Template talk:Sunni Islam

hadith collections

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

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Design

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?

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

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)