Talk:Non-denominational Muslim

Ahmadis, Ibadis, and Zikris
Ahmadis, Ibadis, and Zikris in a manner of speaking are non-denominational, as well. The reason for this is that of their persistent attire not to be classified under Islam: sunni or shia. If they are like babi and Bahais which are not a part of {{islam]], this implies that a new religion has been created. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this an organized movement?
If people describe themselves this way, do they go indifferently to Shiite or Sunni mosques? Or do they have their own? etc --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi
It is mentioned in this article in category of "Notable Ghair Muqallids" that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was one of them. This is not true. Please research about Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi and check that he was, Sunni 'Hanafi', Sufi. So, I request to remove his name from this article as calling him Ghair Muqallid. Because Ghair Muqallids means 'Wahhabis' in fact. ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Turkey (completely incorrect.)
Inconcievable that Turks are "nondenominational". There are traditionalists (Sufis) and both modernist (Anakara School) and conservative (Nurcu, Gulen movement) reformists among the Sunnis but clear numbers aren't known. However, a 2006 survey by KONDA (a Turkish survey agency) called "Social structure survey" (which can be downloaded in either in Turkish or English) reveals that 82% of the population is Sunni Hanafi and 9,06% of the population is Sunni Shafi'i. The Shi'a people, mostly of the Alevi variety presumably make up the remainder 9,7% of the people (99% is Muslim), but only 5,73% declared themselves to be Alevi. Some specialists think the Alevis make up as much as 11% of the population (i.e. some Alevis declare themselves either Hanafi or Shafi'i or "just Muslim"). But the fact that Hanafis are in excess of 80% is beyond doubt and in fact the government's religious "Presidency" (Diyanet) which oversees pretty much almost all of the mosques in Turkey is explicity Sunni Hanafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Here are links for the KONDA survey: http://www.konda.com.tr/en/reports.php

more specifically: http://www.konda.com.tr/en/download_report.php?file=2006_09_KONDA_Social_Structure&rapor=Who%20Are%20We?%20Social%20Structure%20Survey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct. The source you deleted was indeed not saying anything about non-denominational groups. The source used for the analysis in the other countries, lists Turkey as only having 2% of "just (i.e. non-denominational) Muslims". - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ALSO: Something has to be wrong with the numbers for Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina (widely known to be Sunni Hanafis in overwhelming majorities) as well as Azerbaijan (mostly Twelver Shi'as with a Sunni minority) also. But I can't find sources now quickly. Something must be terribly wrong with the study that said that Turks, Kosovar Albanians, Bosniaks and Azeri are "nondenominational" since this flies in the face of LITERALLY every other demographic study ever made ever, plus national censuses, etc. It seems very likely there is some sort of a methodological bias in these studies which show such large numbers of "nondenominational Muslims". Especially in former Ottoman territories with not-very-religious populations, where identifying as "Sunni Hanafi" is more of an ethnic marker. So in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania Muslims tend to view themselves as either "Sunni" (i.e. Hanafi) or "Bektashi" (who are a kind of Alevis). 79.112.115.9 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

EDIT 2: For instance in the Wikipedia page "Islam in Indonesia" there is this phrase about the Muslim population there: "The vast majority adheres to Sunni Islam mainly of the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence (99%). "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.115.9 (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So you've come across two seemingly contradictive sources. This is where one should examine the source in detail and figure out how the analysts came to all these figures. If you scroll down in the source used in this article, you will see that:
 * The 2011 article that was used as a source in your EDIT2 section for the 99% figure, was based on the 2009 report mentioned in the quote. I've criticised the 2009 report methodology before, since it categorised each and every (sub)group ONLY as either Sunni or Shia, while the current 2012 report makes more distinction. Secondly, the 2009 report is based on statistics from a "top-down" demographic and ethnographic view, without really surveying the populations themselves (i.e. bottom-up). Thirdly, I'd say that a more recent (2012, used in this article) survey-based report has more value than the older 2009 estimates from the same "company". - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2011 article that was used as a source in your EDIT2 section for the 99% figure, was based on the 2009 report mentioned in the quote. I've criticised the 2009 report methodology before, since it categorised each and every (sub)group ONLY as either Sunni or Shia, while the current 2012 report makes more distinction. Secondly, the 2009 report is based on statistics from a "top-down" demographic and ethnographic view, without really surveying the populations themselves (i.e. bottom-up). Thirdly, I'd say that a more recent (2012, used in this article) survey-based report has more value than the older 2009 estimates from the same "company". - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-demoninational vs. Secularized Muslims
In Albania, for example, the 65% non-denominational Muslims -- mostly, not entirely -- mean people of Muslim descent who are irreligious. In many other countries this is not the case. In these countries "non-denominational" means religious, but neutral as to the Sunni/Shia distinction. Something in this regard should be added to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.135.44 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source (preferably with a quotation) for the statement that "non-denominational Albanian Muslims" = "Muslim-descent irreligious people"? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Questioning "ghayr muqallid"
I highly doubt that this is the Arabic term for a non-denominational Muslim, especially since the link to ar-wiki leads to a completely different phrase. The sources used to "support" the statement are all South Asian. After a quick search on Google books, it seems that "ghayr muqallid" is used within the context of Sunnism, and more specifically to refer to Ahl-e-Hadith, Wahabbists and other Sunni movements not adhering to a (traditional) madhhab. I'm really inclined to delete the whole section about "ghayr muqallids". - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I was skeptical about this label/title as well. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  11:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Questioning Nondenominational
has added some WP:OR by an unsourced claim of how to correctly interpret the Pew study. I was going to remove that per said convention, but after Septate's post on JamesBWatson's TP I realised that the entire designation "Non-denominational Muslim" is pretty much OR. I tried searching the term on Google books and scholar, but neither Non-denominational Muslim nor Non-denominational Islam seem to exist. Septate is correct in that the Pew study merely speaks of "just a Muslim", so I think we should delete the page altogether, moving the statistical stuff to some appropriate section, like demography, in Islam and Islamic schools and branches. This would also solve the paradox of Non-denominational still being a certain group and the fact that this page was created by a sock puppet. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% true User:HyperGaruda. Another important fact is that when u check the main study by pew research centre about Islam, u will find that it itself states that 80-90% Muslims are Sunni and rest are Shi'a. There is not even a single mention of Nondenominational at all!!!!!! See this [www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/]. I am worried that someone is manipulating pew claims. I request speedy delelition for this article within few days! Septate (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I request User:Code16 to join this discussion, who is the main person behind all this stuff.
 * Another important point is that the term Nondenominational Muslim is creating a lot of contradictions. For example in most of the 'Islam by country' articles it is written that Sunni or Shi'a Islam is the largest denomination yet in the same paragraph it is written that most are Nondenominational! I think a single user is behind this manipulation. Check Islam in Indonesia or Albania! This is not having a good impact on readers!
 * Just because I've said that the term "Non-denominational Muslim" does not officially exist, does not mean that the 2012 Pew study about "Sunni-Shi'a-Just a Muslim" is complete bogus. I've explained this a couple of sections earlier in the final comment, and I'll repeat it again:
 * The 2009 Pew study is a "top-down analysis", i.e. using third-party data based on demographic and ethnic statistics. In this process, each and every Islamic stream has been categorised into either Sunni or Shi'a, even if they are not.
 * The 2012 Pew study is a "bottom-up analysis", i.e. using first-person data based on what Muslims actually say they are: Sunni, Shi'a, something else, or just a Muslim.
 * Apart from being more recent, the 2012 report thus makes a better distinction into what kinds of Muslim there actually are. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that Nondenominational Muslims don't exist. They exist indeed but this article as well as its corresponding section on Islam seems like it is giving to much importance to a group that does not deserve by manipulating pew data. Although the pew indeed makes some distinction between different denominations it doesn't give a proper definition to the 'Muslim' group. As a result manipulating the whole report and making an entire organised group out nothing is indeed nonsense. I hope u will understand. Septate (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not saying that pew report is bogus but it has been manipulated for the benefit of a particular group!Septate (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"! I prefer the term "just a Muslim" actually, because that is how I self-identify. I didn't start this article, and would much rather there be an article titled "Just a Muslim" instead. The "non denominational" title is mostly influenced by Judaic/Christian demographic studies anyway. In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that. Keep in mind, the Pew study shows this is a significant demographic, and as such the page has a potential for serious growth in the future. I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet... c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the term "just a Muslim" actually, because that is how I self-identify

We can't create an entire new article based on your personal beliefs. My parents are also Muslims (Sunnis) and identify themselves simply as 'Muslims' when asked but that doesn't mean they belong to an entire new denomination. Looks like its your POV not the pew's!

'''I don't know why I am being declared the "main person" behind this stuff lol. I don't even like the label "non denominational"! '''

You are the main person behind creating an entire new section on article Islam out of nothing!!!

In any case, my suggestion would be to rename the article or move it to a "Just a Muslim" page, and in the Islam/Denominations page you can create a category of "Muslims without a denomination" or something like that.

Why should we do that??? There is already an article on Muslims and Muslims by nationality.

 I was going to collect sources on this myself but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Because there are no sources out there!

In the end I just request you to stop promoting this group on Wikipedia. It is creating a lot of contradictions on 'Islam by Country' articles! Septate (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way User:Code16 being just a "Muslim" is often promoted by Wahhabis/Salafis because they reject other schools of thought (although this is may necessarily not be true).Septate (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to look more closely at the revision history, . has only added the section Tolu-e-Islam, which has little to do with that supposed "manipulation" of Pew research data. And the whole "being just a Muslim is [exclusively] promoted by Wahabbists/Salafists" is nonsense, with that mention of your "simply Muslim but Sunni" (although I doubt they would go for "just a Muslim", when there's also an option on the survey that explicitly says "Sunni") parents being a clear example. I am quite interested though, in what those sources are that Code16 is talking about. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear HyperGaruda, Code16 has added section 'Nondenominational Muslim' on article Islam!!

And I am not saying that Wahhabis only claim to be simply Muslims as evident from my statement! Septate (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Septate first of all, calm down. Secondly, I don't have any problems with merging the relevant data here with the Muslim page and deleting this page. I'm actually completely in favor of that =) Because right now the Muslim page is ridiculously biased with sectarian ideas, when in fact that page should (by definition) contain only the original technical definitions of a "Muslim" which exists in the Quran (which clearly prohibit denominations.) So if everyone agrees, you can move the Pew data to the Muslim page and delete this page. Then I'll start to collect sources regarding non-sectarian definitions of "Muslim" to add to that page. I think it's about time this happened, it was long over due. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:Code16 the Muslim page is ridiculously biased with sectarian ideas, when in fact that page should (by definition) contain only the original technical definitions of a "Muslim" which exists in the Quran (which clearly prohibit denominations.)

What you mean by that???. Quran prohibits denominations??? Again this is your own POV as we are not here interpret the Quran! Wikipedia doesnot hold the responsiblity of promoting unity among the Muslims! You should face the reality that Islam is split into various denominations with each having its own defination of being a 'Muslim'. By the way please explain where and why should we place all this poorly sourced material on Muslim. I don't feel the need to keep this material on Wikipedia unless you find some sources! Regards. Septate (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Code16, my purpose is not to hurt your feelings but you should face the reality. Septate (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Septate You don't have to worry about me finding scholarly sources (actually, don't even worry about moving the Pew data.) I'll deal with that when I start on improving the Muslim article. Just focus on the matter that is being discussed here, regarding deleting this non-denominational page. So let's go ahead and nominate the article for deletion ASAP, thanks. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * p.s. apparently this article has already been nominated for deletion =) I've added my comments there, Septate I suggest you do the same @ Articles for deletion/Non-denominational Muslim . c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I also invite User:HyperGaruda to do the same. Also I am also asking about delelition on article Islam.Septate (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I guess deleting is not a viable option anymore, since it's been considerably improved by another user. Best thing now would be just to improve this article. I'll start work on that eventually i guess... c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  14:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing + Expanding, thoughts/suggestions...
Hey everyone, just wanted to explain some changes and lay out a possible future expansion solution. So I've created sub categories within the overview. I've split some of the existing content into the "Academia" and "Immigrant Muslims" categories. I also added a historical synopsis of sectarianism, as the missing category that I plan on adding will require it. The key category that is missing here needs to be "Development of non-denominational Muslims" or something like this, which explains how the recent surge in the numbers of non-denominational Muslims, as well as a historical trend for anti-sectarianism. If you have any concerns/suggestions etc. please post them here c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've completed the changes talked about above. Let me know if there are any issues/concerns etc. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb! 
 * Great job! I've taken the liberty to clean up some stuff "behind the scenes" ;) - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Teamwork, i likes it =) c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Eperoton's edits
You claimed the "history of sectarianism" section wasn't reliably sourced? How so, exactly? Look above on this TP, it was inserted due to consensus and also please justify why you think it is not reliably sourced in your edit summary. The material you inserted (some of it sourced using an encyclopedia) can also be added if you wish, but we have to integrate it together with the rest. For now I've re-added the original text and kept your contribution as well. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 11:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are the problems with sourcing: 1) #11 (Sayeed) comes from self-/on demand publisher; 2) Berkey is badly misused - please take a look, and if you disagree, I can elaborate; 3) The "cynically manipulate" quote is unsourced; 4) The newspaper article isn't enough to source the last sentence. More generally, I don't see why this discussion needs to contain sectarian polemics. First, it says that Shias are a "sect" (word with negative connotations), while Sunni Islam is a "denomination" (neutral term) and a "reaction" to Shia "sectarianism". Even if it is then balanced by counter-polemics, why not just use a non-controversial historical summary instead? Likewise, I'm sure one can find a RS with polemical language on Pakistani politics, and then another one with counter-polemics, but does an encyclopedia really need to use tendentious phrases like "cynically manipulate" in the first place? Eperoton (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Sayeed can be taken out, I'll take care of that. 2) Please explain how Berkley is "badly misused"? 3) That quote is within page 139 of the book cited in the previous sentence. 4) The newspaper source is adequate. 5) Both Sunnis/Shias are referred to as "sects" in the text, in the middle of the paragraph. 6) It seems like you have no objection to Aaron Hughes, who's views formed the core of the text in the paragraph. 7) I don't think there's anything "controversial" here. This historical view is also posted on the main Sunni article. The sunni-shia article you linked should be updated with this information. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 23:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I think those citations should be given more clearly. As I understand it, Berkey is arguing that one can't speak of a "distinctively Sunni Islam" at the time of Hasan of Basra, because it was still to develop fully in the course of sectarian controversies, which were only beginning during his lifetime. The previous version made it seem like he was putting the responsibility for sectarianism on the Shias (and Kharijites). I'm concerned about giving undue weight to Hughes' (really, Madelung's) views, but I don't have strong feelings about it. I'm even less inclined to go to bat for Pakistani politicians, but the last sentence does seem problematic. The article reports one statement about "religious terrorism", which is very different in scope from the intersection of politics and sectarianism discussed in the cited book, and can't be used to source a generalization about change of policies. Let me make an attempt at integrating the two paragraphs. I'll omit the two sentences I find problematic, though if you'd like to do something with them, we should keep talking. Eperoton (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Took a quick look over it and it's much better. Refinements/expansions can be made later with more sources. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Issue with original research
It seems that ever since this article's creation in 2013 it has relied upon an unsupported piece of original research which is the conflating of "Just a Muslim" and "Nondenominational Muslim". The Pew study which forms the basis of this article never once mentions the word nondenominational, and never specifies that those who self report as "Just a Muslim" actually practice a nondenominational form of Islam. There is nothing in the Pew study that precludes the possibility that people may actually practice Sunni or Shia Islam and still self reports as "Just a Muslim" without actually belonging to a nondenominational mosque or practicing a form of nondenominational Islam, much in the same way that many Catholics and Protestants both self identify as "Just a Christian" while still being a member of a Catholic or Protestant church and practicing Catholicism or Protestantism. To say that someone self identifying as "Just a Muslim" is the same thing a practicing nondenominational Islam is completely Original Research without reliable secondary sources making that same assessment, and it appears that most reliable secondary sources do not make that connection. As a matter of fact, of the citations being used to say that "Nondenominational" and "Just a Muslim" are the same thing, none of them use the word "Nondenominational", most saying "Responded 'Just a Muslim' without specifying a sect". Just because they don't choose to specify does not mean that they do not actually belong to one. Unless there is a source that specifically states the connection and uses the word nondenominational, this is completely unsupported original research.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the term "non-denominational Muslim" is not standard, and it seems to be used in the title as an improvised adjectival form of "just Muslim", in the same way as it appears to be used in the citations. The parallel with Christianity is not exact, because there are (historically Protestant) Christian institutions that call themselves non-denominational, which I have not heard of in Islam (though my experience is limited). I see that Nondenominational Christianity conflates the two groups in the lead, and there it's an empirical question whether people who self-identify as non-specific Christian belong to those institutions. In our case, it's just a matter of nomenclature. Whatever we call those who self-identify as "just Muslim", they seem to be a significant proportion of the population, and it's none of our business to classify them into Sunni and Shia based on their neighborhood mosque or other circumstantial evidence if they don't self-identify as Sunni or Shia themselves. Eperoton (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eperoton, and the existing consensus on this issue which has already been developed here before. This isn't a new issue and has been taken in consideration. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Eperoton: You're right, it's not our job to classify them. It's specifically not our job to create our own classifications, and then insert them into it. We should be relying on reliable sources for our information and our nomenclature. The word nondenominational has specific meaning and usage, and if it is not used in this context then it is for a reason and we should follow suit in not using it. You say it is used the same way as in the citations, but the citations do not say nondenominational (At least not the ones I checked, if there are ones that use that term please direct me to them). If, as you say, there is no such thing as actual "Nondenominational Islam" in the same way as "Nondenominational Christianity", then we absolutely should not be using the word nondenominational, as it would then be both inaccurate and against everything outlined in WP:COMMONTERM. @Code16, you directed me to this page to discuss this issue, so please refrain from now telling me it is not up for discussion. I see no clear consensus, only a brief and unfinished conversation, which I am now continuing so that it may reach an actual conclusion.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I tell you that it is "not up for discussion" ? I merely agreed with the other editor. So far, including the deletion nomination vote (which you should read through) there's 6 editors who agree with the status quo, with 3 (you included) against it. That's a consensus, with a ratio of 2 to 1. But feel free to continue... c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 01:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's flesh out the points of substance, so we can discuss them individually. 1) This article is about Muslims who self-identify as neither Shia or Sunni when given the choice but rather "just Muslim". 2) They constitute a significant proportion of population in some parts of the world, and hence meet the notability criteria to have an article devoted to them. 3) There is no standard term to use as the article title, but there are RS citations which use the adjective "non-denominational" to refer to the category defined in item 1, and so this seems to be the most appropriate choice. 4) We should make clear that the article is about the category defined in item 1 and that the term non-denominational is not standard nomenclature. I think there's room for improvement in the addressing the last concern. Do you disagree with the rest? Eperoton (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything except for point 3. I see no reliable sources using the term non-denominational to refer to the category defined in item 1, I could not find that term anywhere in any of the sources I checked, and an ngram scan using the wiki tool pulled no results either. Could you direct me to which reliable sources use that term in this manner? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what about the citations in the article: 2, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 37? In some of them it is clear that the word is used in this way, and in others it's seems highly probable, in the absence of other likely interpretations. I'm not sure if you're disputing reliability of these sources here. In this case the definition of RS is broad, because we're trying to determine is this term is actually being used, whether by the group we're writing about, academics, journalists, or any other folks in the "real world". Eperoton (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you're talking about, that a few sources (not really reliable, but that's not necessarily pertinent to this) do use the term, however none of them expressly equate that term with the response "Just a Muslim", as a matter of fact at least one of them directly contradicts that by saying "Most of the 'Just a Muslim' are also likely to be Sunni-inclined"(Citation 25), and specifically none of the citations for the statement "Another term for Muslims with this ideology is just Muslim." make that connection, and it is this statement that seems to be most in violation of original research. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The absence of explicit definitions in most of those citations shows that the usage of the term non-denominational in English makes it reasonably clear what it means when applied to Muslims even for people who haven't heard it in this context before. That's another argument for using it as the title of the article. I don't understand your comment about #25. If most "just Muslims" are more like Sunnis than Shias (as would be expected), what does that contradict? As for the last statement you cite, I don't like it either. I'll try to improve the lead and take out the Terminology section. Eperoton (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vagueness is actually a reason NOT to use it as a title, as specified in WP:COMMONNAME. That aside, it is odd to me that you don't see how the statement that most "Just Muslims" are more Sunni leaning contradicts the the statement that "Just Muslim" means non-denominational. Non-denominational means following neither Sunni nor Shia, so if you follow Sunni traditions, and go to a Sunni mosque, and self report as "Just Muslim", that is a completely different thing than practicing a non-denominational form of Islam, going to a Mosque that is neither Sunni nor Shia, and self identifying as "Just Muslim". The word Denominational means "influenced by the beliefs, attitudes, or interests of a religious sect", so if you are Sunni leaning than your denomination is Sunni. None of the sources make the connection between respondents who self identify as "Just Muslim" and the phrase "Just Muslim" meaning non-denominational. Until a reliable source makes the connection between that word and that phrase, the fact that this article conflates the two is completely WP:SYNTH, as the most likely fact is that among people who say they are "Just Muslim", some are Sunni, some are Shia, and some are truly non-denominational. The fact that many people choose to self identify as "Just Muslim" is notable, but assuming that self identifying as "Just Muslim" means that they practice non-denominational Islam (i.e. Islam that is influenced neither by Sunni nor Shia practices) is not supported by the sources. The fact is, you are conflating the label that people self report as with the denomination that they practice. The former is a subjective and personal, the latter is objective and observable. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting down to the crux of the disagreement. You seem to be arguing that there is a phenomenon called "non-denominational Islam" which is defined as "Islam that is influenced neither by Sunni nor Shia practices". This, I think, is a position that needs to be sourced in order not to be OR. I'm not aware of this phenomenon being reported anywhere, and it doesn't even seem possible to me (how can a Muslim not be influenced by two denominations which together encompass virtually all of Islamic tradition? how can a Christian not be influenced by any Christian denomination?) You also seem to be arguing that religious identification is different from religious self-identification, which I find contrary to modern encyclopedic practices. If someone says they are neither Sunni nor Shia, we should take them at their word. The argument for using the term "non-denominational" here is not that its use is vague, but that it is in use and its meaning in this context seems to be evident from common English usage of the term (you haven't proposed alternative interpretations of those quotes yourself). Here are some dictionary definitions of non-denominational from : "Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination", "not of or related to any religious denomination", "not limited to a particular religious group", "not restricted to a particular religious denomination". All of them support the use of the term in the article and arguably none support the definition of not being influenced that you propose (the secondary meanings cited in two of them could possibly be interpreted this way). Eperoton (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is where you are mistaken. In every source being cited that uses the term non-denominational, they are using it to refer to that specific "phenomenon". Citation 2 defines non-denominational as "those who are neither Shiites nor Sounites". You cannot be both a Sunni and non-denominational. It might be a matter of semantics, but it is an important one. You ask how a Christian can not be influenced by any Christian denomination, and that's a good question. Firstly, it goes back to the fact that the term non-denominational is almost never used to refer to individuals (Note that there is no Wikipedia page for "Non-denominational Christian", only "Non-denominational Christianity"), but rather to churches, meaning that the church allows followers of all denominations. Some churches actively reject the tenets that are specific to denominations, instead following only those features which are universal or fundamental to the faith as based in their interpretation of the books, and you could potentially call followers of these churches "Non-denominational Christians", but that is almost never used because even most members of non-denominational churches are themselves members of one or another denomination. As you point out, the first definition of non-denominational you gave says it means "Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination". If you are associated with Sunni Islam, you are not non-denominational, it is as simple as that/ As for your argument that people are what they say they are and not what they do, I disagree, but even taking that stance, none of these people have said they are non-denominational. Considering your denomination to be so ubiquitous and normal that you don't think of it as a denomination, and thus just say you are Muslim, does not mean you are non-denominational. As some of the sources state, many of the areas in which people answer "Just Muslim", they aren't even aware of the division between and labeling of Sunni and Shia because the majority is so far in one direction they don't consider the possibility of others. They practice what we call Sunni Islam, but they just call it Islam. That is not the same thing as non-denominational. That would mean that all Catholics who refers to themselves as Christians are, by your definition, non-denominational, when that is certainly not the case. No one in that study is saying that they are neither Sunni nor Shia, they are simply not specifying. Not specifying which one they are is a completely separate thing from specifying that they are neither. If you think there is no such thing as non-denominational in the way I am using it, then the whole article is based on falsehoods, because that is what it describes, and it should be re-written to make it absolutely clear that even though we call them non-denominational because they say "Just Muslim" that they may still practice a Sunni or Shia form of Islam, and that it is not equivalent to non-denominational Christianity. Because essentially what you are saying is that Non-denominational Islam does not exist, but somehow non-denominational Muslims do, which is not possible.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If we apply your standards to Sunnis and Shias many of them would fail to qualify as such. I can equally claim that not every Shia/Sunni takes their denominational distinctions seriously or is even aware of them. So by your argument, we can say that they aren't "truly sunni" or "truly shia." c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 08:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my point. If a Shia or Sunni is not aware that there are denominational distinctions, they probably would answer "Just Muslim" when asked what denomination they are, and yet simultaneously would still be a Shia or Sunni. That is exactly why we cannot automatically equate the answer "Just Muslim" with "non-denominational", and it explains why self-reporting polls have a large percentage of "Just Muslim"s, and yet reliable sources discussing demographics from an academic perspective do not have similarly large "Non-denominational" categories. Do you understand what I am saying about the difference between not saying or knowing your denomination and actually being non-denominational? And why it matters that we have some sources that say "Just Muslim", and some sources that say (in a different context)"Non-denominational", but we don't have any sources that say "Just Muslim" means "Non-denominational" in this context. The assertion that people who respond "Just Muslim" are "non-denominational" as opposed to simply choosing not to disclose their denomination is an assertion that is only being made by editors here (WP:OR), it is not an assertion that is put forth by any of the sources. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that most people who self-identify as "just a muslim" are simply ignorant sunnis/shias who are confused, and thus, we should just ignore what they say and forcefully label them as sunnis/shias? lol, ok, good luck with this line of argumentation. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 10:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I am saying, and your aggressive attitude is unwelcome, but you seem determined to only hear what you want to hear. My point is that "Non-denominational" is a very specific term, with a specific and agreed upon definition, and the survey response "Just Muslim" is much more vague, and makes no distinction between those who have no denominational leanings and those who simply prefer not to specify, therefore I do not think that we should be deciding that they are synonymous without reliable sources backing up that assertion. I do not suggest that "We" label them as anything, neither Sunni, nor Shia, nor non-denominational, but rather stick with the labels that reliable sources use. You are the one labeling them, by deciding that you feel that their response of "Just Muslim" means non-denominational. Because that is not a connection that any of the sources make, it is either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. It is very simple. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is exactly what you are saying, as per the following quote of yours: "If a Shia or Sunni is not aware that there are denominational distinctions, they probably would answer "Just Muslim" when asked what denomination they are, and yet simultaneously would still be a Shia or Sunni.". Your implying ignorance on the part of the respondents in order to dismiss their reported response. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 13:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Like Code16, I find the suggestion that Muslims living in a country where one denomination predominates would be unaware that denominational distinctions exist to be far-fetched. They may not be well versed in the differences between these traditions, but that's an entirely different matter. Do you also think that many Italian Catholics are unaware that they are Catholics? We seem to have persistent disagreements on multiple points, and it's looking unlikely that we'll reach a consensus by arguing between the three of us. In fact, I feel like we're starting to go in circles, so I won't do another comprehensive reply unless UnequivocalAmbivalence would like to see it or unless we escalate WP:DR with additional participants. However, I do agree about the importance of distinguishing people who explicitly self-identify as neither Sunni nor Shia from people who decline to check a denomination box in a survey. Given that the topic of the article is defined based on self-identification, I think we should state the details of the surveys we cite explicitly in the text. Eperoton (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe we have established the following persistent points of disagreement between UnequivocalAmbivalence (UA) and me. UA, please correct any misunderstandings of your position on my part. 1) I think that religious denomination should be established on the basis of self-identification, while UA thinks that we need to take other factors, like influence of denominations into account; 2) UA thinks that there is a form of Islam which isn't influenced by any denomination, while I haven't seen evidence for it; 3) I think that the term "non-denominational Muslim" is a readily understood name for Muslims who self-identify as neither Sunni nor Shia and is being used as such, but UA thinks that it is used and understood in the influence-based sense; 4) UA thinks that people may self-identify as "just Muslim" because they don't understand that they belong to a particular denomination, while I find that implausible. Did I miss anything? Eperoton (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , no, actually you are the one who said "I can equally claim that not every Shia/Sunni takes their denominational distinctions seriously or is even aware of them.", I simply responded that in that particular situation those people in a category that you just outlined would indeed respond "Just Muslim". I did not say that everyone who answers "Just Muslim" belongs to that category, and I never called members of that category ignorant. You have it mostly right except for a few qualifications. On point 1) I do not think that we should be establishing religious denomination. I am okay with using reliable sources statements about denomination, and I am fine with accepting what people self-identify as, as long as we use the same words they use when self identifying. The problem I have specifically is the equating of the vague phrase "Just a Muslim" with the very specifically defined word "non-denominational" without a reliable source making that equation. As for point 2), you are right that we disagree, because even in the article it is mentioned that there are non-denominational schools of Islam that meet my definition, e.g. Tolu-e-Islam and The People's Mosque, both of which in their own way fit my description (Or at least claim to), and seem to contradict your assertion that truly non-denominational Islam is nonexistent. On point 3) we disagree over a matter of semantics, but I can tell you that, as someone well versed in language studies, my understanding of the word "Non-denominational" is correct, and is what most western readers will interpret it to mean, although perhaps it has different implications in other parts of the world. Part 4) My only feelings are that there is a fundamental difference between saying "Just a Muslim" and "Non-Denominational". I do not think that everyone who says "Just a Muslim" is confused, or ignorant, or anything. I think that people who say "Just a Muslim" have varied reasons for doing so, and I just don't think that every single one of them means "non-denominational" when they say it. Some may just choose not to disclose that information, some may not know, some may actually practice a non-denominational form, there are many possibilities. You are right that most(but certainly not all) Italian Catholics know that they are Catholic (Although that doesn't mean that they would self report as Catholic as opposed to "Just Christian"), but I know first hand many American Catholics who practice Catholicism, go to a Catholic church, consider the Pope to be the ultimate earthly authority, and yet who call themselves "Just Christian" and genuinely are unaware of the differences between Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., simply because they were never exposed to it, and would not and have not answered "Catholic" when asked about their denomination. They grew up practicing Catholicism, calling it simple "Christianity", and are unaware of the denominational distinctions that academia sorts them into. Again, not even my main point, but just an example of how specificity is important. I am fine with letting people self-identify their religion if that is accepted by reliable sources, the only thing I'm not okay with is changing the wording to something that distorts the meaning and brings inaccuracy. I expressly disagree with the assumption being made that every person who responds "Just Muslim" means specifically "Non-Denominational". I would literally have no problem with the article expect for the current assumption that sources saying "Just Muslim" and sources saying "Non-denominational" are talking about the same group, i.e. we have some sources defining "Non-denominational" and then we have made the unsupported conflation that every source that mentions "Just Muslim" is mentioning people who fit the definition for "Non-denominational" that is laid out in the other sources, when there is literally not a single source making this connection.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No not everyone, but a 'large percentage' of these people are deemed ignorant by your argument (and your argument rests upon this 'large percentage of ignorance'), as per your quote here: "it explains why self-reporting polls have a large percentage of "Just Muslim"s, and yet reliable sources discussing demographics from an academic perspective do not have similarly large "Non-denominational" categories." You have equated the 'large percentage' in the first set, with the same 'large percentage' in the second set, thereby implying ignorance/confusion in the former. It is equally possible that the trend towards non-denominationalism is increasing with time, given the geopolitical situation the Middle East has been going through over the last half century. I wouldn't be surprised if onlookers are turning away from sectarian mindsets, given the chaos it has fostered in the region that is now obvious for all. This goes back to my suggestion that the dates of the different polls and studies be taken into account. If the Pew poll is more recent, it should be given additional weight. With that said, I believe a search for additional sources on this issue is in order. Perhaps we can find studies conducted in recent times to confirm/deny any shift in outlooks. That would be much more fruitful an effort than arguing between the three of us. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 10:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said multiple times, I believe the discrepancy between the numbers is due to a multitude of possible reasons not only one as you continually assert that I am saying. The fact that you say your idea is "equally possible" means you admit that there is potential vagueness as to the meaning of the response "Just Muslim" as it relates to specifically referencing non-denominational. I agree that we need more sources, but by the very nature of things the burden of proof lies upon the affirmative view, so I believe that you need to provide sources that make the link between the phrase "Just Muslim" and "non-denominational" rather than assuming you are correct until negative proof can be provided. Considering that has expressed agreement on the importance of "distinguishing people who explicitly self-identify as neither Sunni nor Shia from people who decline to check a denomination box in a survey" which is the crux of my argument, and stated that "Given that the topic of the article is defined based on self-identification, I think we should state the details of the surveys we cite explicitly in the text." would you have any serious problem with changing the wording to match the material being cited, e.g. when the source being cited says "Just Muslim" we do not replace that with "Non-denominational" (And vice versa, when a source says "non-denominational" that is the wording we use and do not replace it with "Just Muslim") and simply and accurately report what the source says in the nomenclature the source uses? I think that is a very reasonable request, and directly in line with policy. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Admit'? I was one of the people who originally disagreed with the "non denominational" title in the first place! lol. I changed my view because it was a reasonable compromise, and assisted in the collection of sources in order to save this article from deletion. So I'm fine with the status quo on the Pew poll, and have no need to search for sources at this time. Please give the WP:Wikilawyering a rest, it's getting old. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. First you emphatically say that we need more sources, now you say no need for more sources because it doesn't suit you? Also, you keep referring to some "status quo", hinting that many people have supported this connection between "Just Muslim" in the Pew study and "non-denominational" but reading back this entire page it seems that nearly everyone is against the current wording. Septate originally expressed disagreement with it, Hyper Garuda agreed, saying "I realised that the entire designation "Non-denominational Muslim" is pretty much OR.[...]Septate is correct in that the Pew study merely speaks of "just a Muslim"". Now I have expressed disagreement with it, and the reasoning for my disagreement has been supported by Eperoton. Only you have defended the continued use of the term non-denominational in relation to the Pew study, and you say that you yourself don't even like that wording, so your assertion that consensus supports it is entirely baseless. Plus you have also stated your personal bias in the labeling of it when you stated "I prefer the term "just a Muslim" actually, because that is how I self-identify.", and you have already been told this article is not to be constructed around your personal beliefs. You do not qualify as a reliable source any more than I do or any other editor does, and your personal feelings about the importance of the "recent surge in the numbers of non-denominational Muslims, as well as a historical trend for anti-sectarianism" cannot form the basis for changing the wording from the source to suit your personal feelings on the matter. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * lol, where did I say there's no need for more sources? Again with your scarecrow fallacies and WP:Wikilawyering? I said I don't have to collect them (as you demanded) because I'm fine with the current compromise, which is simply based on a lack of good alternatives. No one was arguing this issue before you restarted it (after the matter was closed following the deletion nomination.) So this is the status quo. I suggest pinging all the other editors and ask them to state their own views on the matter, instead of speaking for them, and proceed to WP:DR if you wish. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional literature review
I've done a bit of literature review which has amplified the specific concerns I share with UnequivocalAmbivalence, as highlighted in our recent replies. I still think that the current title of the article is the least bad choice, but it doesn't look like anyone is insisting on changing it. So, I'm happy to see that we seem to be closing in on a consensus. Here are the details of what I found.

First, regarding the use of "non-denominational" in the title. Since you have a background in linguistics UA, I can express the argument more precisely in technical language. The term "non-denominational" uses derivational morphology with productive compositional semantics. Using it in this way with a specifying definition would be problematic if the resulting semantic field was restricted by an established lexical idiosyncrasy. So, the goal of this exercise is to determine if there is an established restricted meaning of the term (using descriptive rather than prescriptive methods). I don't see a consistent usage of the term "non-denominational" with reference to Christianity in RSs. It may mean not specific to Christianity, unaffiliated Christian, or unaffiliated Protestant, depending on the context. Like UA noted, the usage stems from organizational labels, but it's being widely used to identify individuals. Sources which use personal identifications "non-denominational" and "just Christian" side by side (e.g., when analyzing surveys offering both choices), generally don't make a distinction between them. The very notion of non-denominational is controversial and is treated inconsistently. Some authors talk of non-denominational (or post-denominational) identities, while some sociologically-oriented studies simply subsume both responses under "evangelical". There is even less terminological usage for Islam, and I don't agree that we can use the People's Mosque and Tolu-e-Islam as reference points. For the former, we don't have much except a slogan. For the latter, I don't see the term in their literature, and their platform is largely based on Iqbal's legacy of refusing to be associated with any denomination (they say that they follow the Five Pillars in the same way as mainstream denominations, who follow them in different ways... what are we to make of that?). That's my argument for using "non-denominational" as an explicitly defined umbrella term.

Now, for the shared concerns. Explanations of why people may identify as "just Muslim" (or "just Christian") in RSs differ greatly. The literature for the Islamic context is very sparse, and it's hard to know how much of the difference reflects genuine regional variations rather than different theories of the authors. Even if I don't think that using the term "non-denominational" misidentifies "just Muslim" respondents under some established category, we need to be very careful not to treat the term, well, as a denomination, implying a commonality of attitudes or beliefs. I'd like to help updating the article to address these concerns, but it may be a few days before I get to it. In the meantime, here are links to some of the sources I'm relying on. For Christianity:, , ,. For Islam (some of these may duplicate material already cited in the article):, , , , , Eperoton (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thank you for taking the time to put together such a response, it is unbelievably refreshing to have such meaningful back and forth debates, and it goes to show how much actual progress can be made when discussion transcends argument. Your logic in defense of the term's use in the title as an umbrella term definitely holds water (Pardon the pun), especially now that it is openly defined as such immediately in the lede. Given your argument outlined above and the content of the recent changes you have made, I can say pretty confidently that it seems to me we are now in nearly perfect agreement, and I can find no further points of contention. Thank you for the well informed debate, I genuinely feel better for the exchange, and I apologize if it was a taxing journey as I can be a bit long winded. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Pew sources uses the term "sectarian". Wouldn't that be more descriptive? 92.10.230.31 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting point. The pew source does indeed use the word sectarian so it may be worth considering "Non-Sectarian" as an alternative title to the article. However, when discussing the actual data from the Pew study, they seem to put at least some differentiation between "non-sectarian" and "Just Muslim", when they state "Based on how Muslims self-identify in the survey, the 38 countries where the questions were asked can be grouped into four categories: 1) predominantly Sunni; 2) mix of Sunni and Shia; 3) predominantly “just a Muslim”; and 4) countries with no prevailing sectarian identity." If the two terms were completely interchangeable, categories 3) and 4) would not really seem to require distinction, so it is probably best to stick with the terms as they are currently used, at least in relation to relating the polling data. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Non-sectarian" seems to be a more established term for Muslim organizations than "non-denominational". Its use by Pew to refer to individuals in this sense seems to be idiosyncratic. I think there's potential for confusion because the word "sectarian" has a negative connotation (see Sectarianism) and "non-sectarian" can be interpreted to mean not prone to those bad things. However, we can reflect its use as an alternative term for organizations and mention it in the Demographics section. Eperoton (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I vote for "non sectarian". Because its the more established term, the sources will continue to use it as well. As future sources are added, they will most likely use "sectarian/non-sectarian" as well, I think. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 11:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We would need to better sourcing for the assertion that the term is being used in this sense for individuals. I have been able to find only a handful of instances of its use, which have been very inconsistent. This book constrasts "sectarian Islam" with Sunni Islam and uses "non-sectarian" to mean Sunni, as does this book, while other texts on the internet seem to use "non-sectarian Muslims" in the sense of not being prone to sectarianism. Eperoton (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To make everyone happy we could quote it directly; as in "in a nonsectarian way". That way, we get rid of questionnaire language, ambiguous meanings and substitute it for encyclopedic language. 92.10.230.31 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, we should keep the wording "just Muslim" which had an earlier consensus unless we reach a consensus to change it. The exact response given by the people surveyed by Pew is "just Muslim" and that's an important detail which needs to be stated in the text. "Non-sectarian" is how Pew chose to describe this response in their commentary.
 * ,, based on your desire to change the phrase "just Muslim" to something else, I take it that the text here and at Islam isn't making it sufficiently clear that we're are reporting the exact wording of the response used in the survey. Can you propose how we should change the text to make that point clear? Eperoton (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Eperoton, I'm not sure what 'assertion' you are referring to. That those who don't identify with sects are non-sectarian? How is that not self-evident? Also, Sunnis are considered a sect, generally speaking. I can find many citations which clearly mention Sunnis as a "sect". If you just type "sunni sect" in google books you'll find 13,600 results. I was just looking on JSTOR and you'll find citations like the following: "At present, there are four major schools of interpretation within the Sunni sect, developed around the interpretations of particular jurists" http://www.jstor.org/stable/2133308. With that said, some scholars in academia prefer to use different terms according to criterea they define for "denominations" vs "sect" vs. "madhab" etc. After all "sect" is not an Arabic word, and has its roots in academic literature on Christianity. I'm looking into this, but we have to pick a mainstream word and (yet again) compromise on this issue, because you will never have 100% scholarly agreement on these terms.  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 16:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly that you're proposing to rename the article, we would need to source the use of the name "non-sectarian" in the intended sense: "Non-sectarian Muslims is an umbrella term that has been used for and by Muslims who do not belong to or do not self-identify with a specific Islamic denomination." I have three concerns about this: 1) Pew is the only source I've come across which uses "non-sectarian" in that sense; 2) most sources I saw using this term use it in a different sense; 3) the term is liable to be associated with "sectarianism" which has a completely different meaning. Eperoton (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I just typed (use the inside quotes) " islam "non sectarian" " into google books and got 7,490 results, and a quick scan of the initial results does not show there's much confusion on the relevance of this term to this article. As I've suggested, in order to simplify the matter, let's use the following definition: "Those who don't identify with sects are non-sectarian" The advantage of this is that it not only aligns with the Pew survey, but also much of the terminology used in the literature and academia. Even right now the word "sect" is used freely within the article, with the clear message that the subject (non denominational) stands in contrast to the sectarian groups mentioned within the same article. So why not just title the article accordingly? I know you have a disliking for the term "sectarian" because you feel it has negative connotations, but it is what it is. Sunnis/Shias (etc.) are both generally considered sects, and this article is referring to those who don't identify with said sects. Therefore, the title (in accordance with the Pew survey regarding these people) should be "Non Sectarian Muslims".  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 17:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Browsing through the first two pages of results in your suggested search, I see the term used predominantly in application to institutions, movements, politics, etc. These things would exist even if every Muslim in the world identified with a particular sect or denomination. As I wrote above, it does seem to have wider currency than "non-denominational" in these contexts, and I think we should reflect that in the article. In the only result where it applies to individuals, it is used to mean Sunni. My objection here is based not on my attitude toward the word "sect", but rather on WP guidelines of using the most common and least potentially confusing term for naming an article. Try searching for the phrase "non-sectarian Muslims" and see if you don't agree. Eperoton (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I guess for now we can settle for just continuing to reflect this in the article as you said and keep the status quo. But this is gonna keep causing problems... It will most likely eventually get renamed once more sources are collected and further research in this area is conducted. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 20:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jinnah Shiite?
The article is contradictory. It describes Jinnah as both a Shiite and a non-Shiite. That's like saying you are both a virgin and sexually experienced; or you're bald and long-haired at the same time. 92.10.230.31 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As it happens, neither of these examples is contradictory, and the one that's relevant here highlights the complex nature of religious identities. Eperoton (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Might be clearer to say something like "X was born into Y, but did not consider himself as Y" etc. I know there's a lot of heat/vandalism on this issue on the main Jinnah page, but it's kind of a non-issue since Jinnah's quote here makes things pretty clear. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @i.p. If you read it carefully it's actually less of a contradiction and more of a public vs private thing, but what seeming contradiction there is exists in the sources and it is our job to accurately report what the sources say.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion at Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah reflects differing views on Jinnah's private religion, so we may want to cite an additional source to avoid WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem with that, I was just saying that the current text is an accurate account of the source being cited. Perhaps a sentence about and a citation to Vali Nasr where he says "Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously observant man.[...]Yet insofar as he was Muslim and a spokesman for Muslim nationalism, it was as a Shia."(The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future, p. 88) as an alternative perspective?UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm not criticizing our use of the source. Others judged that he was not a Shia. I would rather avoid trying to summarize the range of opinions on this controversy in this article. We could instead write, "Although various views have been expressed about Jinnah's private religion, he publicly..." and link Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah to the phrase "various views" and/or quote some of them in the footnote. Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I almost wonder if he is best left out entirely due to the level of controversy, as his public stances also seem to be the subject of some debate, because you're right it would seem a bit undue to cover any one of them without explicitly stating the others. However the fact that he was a Twelver Shia by conversion, if not in practice, is pretty much undisputed among the sources (I checked most of the sources on the Aftermath section too, and unless it is in the broken citations all the sources seem to mention that he was a Twelver Shia by conversion), and should probably be mentioned alongside the fact that it is hotly debated. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should mention him here, because he's an important representative of that small but notable category of prominent figures who refused to identify with any denomination in public. We could mention his conversion, but I'm concerned it may be too loaded a term, given that we (I, at least) don't know when it happened, what it entailed, and whether his beliefs and observance changed in the course of his life. Eperoton (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well so far we have two reliable sources that both say he was born Ismaili and a converted Twelver Shia, one one of them says he publicly claimed neither Shia nor Sunni, the other says he acted in public capacity "as a spokesman for Muslim nationalism" as a Shia. But they both agree on the Ismaili--->Twelver link. Are there any sources that dispute this? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that any of the sources used the word "conversion", but now I tracked down the article from the broken link and read the source used by this article. Both of them are written by the journalist Khaled Ahmed, who does use the word, and both make for an interesting read illustrating the complexities of religious affiliation in that milieu and its entanglements with family, legal, and political issues. He suggests that Jinnah's conversion was motivated by "his secular principle of freedom of religion" over a family dispute, though he seems to present conflicting indications regarding the sincerity of his affiliation without taking a position on it. While we don't have sources disputing the conversion, we do have voices disputing that he "was" (remained?) a Shia, including two court verdicts. Vali Nasr has the best academic credentials here, but it's hard to take his text as a careful analysis of Jinnah's religious identity. Although my preference is still to steer clear of this controversy by indicating only its existence, I would be ok with the wording "Jinnah, who had converted to Twelver Shiism in his youth, later in life publicly described himself as neither Shia nor Sunni".  Eperoton (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with that but I'm not sure that youth is the correct word as the source seems to indicate that the conversion took place sometime in 1901 which would put him around 25, which is a bit of a stretch for youth (As youth could imply childhood), perhaps "Earlier in life" or "As a young man" would be slightly better. Although the source doesn't seem to indicate the temporal difference, which could seem to imply a change in attitude that is not indicated by the wording of the source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that "as a young man" would be better and the temporal sequence is open to charges of synthesis. So, we can have: "Jinnah, who converted to Twelver Shiism as a young man, publicly described himself as neither Shia nor Sunni" Eperoton (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would work perfectly UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR DELETION
Islam is made up of 5 different "Ma'dhabs". These are the madhabs that are the sub-sets within Islam. PRoposal for deletion. Please do not remove tag unless discussion is carried out first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:41e0:5af:7141:62b:43cb:6dc4 (talk • contribs)


 * As stated at the top of this talk page, a deletion discussion has already been carried out and the result was "keep". Eperoton (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Islamic branches.jpg

Movement
Hi

It is not an organized movement. In some case, shia or sunni muslim claim that to avoid the fitna or to claim that their movement is the true islam. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply
I was accused of advocacy, but I do not belong to this grouping so thats false; further, i merely repeated what a reliable source (Pew) said. 79.67.91.32 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Original research or personal conclusions, advocacy and promotion are not good for Wikipedia and also spam, it can be also vandalism. About Non-denominational Muslims, they are not a "branch" of Islam, it's not a unified, coherent or organized grouping in Islam. Brzikraken (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a muslim
the source is about "just a muslim" not about "Non-denominational Muslim". See WP:OR. And it is not a religious group. This article is an OR. Panam2014 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see here. Panam2014 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You added "just Muslim" to the lead. See this diff. Your editing seems inconsistent, so I am unable to follow your objections. If you don't think that "non-denominational Muslim" is a synonym of "just Muslim", why did you add the latter as an alternative here? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * because the article is about the both notions so the first step is to reflect the content of the article (some sources are about NDM and some about Just a muslim) to mentionning both notions. But it is clear that the article is an WP:OR and there are objections since years from lots of users and I have objected it since 2019.
 * It is not a question of following, the source is clear, the survey is not about NDM muslim but about just a muslim.
 * I would like to move the article to NDM and just a muslim or just a muslim but I cancelled the project to avoid a move warring
 * Another solution could be splitting the article or removing the content related to Just a muslim. Panam2014 (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Definetely we could not keep the article in its current form. Panam2014 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Panam2014 and @Srnec: I am not able to understand what the actual dispute is. Fwiw, I took a cursory look on the diffs and the linked source. What appears to me is that "just a Muslim" is just a synonym to "non-denominational Muslim". If you think that the two are not the same, do you think that "just a Muslim" is a new sect as compared to others, as the source frames it, However, many Muslims do not identify with either sect but rather see themselves as “just a Muslim.”. Seeing oneself as "Just a Muslim" should by default mean that a person does not identify with any denomination (the source expresses it) and is thus a non-denominational Muslim. I often try to prevent myself delving into heated arguments for the sake of my own peace but since I was pinged twice, I came here to just give my opinion. Perhaps editors like and  can weigh-in in a more better manner. ─  The Aafī   (talk)  18:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it is a self identificaion. A sunni or a shia could definite itself as "just muslim". So it is not a new current. The source is not centered about the current.
 * NDM seems to be a new current, contrary to "just muslim". Panam2014 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that in the study "just a Muslim" option was for those not identifying with any of the denominations, i.e. those who do not identify with Sunni, Shia, etc. So "Non-denominational Muslim" is a rather obvious way of expressing the same in more formal language. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would avoid putting too much weight on this type of survey, and I would also avoid translating poll questions where people may have been prompted to use a statement such as "just Muslim" in a multi-choice context into them necessarily being defined as 'non-denominational'. There is a lot of missing context. Consider this: If someone comes from a 90% Sunni Muslim society, "just Muslim" to them may well deviate very little from what one would call Sunni. In fact, with 80-90% of the world's Muslims being Sunni, to many, being Sunni is being "just a Muslim", since many will have had little to zero exposure to other denominations. People could also be responding to this survey with "just Muslim" because they simple don't want to be pigeon-holed or because the idea of Ahl al-Sunnah specifically, as a term, just doesn't hold much resonance for them, but an outside academic might say yes, they're Sunni. One way or another, I wouldn't interpolate; we should say a Pew survey found that yada yada ... identified as "just Muslim". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Just a Muslim" is ambiguous. Some do not know that Shiites or Sunnis exist. Others (Sunnis or Shiites) think that their current is true Islam or they are people who would like the Muslim community to be united under Islam as professed by Muhammad before the appearance of the branches. Or it is in a context of national unity like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, or Allama Iqbal or Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani. But according to the poll "just a muslim" is just self-identification. In fact, a Muslim practices salat according to the Sunni or Shiite method (they diverge) so he can be Sunni or Shiite without knowing it or without specifying it. Most formerly communist Muslim countries, most are Muslim by culture. Moreover, Azerbaijan is a Shiite country but not practicing, but Turkey has tried to propagate the Hanafi madhab there. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan are non-practicing Sunni countries. And Albania is 50% Muslim, the majority of Albanians are non-practicing Sunnis and those who return to practice become Hanafites or Salafis (Turkey and Saudi Arabia build mosques and send imams). So, what do you propose to reformulate the sentence of the introductory summary, for the infobox, and the sentence on the survey. Panam2014 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right that the poll is just about self-identification. And the current lead is too strong when it says "Non-denominational Muslims make up a majority [...]". We could use something along the lines of "According to a poll non-denominational Muslims make up a majority [...]". I think it is correct to use "non-denominational Muslim" instead of "just a Muslim" when reporting what the poll says. But I agree that we should not write "x percent of people in y are non-denominational Muslims" instead of "according to a poll x percent of people in y are non-denominational Muslims". And if there are reliable sources that discuss the reliability of the study or in particular the question of why people answered "just a Muslim" that should of course be included in the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still better than the current wording. But if the poll does not say "non denominational muslim" but "just a muslim", they may be taking precautions because the two notions are close but not identical. And during the discussion, we are two contributors to prefer "just a muslim". So it seems more cautious to me to use the source expression. And at the beginning of the article, we put "just a muslim" alongside NDM. Panam2014 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the infobox should be removed per WP:OR. And the sentence about the survey needs to be reworked Panam2014 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the survey is not a sufficient source for the infobox. While I still belief that "non-denominational Muslim" is a perfectly legitimate way to refer to the "just a Muslim" answers, as long as there is no clear consensus for it using "just a Muslim" should be the way to go. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But we should put in the first sentence of the article "just a muslim" as an alternative Panam2014 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is pretty long as it is and it is in the second sentence. How would you rewrite/replace the first sentence? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * we could replace it by a shorter first sentence. If you have a proposal. Panam2014 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement the infobox should be removed. There's too much ambiguity regarding whether "Just a Muslim would equate to Nondenominationalism, in addition all this info relies on a single source by Pew Reserach. Sayyid Debastani (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * one source says "just a Muslim"="Nondenominationalism" but the survey does not claim that. What is your opinion about 's proposal on 05:49, 18 April 2023? Panam2014 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the issue is near to be solved. Now we should add that the proportion of just muslims is according to PEW's poll. Panam2014 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead are:
 * Muslims who do not identify with a sect make up a majority of the Muslims in eight countries (and a plurality in three others): Albania (65%), Kyrgyzstan (64%), Kosovo (58%), Indonesia (56%), Mali (55%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (54%), Uzbekistan (54%), Azerbaijan (45%), Russia (45%), and Nigeria (42%).[6] They are found primarily in Central Asia.[6] Kazakhstan has the largest number of Muslims who do not identify with a sect, who constitute about 74% of the population.[6]

First, I have two questions: Second, I propose to rewrite the beginning of the first sentence like this:
 * The first sentence says that there is a plurality in three nations. If I read the study correctly Cameroon (40%) should be added as a fourth. Am I reading it wrong?
 * The second sentence says that 74% of the population of Kazakhstan do not identify with a sect. Shouldn't it be 74% of the Muslim population of Kazakhstan, or am I misinterpreting the study?
 * According to a 2012 Pew study Muslims who do not [...]

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it is time to apply the change. "a Pew survey found that yada yada ... identified as "just Muslim/ Muslims who do not". Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I kind of forgot about this. I now made changes to the second paragraph to better represent the Pew study. Any objections to the changes I made? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject islam
I am pleased to ping you to suggest a solution for the multiple issues of the article.--Panam2014 (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)