Template talk:Sunni Islam

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

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)
I just had the same thought, there should be listing of Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligh etc. because these are massive Sunni organistions (not really movements though). Perhaps there could be a section called Sunni organisations? Sakimonk talk 21:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good subcategory to make, but then there's the risk of it becoming cluttered. Actually, could we make a category for organizations and at the same time trim the section for books of hadith? Some of the titles mentioned there are minor in terms of historical influence, yet it's by far the most bloated part of the template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (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)

When you click view button at the bottom it jumps to Template:Shia Islam... in addition template is incorrect collapsible option was used in some articles due to space limitations in those pages hence | bodyclass = collapsible is necessary, i.e hide/show -option

Sufi is not a school of divinity[edit]

Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that escalated quickly. 213.205.251.63, you should have started discussing here after your first WP:BOLD edit was reverted, instead of reverting the reversion (see WP:BRD). Now then, about the presence of Sufism in the list of aqidahs, I agree that it looks out of place and is also not supported by the main articles: Aqidah#Traditional Sunni Schools and Schools of Islamic theology#Sunni schools of divinity. Neither lists Sufi under the Sunni aqidahs. I'm not sure where Sufi (or Ahl al-Hadith, for that matter) belongs on this template, but at least not under Aqidah, from the looks of GBooks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It was such an obvious error I didn't see why there was a need for a lengthy discussion. You'll note that none of the 4 individuals who accused me of vandalism or claimed that there were "many references" for there view will come here with a single evidence to back up there claim. The main reason for this is that here isn't any evidence. Anyway, Sufi is not a school of theology and should not be listed there. I don't believe it fits in with any of the existing sections. I did consider "movements", however this doesn't feel right either as there is overlap with other Sufi movements such as Barelvi. Another option would be to put a new section entitled "Sufi orders" and then list the main orders such as Qadiri, Chishty etc... a bit like the Sunni schools of law section. This should be acceptable as Sufism is part of Sunni Islam. As for Ahl Hadith, this is clearly a movement and should be moved there. By the way, my IP address has changed again. Apparently I am meant to inform others of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.225 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As expected, none of those who accused me of vandalism or PoV pushing have contributed to this discussion. The main reason is that they have no evidence whatsoever that Sufism is a school of theology. The "many references" they claim do not exist. I will therefore make the change that should have never have been reversed in the first place. Sigh.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.37 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is of course possible that your "accusers" forgot about this in the meantime. Try getting their attention by pinging them, e.g. via {{u|Username}} ~~~~. For this to work, you'll need to combine a link to the user with your signature (four tildes) in the same edit. Alternatively, leave a message at their user talk pages. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 February 2016[edit]

Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. Please remove.

213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Atharis[edit]

"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”"[1] Doug Weller talk 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Per my evidence over at the fringe board [2] the Atharis schools prominence is up in the air, however until we can sort that out: I would propose Athari be moved under others bracket per the statement from the same source: "This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school"[3] Misdemenor (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Move is ok. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs[edit]

There is consensus for option 4. The extinct subsection should be renamed other, and Zahiri should be moved there. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a long-running dispute relating to the status of the Zahiri school. It seems to have arrived at a consensus with respect to the Zahiri article, but we still have a disagreement about presentation in this template. There are two relevant areas of controversy:

  1. Encyclopedias and general histories commonly refer to the Zahiri madhhab as "extinct" or "defunct", while other sources cited in the article note that the modern Ahl-i-Hadith movement "consciously identified themselves with Zahiri doctrine", and that the maddhab is "prominent" among Salafis, though it is "not formally operating today".
  2. While there is argeement that the Zahiri school was historically considered part of the Sunni legal community, some sources state that it was then "excluded from the Sunni consensus". It was conspicuously listed apart from the Sunni madhhabs in the Amman Message, and we haven't been able to find a RS that explicitly refers to its modern form as "Sunni".

The question is how the Sunni Islam template should be designed in view of the above. Here are the options which have been floated:

  1. Leave the template as it is.
  2. Move Zahiri under "extinct"
  3. Move Zahiri on its own line with "disputed" in parentheses.
  4. Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there.
  5. Remove Zahiri from this template altogether.

Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Option 4: Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there. Option 1 doesn't seem preferable because two editors have strongly opposed that no matter what. Option 2 is demonstrably false based on RS. Option 3 would only be a temporary solution since a dispute would still need to be resolved by editors. Option 5 is doctrinally impossible since all of traditional Islam is either Sunni, Shia or Ibadhi, and Zahirism isn't Shia or Ibadhi. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Option 4 is in my opinion the most correct. 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Option 4 renaming subsection "inactive" would be better. Misdemenor (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo, CounterTime, Rubbish computer, John Carter, and Misdemenor: Although the votes above seem like consensus at a glance, there is disagreement over what to call the second sub-section (3 votes for "other" vs. 2 votes for "inactive"). The next step would be to try reaching a consensus on these alternatives. Eperoton (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Inactive still returns us back to the same discussion over POV pushing that we had before the RfC took place: the errant insistence of one editor that Zahirism is extinct when reliable sources demonstrate that this clearly isn't the case. If we're having a discussion about using the term "inactive" instead of "other" as the option suggested, then we didn't need to have organized the RfC above; it was a waste of time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC discussion continued[edit]

The RfC has served its purpose in attracting additional participants and revealing their choices. If we can't reach consensus for change, the template would default to its current state. Since it's farther from the "inactive" option than it is from "other", I would expect that the editors arguing for the former would take particular interest in consensus-building. Eperoton (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think all of those who participated can agree that the current state of the template isn't ideal. So I must concede, pushing aside my previous pessimism, that the RfC didn't end the discussion entirely but it was a step. In that case, I'd still stand by Other - the original language of option 4 - since it's the most neutral term possible, delineates the difference between the four madhahib and all others, and doesn't add any sort of value judgment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Traditionalism redux[edit]

@Misdemenor: Thanks for rearranging the law section per above discussion. I will undo your change in the theology section, however. Your previous move was motivated by the disputed status of the Athari school, which was discussed by that name only in a couple of sources. Now that we've connected it to other terms, though, it's no longer the case. It features prominently in standard discussions of both classical and modern theology. I'm frankly puzzled by your reliance on the Theology article in the Princeton encyclopedia. Given your knowledge of the subject, I'm sure you realize that it gives a highly idiosyncratic account that doesn't seem to be shared by any other author, and not only in calling Ash'arism "traditionalist". It also restricts the term "kalam" to Mu'tazilism and its Shia descendants and calls Mu'tazilis "the most significant representatives of theology in Islamic history". It's WP:UNDUE to base the template on a source whose perspective is arguably too fringe to even mention it in an article alongside the standard view. Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Its similar to Zahiri not recognized by Al-Azhar University, "Al-Azhar has a membership that represents the theological schools of Al-Ashari and Al-Maturidi, the four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, and Hanbali), and the seven main Sufi orders". Traditionalism is not considered orthodox compared to Ash'ari and Maturidi [4] Its history is irrelevant because its now considered outside of mainstream. Therefore I don't see why it should be alongside the two theologies. Modern or classical Ibn taymiyya is not considered a scholar of mainstream Sunni Islam. The Sunni view is also that Ahmad ibn Hanbal would not oppose the Ash'ari/Maturidi theology. Its already proven that Ash'ari is traditionalist kalam by multiple sources including this one [5] I believe you have the Princeton source misunderstood, it is referring to Ash'ari as a traditionalist qalam school, therefore its not restricting kalam to just Mutazilism. Mutazilism were extreme rationalist rejecting traditionalism. Ashari on the otherhand is taking the middle path by defending traditionalism with reason."Like al-Ashari, he followed a middle path that stressed both traditionalism and rationalism,"[6] "Ironically, the great and unbridgeable dispute between rationalist Mutazila and the traditionalist Sunnis resulted in a synthesis of the two schools. It began with an early tenth-cntury Mutazila scholar from Basra named Abu Hasan Ash'ari, who had a dream in which the Prophet bid him embrace the teachings of Ibn Hanbal. He became their most avid defender and soon began using the Mutzila's own rationalist methods to support the tenets of Sunni theology" [7] "Sunni political thought began to consolidate as the Kalam tradition took off in the fourth/tenth century, when al-Ash'ari and his followers took up the banner of defending the traditionalist orthodoxy that was represented by Ibn Hanbal and vindicated by his triumph in the Mihna."[8] Britannica section on Ash'ari also says "Ashariyya, in Islam, school of theology supporting the use of reason and speculative theology (kalam) to defend the faith." "faith" here is referring to traditionalism. [9] Traditionlist theologies lack of an article on Britannica is also a hard case that its not important and its already being used under ashari-maturidi. See my post on refutation [10] Misdemenor (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Misdemenor: Yes, that is the account found in RSs: Ash'ari used kalam to defend propositions of the early traditionalist (ahl al-hadith) doctrine. But that is not what is called "traditionalist theology" in any other RS I'm aware of. The multiple sources I quoted in Talk:Traditionalist_Theology_(Islam)#Source_review and other books I reviewed use the term traditionalist theology for the majority Hanbali position, which rejected kalam and some other aspects of Ash'arism. As to who is considered by whom to be orthodox, that's just not relevant here. WP is based on academic sources, not religious polemics. Eperoton (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Ash'ari/Maturidi are traditionalist-rationalist theology so to say they are not traditionalist is inaccurate based on RS. Its undue weight to promote a minor school of thought that's not given importance in Sunni Islam and is rejected. If the Hanbali law was rejected by Sunnis it would not be alongside the other schools even though you call it just "religious polemics". This is the point I was trying to make with Zahiri, to claim one is part of Sunni is academic dishonesty this is why authors have made sure to label Athari outside Sunni mainstream. The majority/orthodox Sunnis are Ash'ari and Maturidi and this is considered the fabric of Sunni Islam as well the majority/orthodox sunni fiqh consists of the four school school of law, therefore moving traditionalist to the lower bracket is the most NPOV compliant. We cant give importance to content that's not discussed in-depth like the schools I mentioned above. Its like adding the Salafi school as a 5th madhhab because I know for afact Hanbali fiqh does not represent Salafist fiqh. Lets not confuse readers here. Some of your sources are just laying out the classical medieval battles between Mu'tazila and Traditionalist. Both of these no longer dominate the Sunni sphere. Traditonalist dominance is mostly referred in past tense. Also your last source by Binyamin Abrhamov, when he said "the traditionalist theology has remained the core of Islamic theology" he is referring to Ash'ari/Maturidi, and the "pure traditionalist" is referring to the athari. If it was as important as you claim it is then it would be included in the Britannica page. [11] [12] [13] [14] Misdemenor (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Misdemenor: Abrahamov's article requires close reading since he deliberately characterizes the terms "traditionalist" and "rationalist" in terms of substance and avoids mapping them to other labels. However, he certainly does not use "traditionalism" and "pure traditionism" the way you suggest. He defines "pure traditionalism" through rejection of qiyas, which is accepted by most Hanbalis, and he uses a quote from Ibn Taymiyya to summarize traditionalist (not just "pure traditionalist") attitude towards rational arguments. Needless to say, Ibn Taymiyya is not a spokesman for Ash'arism. This use of "traditionalist" is also supported by other major RSs, as is its prominence and classification as Sunni:

 What was the Arabic for “theology”? The obvious answer is kalām, or speech, which represents well the scope of early theology, [...] This was taken in two directions, the first allowing the use of reason, as in the case of the followers of Shāfi‘ī and Abū Hanīfa, and the second based on a literal reading of hadith, as with the supporters of Ibn Hanbal. [...] In Western accounts these two groups of thinkers are sometimes called Rationalists and Traditionalists (terms commended by Abrahamov and Makdisi, among others), but these labels are not always helpful. It is not that some scholars known as Traditionalists favoured irrationality, or that “Rationalists” did not use the hadith; it was more a matter of emphasis than a difference in kind. Oliver Leaman. The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (p. 81)
 Makdisi in particular argued that Ḥanbalism had a disproportionate impact on the development of Islamic theology because it was the only Sunnī law school to maintain a consistently traditionalist theological voice. For Makdisi, the Ḥanbalīs were the ‘spearhead’ of a wider traditionalist movement in medieval Islam against the rationalism of Muʿtazilī and Ashʿarite Kalām (Makdisi 1962–3; 1981). Aspects of Makdisi’s narrative require modification, especially as some leading Ḥanbalīs of the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries were more rationalist than earlier thought, but the main thrust of his argument still stands. It may be added that Ḥanbalī theology has also had a disproportionate impact on modern Islamic theology. Jon Hoover. Ḥanbalī Theology. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology
  Ahmad ibn Hanbal was regarded as the champion of a traditionism that sought to minimise the use of reason and to seek religious unity by applying literalist explanations. In his confrontation with Mu‘tazilism, however, Ibn Hanbal had been obliged to take a clear stand on all the issues at stake, and hence was publicly associated with a kind of Sunnī traditionist creed. [...] Thus, by the mid-tenth century, the Muslim world had begun to settle on several defining and immensely enduring doctrinal alignments that have not been substantially altered since: the Ash‘arī, Māturīdī and Hanbalī Sunnīs, two varieties of Mu‘tazilism among the Twelver and the Zaydī Shī‘a, the Neoplatonism of many Ismā‘īlī Shī‘a, and the Ibāī doctrines among the residual Khārijites.  Khalid Blankinship, The early creed. The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (p. 51). 

I can find more RSs to that effect, since this is standard usage, but I don't see the need, since so far you've only produced on RS that contradicts it. I'm pretty sure you're misreading the Amman Message on its attitude towards traditionalist/Hanbali theology, but I also don't see a need to go into it here. The preference for academic sources on matters of fact, classification, and prominence is based on WP:RS. If you want to try convincing other editors to base it on what some religious groups say about other religious groups, you're welcome to open an RFC or take it to another forum. I think you probably realize yourself that you won't have much luck with that. Eperoton (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The Salafist/Wahhabi narrative of Hanbali school theology is not recognized by Sunnis. The only reason Hanbali even survived is because its legal thought was recognized. Britanica and even the Athari book by J Halverson makes readers aware that the school is unorthodox. As William Dickenson has said to acknowledge what is historically sunni is not to say maliki or ash'ari claims islamic authenticity. "in a historical sense, acknowledge that Sunnism crystallized around these legal and theological approaches. The representatives of Sunni law and theology known as the 'ulama (religious scholars) or fuaqaha (jurists), have historically drawn the boundaries of "orthodoxy" in Islamic history, and hence it is the this group as a class that has tended to represent "orthodoxy" in Islamic history" [15] Salafists don't even like to use the term Sunni as I pointed out in the source I posted to you on another talk page. They only used the term "Sunni" during the ottoman empire and would start referring to themselves as "Salafi" once the ottoman empire collapsed or places where ottomans didn't have authority later in the century such as Egypt. I just realized that I had asked for editor agreement before making this edit here [16] therefore its you that needs consensus now since you edited this page a month later. Misdemenor (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Misdemenor: You got an agreement to temporarily move Athari to the Other tab while we connected this relatively obscure term to more common names for it. When we did that in the page move discussion here, I moved it back. The support in RSs for its prominence or its classification as Sunni is no longer in doubt, as shown in that discussion and again in this thread. If you're under the impression that any of the editors involved in the discussion of your template change (Doug Weller and MezzoMezzo) support your campaign against traditionalist/Hanbali/Salafi theology, let's ping them and check. Eperoton (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: I didn't agree to moving anything on this template in the previous dicsussion, the consensus we agreed upon solely was the name change because Athari isn't notable. I took some time off Wikipedia and came back to see that it was removed by you. Nothing has changed the sources still don't refer to it as mainstream. Also Mezzo was not even involved in the discussion regarding moving. Misdemenor (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Misdemenor: I was referring to your unopposed proposal to move "Athari" under Other, which was agreed to by Doug Weller while you were discussing the status of Athari with MezzoMezzo on a noticeboard. Are you saying this agreement is relevant here, or did I misunderstand? Eperoton (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::As you can see on my talk page, I told Misdemenor " As there's no deadline I probably would see how the discussion goes, but that's me" - looking at the above discussion it's clear that Misdemonor needs consensus to make these changes, and apparently lacks it. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: A school that's not mainstream should not be at the forefront to represent Sunni Islam template. Can you tell me why Zahiri and Salafi school are not added on to the template as well beside the major sunni school? But your misunderstanding my position. Ash'ari/Maturidi already includes tradtioinalist theology, it was even mentioned to you by Patapsco913 who was opposing Athari be renamed. Had I not agreed there would be no consensus on that issue despite your claim of sources. If your intention was to pass off Athari as legitimite orthodox school contrary to RS then I would not elect to rename the subject. I'm not for the complete removal of this subject but the placement must coincide with RS or anyone can start a school and attempt to pass off as mainstream. Please refer to the WP:WEIGHT "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Can you also explain how you differentiate a majority view point from a minority one? or does that not matter? Misdemenor (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Misdemenor: The placement of Zahiri was a result of consensus that reflected legitimate concerns about its classification in RSs. You took part in those discussions, so I'm not going to rehash them here. Salafi theology is treated as another name for traditionalist theology in RSs.
My intention is and has been to comply with WP policies, including WP:WEIGHT, which you seem to misunderstand. It's about giving proportional weight to opinions presented in RSs, not opinions expounded by different religious groups. For example, just because Sunni Islam is the majority sect, it doesn't mean that the WP should give preference to its view over the Shia perspective. It does mean that general RSs will usually give more coverage to Sunni Islam, and per WP:WEIGHT the amount of coverage it gets in general articles should reflect that. A similar rationale could be used to argue for placing traditionalist theology after Ash'ari and Maturidi on the list. Given the RSs we've examined, I don't see a rationale for listing it in the Other section, together with extinct schools, which I don't even recall being called "Sunni" in RSs.
As for this business of traditionalist theology being "included" in Ash'arism, you already presented your arguments on this point in this thread and I've already rebutted them. If you'd like to rebut the rebuttal, we can continue this discussion, but I don't see the point of responding to a simple repetition of your original argument.
Finally, regarding the recent edits of the template, if you want to continue pushing for this change, I again concur with Doug in inviting you to get a consensus for your position. You've referred to his agreement here, you've requested his opinion, and when it went against your wish, you're ignoring it and referring to some other mythical consensus. Sorry, that's not going to fly. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Your Sunni-Shia analogy is a bad example, this is the Sunni template not Islam in general. The "other" bracket does not equate to being extinct, it just means its a minority viewpoint, top section should be restricted to mainstream view. The point is Athari is not technically mainstream Sunni that is why RS do not call it orthodox , you seem to be missing this point. Its not just "his" agreement that I referred to but myself included, I asked him for the reversion policy not his opinion. We are going to have to get other editor opinion on the matter as you have not convinced me, ill take this to a noticeboard. Misdemenor (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Returning from a substantial Wikibreak, and trying to get caught up here. Am I to understand that Misdemenor is suggesting the move of Traditionalist Theology to the "Other" level of the template, next to Mu'tazilite and Murji'ite theology? Or a name change for the Traditionalist Theology article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: You've been missed. Misdemenor's proposal was the former, and we debated it some more on the NPOV noticeboard, but the discussion died down in the absence of other participants and then was mooted by Misdemenor's (frankly, rather surprising) indef. Eperoton (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't find it shocking at all. I noticed Misdemenor and other suspicious accounts harassing users (myself included) in tandem for a decent period of time, and I've been part of uncovering some very substantial sockpuppetry cases in the past decade, but I also leveled an accusation about two years ago that turned out to be technically incorrect, thus I've been hesitant to open SPI cases alone. I'll try messaging yourself, Saheehinfo and other usual suspects shortly in order to discover what I've missed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Amman Message[edit]

It states that Zahiri is neither extint/inactive nor defunct. It still exists. 212.253.113.96 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutly it is sunni. Otherwise it should not be on this template, Right?

212.253.113.96 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not part of the traditional Sunni schools but since they would self identify as Sunni, its is on this template. Some sources call it a minor school of Sunni Islam. It should not be alongside the established four schools for various reasons including that its not recognized school within the Sunni sphere. Most academics have been careful in calling it Sunni however, it has somewhat revived in the spirit of groups related to Salafism. Editors wanting to keep it on the template may have been inclined to do so because of its historical relation with Sunnis as well as self label policy. Wikipedia must focus first and foremost on the mainstream definition then present other minority views. What's "older" is also irrelevant to how prominence is given. I get that Zahiri's extinction is disputed but the "other" section does not equate to it being inactive nor extinct. If you look just a few threads above, consensus has been achieved on this issue. Misdemenor (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
212.253.113.96: The placement of Zahiri was established by a WP:CONSENSUS reached through a WP:RFC, which you can find on this talk page above. If you want to change that, you have to get a new consensus for your proposed change. Eperoton (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Separation of Ahl-i Hadith from Salafism[edit]

Following a recent notice of subtle POV pushing attempts harking back to 2014, I've separated Ahl-i Hadith from Salafism. More details are on Talk:Ahl-i Hadith, but basically this is based on reliable sources, mostly which clarify that the conflation of the two movements is primarily a view of their theological opponents, but analysts note that the two movements are historically distinct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)