From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

"Example" section[edit]

So where did you get these views on Quranism? There are so many errors that I don't know where to start from. Maybe the reason is that the main feature of "Quranism" is not to follow any human authorities, and therefore each one may have their own view.

For example, prayer times: some say, it should be 5, others 3, others reject fixed times at all.

Pilgrimage: some say hajj is not a pilgrimage but a discussion forum, and/or that it shoiuld not take place in Mecca, but at another place (with differnt theories about it). What is maybe a general feature: it calls not only muslims, but humanity in general ("call the people to the hajj") Domestic violence: the "quranites" I know all say that it means "separate from them", not "beat them".

"War against Israel": though most "Quransits" may be critical of the politics of Israel, this does not mean they call people to war. Moreover, the concept of Palestinians (or any other) as "Muslim people" is denied by many. Abrogation: most Q. see abrogation as only referring to older scriptures, not within the Quran.

Anti-Christ: as there is nothing about Anti-Christ or Mahdi in Quran, all such ideas can only be individual opinions.

Inter-religious marriage: many Q. state that muslim women may as well marry christian or jewish men.

Source: [1]

Therefore, it might be better to delete the examples at all.



"Sunni scholars believe a tribute can be taken from non-Muslims living in Muslim lands."
"Can be taken" makes it sound optional, but as per Quran 9:29 it is obligatory, isn't it? MosheEmes (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Quranists do not see Jizya as tax on nonmuslims, but rebuilding compensation after war and that is also for limited time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatenes (talkcontribs) 02:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


There is too much "Quranists consider XYZ a lie" in this article. This is a very POV wording. However, I think someone with familiarity on the subject should make these changes, not me. MosheEmes (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Some people have been vandalizing the page by adding beliefs that Quranists do not hold as truth. Example includes polygamy, domestic violence, jihad, tax on nonMuslims, etc. And when did alcohol become the most important thing in Islam? Why is it even in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatenes (talkcontribs) 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Toul-e-Islam is not "Quranist"[edit]

Regarding the dispute, I work with Toul-e-Islam Trust as a volunteer and I can confirm that it is not "Quranist". Toul-e-Islam is strictly non-denominational, it considers "Quranism" to be a sect. Also, TeL does not believe in a "separation of church and state", it is NOT secular. TeL also accepts hadith that do not contradict the Quran. It does not automatically reject every hadith or historical source without first analyzing its content. I can provide contact information for the director of Toul-e-Islam trust to verify this information. G.A. Parwez used to have debates with Ahl-e-Quran sect in Pakistan on this issue.

p.s. If I recall correctly, I was the one who originally posted Toul-e-Islam on the Quranism wiki page. This was before I began to work with them, and my knowledge of their organization was limited. I have no removed them from this wiki page. They are now listed in the "Nondenominational Muslim" wiki page instead of the Quranist wiki page. Code16 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sections of 'criticism' or 'prominent quranists' have no place here[edit]

Criticism: there is none because Gibril Haddad has no basis or citation Prominent Quranists is here: (own wiki article) List of Quranists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Severe Vandalism[edit]

In an effort to restore the article to its previous (and much better state), it was restored back to its previous state by an anonymous editor. Is there any way to stop the horrific vandalism going on in this article?


Per WP:SPLIT, there is no need to split the article; the material in List of Quranists can be easily merged here. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support merge. The list was an unattributed copy-paste creation. --NeilN talk to me 12:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

G.A Parwez was not a "quranist", please stop inserting him in that list[edit]

Please stop inserting G.A. Parwez's name in the "notable quranists" section. I just removed him again, the cited article nowhere stated that he is a "quranist". Just because someone gives primacy to the Quran does not make them a "quranist". Parwez had debates against the "Ahl-e-Quran" while he was alive and he has clearly stated multiple times in his lectures that he is NOT a "quranist" sectarian. He considered this further division to be another sect and he was explicitly non-denominational. I work with Toul-e-Islam, if anyone wants confirmation on anything I've said, contact me personally and I will put you in touch with senior members of his organization and you can confirm this yourself. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, this was brought up before elsewhere, but let me state clearly here as well for future reference, I don't work "for" TeI, I work "with" them as a volunteer, non-affiliated, non-officially. There is no conflict of interest here anymore than I'm a fan of them and have email contacts for a couple of senior members of the organization. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 15:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Large reversion[edit]

ScrapIronIV has a point in that this article has become way too messy, requiring a reversal. I would suggest though to revert it all the way back to before the many edits by mainly Rahibsaleem (and his not-logged-in IP and نبيذ. They both have made mostly unsourced edits and even removed sourced content. I think that the latest version preceding them is this one from 14 June 2015, although I might have missed something. HyperGaruda (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some adjustments, and by some reason a poor version was restored by ScrapIronIV. Sources in lead sentences look good. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That is the wrong "latest" stable revision (from 14 June 2015) It still has the Toul-e-Islam organization listed as Quranist, which I removed after much resistance from some members, and explained my actions to an administrator. If you are going to revert it, use a date later then this, which does not contain TouleIslam and G.A.Parwez's inclusion on this page, thanks. Code16 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
scratch that, looks like it's been reverted to a correct stable version already, thank you Code16 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tolu-e-Islam quranistic?[edit]

FreeatlastChitchat has re-added the sections on Tolu-e-Islam and its founder. I predict an edit war with Code16, so before that, I'd like to ask both of you to state in this section your evidence (sources/links etc) for why TeI is or is not quranistic. That way we can hopefully prevent any future lengthy discussion from happening again. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda Just click the page of its founder Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, the very first sentence is that he is a Quranist. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors have requested 3rd party sources as per Wiki guidelines regarding this issue before the title of "Quranist" can be disputed. So for now, as far as wiki is concerned, he is a "quranist". Although, as 3rd party sources are added in the future stating otherwise, that will change. Code16 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Phew, thought this would erupt in a catastrophe. Thanks to both of you that you (sort of) agree in a calm way. I suppose that the consensus for now can be summarized as: Tolu-e-Islam and its founder Ghulam Ahmed Pervez are quranistic, unless a reliable NPOV 3rd party source says otherwise. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll keep a look out for said sources and make the adjustment if I find the adequate citations. Thanks. Code16 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Greetings everyone, so this issue was discussed in a detailed capacity on the talk page of the Parwez article recently (link provided, please take a look).[[1]] Consensus has now been established on this issue thanks to the experienced input of the user John Carter. Allow me to quote him in full below regarding the labeling of Parwez as a "Quranist". I would like to get the input of users active on this page on how to handle adjustments on the Quranism page, with regards to the listing of Parwez and TouleIslam. Would you prefer to remove Parwez from this page altogether, or keep him here but add clarifications in the content to the effect that he is labelled as a "quranist by x"? If needed, I can also provide primary sources where Parwez has rejected such a labeling and criticized Quranists. Let me know what you guys think and how you want to handle this.

The quoted text is below:

First,I guess I should say I am coming into this discussion from other discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Talk:Ahmadiyya, and a discussion on my user talk page. Anyone interested is free to look at them. I have to agree that, from what I see, it might be at best dubious for us to describe the subject as a "Quranist" without attribution, along the lines of "he has been called a Quranist by [x]". And I very much doubt that such a description is among the most obvious or important ways to describe him. He seems to have from what I have been able to see associated with questioning some hadith, but questioning some hadith is nowhere near the same as saying he is a Quranist. Also, if, as Code16 says above, the label has been applied to him primarily by journalists, presumably in material written by them, as opposed to in their quoting or paraphrasing academics or other experts, it would logically have a low priority for inclusion in the article, because journalists are not experts in what is and is not Quranist. I agree that it would however be a good idea to separate his thinking from his accomplishments or life.

In general, we tend to take as the best indicators of what to say and how much weight to give it other existing high-quality reference sources, particularly if they are so recent that it is unlikely that things would have changed substantially since their publication. From what little I have been able to see from such in a quick google search, I am not seeing anything which leads me to believe that he is thought of or described in the sources I have been able to find in a significant way as a "Quranist." I am assuming some other editors, particularly from the area, might have access to more such sources, and, if they do, it would be a good idea to look at what they say. If access is limited, one can always as at WP:RX for any information they might have, and, honestly, that is generally a good idea anyway. I do note that the article, as is, seems remarkably short regarding details of his biography per se, and in general that is one of the primary topics to be discussed in articles with titles like this one, which by the title indicates it is first and foremost of biographical article. It certainly is possible for a widely discussed thinker to have a separate page summarizing his thinking and positions, if there is sufficient established notability for such. And, as it is the primary reason he is known, it certainly should be discussed to some extent here. Expanding the coverage of his biographical content would certainly be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to ping other editors if their input/advice/suggestions are required. Thank you. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 13:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Code16. I'd like to involve my little Handbook on Islam. Personally I'm happy either way with regards to TeI (not) being quranistic. They are not mentioned in the Handbook under "Qur'anists", and the sole two sources used in the TeI section are either primary (TeI's website) or highly POV (some article "supported" by the calltoislam website; that article also lacks a conventional publisher, making it less reliable). So based on WP:N and WP:RS, I'd scrap the whole TeI section from this page.
On the other hand though, you do have to admit that at least the ideas of TeI are qur'anistic (i.e. less emphasis on other sources than the Qur'an), but without proper sources, stating this would be original research. By the way, please do not think that Qur'anism is a sect or movement, but more of a general view/ideology/interpretation (again, refer to the handbook, first paragraph).
Off-topic: the "od" template is used only to reposition a discussion thread that is becoming too much skewed to the right, due to the many colons used in each subsequent reply. I've taken the liberty to remove your use of {od}, save for one example. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda, Thank you for your valuable input. I don't mind the "Quranistic" label actually and agree that he definitely places primary importance on the Quran and has ferociously attacked many ahadith. Just to clarify, personally, I feel a much greater closeness and affinity with Quranists then I do with Sunnis/Shias etc (but that's just me personally.) In fact, I'm sure I've collaborated with Quranists in making some articles on wikipedia more neutral, for example the Hadith and Criticism of the Hadith articles. I hope we can collaborate on such issues in the future as well. And as for including/not-including Parwez on this page, I agree that there aren't enough sources and think that it will be better to remove him from this article. Also, because of the historical background and differences he had with the AhleQuran in Pakistan, and the differences regarding some beliefs and politics/economics, a distance grew between Parwez and Quranism, so it won't be very accurate to list him here, at least until there are some scholarly sources to cite. I think we have a consensus on this issue, and unless anyone has a valid objection, I'll make the adjustment. Thanks again. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)