sources, as the claims of some later Sunnis (i.e. post Ottoman reconstruction) that Sunnism always consisted of four neatly organized schools seemed almost mythological. When I started looking for reliable sources on the topic, I found that the truth was anything but. I don't feel like typing out every source, but if you go to Madhhab#Development and start clicking on the sources in the quoted text above, you'll find five more sources confirming that Zahirism, along with the now extinct Jarirism, is a Sunni school. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And I'm running a new Google Books search for things I didn't notice before...yeah, it's beyond a doubt at this point. Chibli Mallat's Introduction to Middle Eastern Law page 113, footnote 76 on page 71 of Janina Safran's Definind Boundaries in Andalus about Zahirism being used by Andalusian Emirs as an assertion of their Sunnism, volume four of the Cambridge History of Iran on from pages 474 to 476 listing students of the Sunni schools of Persian origins, including Zahiris with the main four...it really goes on.
Actually, this could be enough to build up on the extinct Jariri school, which I tried to do last year and failed to find enough material. While I wouldn't say this exchange with you (User:F.Tromble) was exactly pleasant, it does seem to have yielded some new material to use on other articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think all this is great, and I am very glad you returned to your original cordial self. I still assure you that no trolling was intended, I was simply copying a style I had seen many times by successful editors on wiki talk pages and assumed it was the right way to go about things. I really am sorry it upset you.
Moving on, I really think it is a good idea to bring all this material together into some articles. I think a section in Sunni Madhabs discussing "4 or more" would be very helpful to the lay person. I will be happy to help you if you will break your promise to revert me :) Best wishes F.Tromble (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue of reverting was only when I thought you were intentionally trying to be annoying (which it seems you never were) and, as you guessed at ANI, I had a small suspicion that you could be a sockpuppet - I've been stalked by sockpuppets of banned people with grudges at least twice a year for the past three years. Which isn't fair to you, so I'm sorry for that.
Anyway, this is a template so the bulk of the material could be at Sunni Islam or Madhhab as templates are just little tabs without detailed info. Both of those two articles are hit by vandalism frequently so if you want to edit them, be prepared for constant random deletions of content. I'll drop some stuff on the talk pages for preliminary discussions about the sources in the next few days or so, if you're interested. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Map of the template[edit]

Why Turkey is excluded from the map of Sunni Islam? rinduzahid(talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Movements or organizations?[edit]

The Arabic version of this template includes the Muslim Brotherhood as a movement. There is a good point to be made in that the MB is both an organization and an ideology. Additionally, we also have the Tablighi Jamaat, Murabitun World Movement and Ansar as-Sunnah - where do they fit in? Organizations or movements? And is there a way to work them in without causing the template to become bloated? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it wiki policy to use other Wikipedia articles as a reference guide for things concerning encyclopaedic entries on Wikipedia? Can you provide peer-reviewed English language sources please? F.Tromble (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources for what, though? I'm not so much making an argument about what is or isn't an organization/movement as I am simply asking - in fact, I'd need to ask you if you have any sources on it. I got nothing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case I would say best to leave MB out of it then. F.Tromble (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Template needs to be re-worked[edit]

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