This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Islam, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy, Alphascript PublishingCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Islam and modernity: Modernity, islam, sociology of religion, Islamism, Arab socialism, liberal movements within Islam, Islamic feminism, Alphascript PublishingCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Islamic view of Ishmael: Islam, Ishmael, Abraham, Rasul, God, Adnan, Muhammad, Alphascript PublishingCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) Click the "show" link above for further details.
The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly
Article reviews have pointed out the citations. Primary sources alone are discouraged. And many books cited here only have title and author.
The "Islam Topics" section at the bottom of the page seems to have a code glitch and is not displaying properly.
Add more to the history, culture, science, and Mathematics section(s) and what Muslims contributed to Europe.
Extend information about Islam in Postmodernism. The viewpoints and attitutes of different modern movements, such as Nur movement by Said Nursi, Islam in Central Asia after soviet union, the impact of Internet on Islam, Islamism, Muslim apologetics against contemporary Islam-based terrorist-organisations, Liberalism and progressivism within Islam, Change in Salafism (from Modernism to Modern-Salafism, I would also recommand: "The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century" and "Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God") (and so on). Including how they developed. and their significant characteristics, not only mention their existence.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the images like "Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel" on this article disrespects Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). And they hurts Muslim feelings, Please do remove these images as early as possibe Umair Bin Ahmad (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This is not a website to protect people’s feelings. Editor8778 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
As a Muslim it is disappointing that you have put your feelings above mine. There was nothing wrong with the images that were there and it is disrespectful to have had them removed. Don't put your own personal feelings above other Muslims - it is people like yourself like you that give us a bad name, what next? Are you going to stop our relatives (who are not Muslim) from driving us to the Mosque? non-Liberal Muslims need to get a life and accept that some of us have mixed marriages, some of us do not follow sharia law, some of us are gay and heck, there are even Muslim adult entertainers - get with it, this is 2019!!!
Could someone add the line "Zahirism is a school of thought founded by Dawud al-Zahiri in the ninth century" to the Denominations section pls? Thanks. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be something, that should be included in the Historical section, I guess. If nobody else will, I would read more about them and try to add them in an appropriate context, then I am back for greater edits (I currently took a break). However, I would like to let you know, that your request was noted.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added to "history"; it should be added to denmiations. History seems undue. OTOH, Zahirism is the only major denomination that lacks mention in the denomination subsection. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems what Zahirism is a strant of Sunni->Salafi-Islam. Not sure, since I didn't know about them before. Then I am going to make an edit, I will read more about them anyway. I will also note your suggestion of Zahirism as an independend denomination. I can not give more details for know, since I do not know much about them. Probably another editor might find our discussion earlier, who has more knowledge about them than me. If not, I want to look up for them in 2-3 weeks.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Zahirism is one of the many early school of law. It declined at an early date and did not become one of the institutionalized Sunni schools of the classical era, but it has retained some intellectual influence through the centuries. Whether or not it is extinct and "Sunni" has been an enduring source on controversy on WP. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, whether or not we had this already here: Would Alevism at leaast in the Bektashi-version, fit in here? I mean they are strongly influenced by Islam, derive their teachings from Haji Bektash Veli and Islamic figures such as Ali play an important role in their belief-system. I focus here on the Alevis from the corresponing article; the Bektashi Alevis, not Alawis or non-Islamic Alevis. As far as I know there are also non-Islamic Alevis, who derive their nomenclatur from "alev" (flame), but a think a reference to "Islamic" Alevism would be helpful here. Even if it is just a brief notion in the "other denomination"-section. merging them with Shias would be odd, since they differ in regard of their rituals are are rather "shia" in their relationship towards Ali and Ahl-Bayt.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That seems right. We currently mention Alevis under Shia, but this is not sourced. According to EI3: "The Alevīs are a number of heterogeneous socio-religious communities in Turkey and the Balkans, historically referred to as Qızılbaş, who, in the twentieth century, began to share a common trans-regional Alevī identity called Alevism". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says: "Though clearly influenced by Shiism, the Alevis themselves do not typically regard themselves as Shīʿī.". Iranica calls them BEKTĀŠĪYA: "a syncretic and heterodox Sufi order, found principally in Anatolia and the Balkans, with offshoots in other regions, named after Ḥājī Bektāš and regarding him as its founding elder (pīr). " Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you think it is worth to get a section on its own for Bektashi-Alevism, after the Sufism-section?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
That seems undue. I think there are books about Islam which don't even mention them, let alone encyclopedic articles. Strictly speaking, Sufism isn't a denomination, but that's another topic. Eperoton (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir(talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I seem to have precipitated the dispute about characterizing Sufism as a denomination by a comment I made earlier on this talk page, I feel obliged to intervene. I recently did a fairly extensive review of encyclopedic articles on Sufism for a dispute over another article, and I don't recall any one of them calling it a denomination. In general, I'm pretty confident that this would not reflect the usage found in the body of modern RSs. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, making it a subsection of Denominations is WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. One can quote Islam & Muslims by a leading scholar of Sufism Mark Sedgwick here "It is important to understand that the Sufis are not a separate denomination, although many people get confused about this." Eperoton (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Sufism is not even a seperate tradition, but rather a designation for an "esoteric" interpretation of Islam. To many people of Central- and Middle-Asia, Islam was introduced as "Sufism", meaning as an rather esoteric interpretation of Islam. Most of them consider themselves as Sunnis. Nevertheless, it is "Sufi" in the meaning of the esoteric-interpretation as stated above, and by giving less attention to the Ulama what also gave raise to conflicts. The Ulama and "Sunni Schools of law" rather played a marginal role. It seems most people were simply Hanafi or Shafi (one of the sources I consulted recently stated that Hanbali played only a marginal role until its revival in the 18th century) without even knowing it. What we call today "Hanafi" or "Maturidi", was simply "Sunni" and this was used to seperate oneself from the Shia more as a political division. All this rather esoteric than Ulama based interpretations are often identified as Sufism in academic sources. Maturidi is also described as "Sufi influenced", although it is clearly not related to any Tariqa. This all testifiies, that the academic usage of "Sufism" is simply the prioritization of the esoteric meaning of Islam, over the more law-based interpretation (If desired, I guess I still have some source about that, somewhere, I saved them since I needed them last semester) and is not limited to a certain tradition within Islam.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Coming up with a concise definition of Sufism is quite difficult because the definitions found in RSs have significant variations (e.g., , , , ), but luckily we don't need to do that in order to determine whether it should be a subsection under Denominations. We just need to determine whether RSs call it a "denomination". Eperoton (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, coming up with a definition is not our work to do. We only need to determine, whether it is a denomination or not. @AlHazen: agreed with that it is not a denomination, but that is should be seperated, because it is a "specific tradition" (Quoting the comment made after the revert). I think, if we want to keep it in the denomination section, we must change the title of the section. But before it gets more confusing, I would prefer to give "Sufism" its own section. It could be expanded, with sub-sections, as it changed over time, and how it was perceived in different periods, and about it impacts on non-Sufi Sunnism/Shia/Folklore. I pinged AlHazen, because I think he should participate in the discussion and I am not sure, he noticed us here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, the term denomination can technically be synonymous with order or communion etc descriptively befitting Sufism in my opinion; if none of these terms are used for it by any source, then it would be original research. I have no objection to moving Sufism into a broader mysticism section - granted that it is in fact broad - as it would otherwise be the lesser cohesive choice than where it's currently placed. AlHazen (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Going by the most common -- though contested on fine points -- definition of Sufism as "Islamic mysticism", I agree that Sufism can be a separate section. That would be the most straightforward solution. Alternatively, we might have a top-level section called "Mysticism", like in Sunni Islam, and start off with the opening statement from this article, "Sufism is the major expression of mysticism in Islam." The section can also mention Batiniyya and Esoteric interpretation of the Quran. We don't currently have well-developed content on this anywhere on WP, and I don't think RSs use the terms "Sufism", "mysticism" and "esoterism" consistently in relation to one another. Sufism itself is a big grab bag, encompassing devotional practices of Sufi orders, philosophy, and popular shrine culture. There's a fairly detailed, freely available discussion of philosophical mysticism in Islam in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, based on which we can mention Ismaili mysticism and Mulla Sadra in the same section. Eperoton (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I could also agree with this, as long we find enough stuff for Batniyya. There is a template, that the Turkic Wikipedia, I could try to check, contains more information about it. As long we will find enough content, I would agree with the alternative suggestion.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) edit: It seems the alleged corresponing article in Turkish does not really coresspond with the Batiniyya article in English. It is rather about Qarmatians. BUt I found theother article, which is much more comprehensive, and I will not manage to translate it today (or the weekend).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle: If you are considering translating an article from the Turkish WP to expand Batiniyya, I would caution against it, unless you're going to verify the cited sources. We have had repeated issues with material contributed by at least one Turkish editor on this topic, which on closer inspection turned out to contain a lot of OR and source misrepresentation. The Iranica article cited in Batiniyya is freely available and I can send you another encyclopedic article from Brill. For the purposes of this article, I don't think it would be due to devote even a complete sentence to Batiniyya, since it's a marginal topic in the broader context of Islam. For example, the six-volume The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World doesn't have an article on it at all, and I can't recall a single article-sized encyclopedic treatment of Islam that mentioned it. I think we can have at most one sentence here about the largely overlapping topics of Batiniyya and Isma'ili mysticism, which could also mention School of Isfahan and/or its most famous figure, Mulla Sadra. Eperoton (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's a convenient formulation from Batiniyya in Encyclopedia Islamica: According to mainstream Shiʿi thought, as well as basic Sufi thought, the hidden meaning behind the veil of language is called the esoteric meaning (bāṭin) of the Qurʾān, while the literal sense is called the exoteric (ẓāhir); the latter is understood by the common person and is considered evidence for the fulfilment of religious duties, while the esoteric aspect is comprehended by the elect, who contemplate its mysteries and discover the essences hidden behind the veil of forms.
For a Mysticism section we can have a sentence like this, citing Islamica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Mystical interpretations of Islam have also been developed by Ismaili Shias (sometimes called batiniyya), who in common with Sufis look for esoteric (batin) meaning of the Quran, by the School of Illumination, as well as by the Isfahan school of philosophy.Eperoton (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on comments by VenusFeuerFalle and AlHazen, there's general consensus for a Mysticism section. As far as Batiniyya goes, like VenusFeuerFalle, I've grown hesitant about mentioning it in this section. This a term with various uses rather than a single school of thought (as detailed in Encyclopedia Islamica, for example), and the term doesn't seem to be prominent enough for this article. We can mention it in Ismailism instead. I'll make what seems to be an uncontroversial change. Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Skyline of Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country in the world.
According to the information found on Wikipedia, Indonesia is the 14th largest country in the world and Saudi Arabia is the 12th. Doesn't that contradict the statement that Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world? Rayansb (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rayansb: people speak of the size of countries about equally often with reference to area and population, and since the image is in the Demographics section I think one can safely infer that the latter is intended here. That said, I have amended the caption to be more explicit, considering that Largest countries is a redirect to our list by area. (At List of countries and dependencies by population Indonesia is ranked 4th and Saudi Arabia 40th.)—Odysseus1479 03:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)