Talk:Sunni Islam/Archive 2

comparison between sunni and shiite
The articles between sunni and shiite seem very different content and layout. Maybe they could be organized more similarly and thus allow the reader to compare the two more easily. Also, a comparison page seems like it might be valuable.

I agree, this would be very valuable to people looking for the differences (which i suspect would be a large number of people looking at this page). 203.129.33.102 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about Sunni Islam
I as a Sunni Muslim am against the so called Sunni Islam, there is no Sunni Islam or Shi'ite Islam, it is all Islam only, therefore I am against dividing Muslim into smaller divisions, such as when mentioning about the demographics facts of any country, we are not Christians, if it is okay with the Christians to be divided to Catholics and Protestants, it is not okay with Muslims to be divided, I am pretty sure that most Muslims would agree, I say Most and I am certain, Please put this into consideration, thank you.
 * This article is aimed at documenting the Sunni Islam people and it's practices. We cannot deny that Sunnis exist. However, if you feel you have authoritative references and would like to contribute to the article, you are more than welcome. --Adriaan90 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a Muslim I accept the categorisation of Sunni / Shia as it simply denotes the political differences amongst Muslims which over time developed different branches of theology and jurisprudence. Historically jurists have accepted these terms and utilised them in their debates and discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaf159 (talk • contribs) 17:08, March 12, 2007

Why does the "Demographics" section of this article refer to Shi'ite muslims? Isn't this an article about Sunni muslims?
 * About 99.8% of Muslims are Sunni or Shi'a, so 15% Shi'a is the same as 85% Sunni. We could reverse the numbers to 85% Sunni and 92.5% Sunni, although we wouldn't change the direct quote. Art LaPella 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we clarify this in the article? I wasn't aware of this fact and had to read through the main article on Islam Demographics before the article made sense. CecilPL 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Church of England Christian & I don't understand why the Sunni Branch of Islam doesn't have a leader?
 * It's not that there shouldn't be one. It just so happens that there isn't one now. The traditional Islamic was (till the beginning of this century or so) was that there would be an Islamic state with a Khalifa to whom one can vow alleigance. He'd be considered the "leader". After the last one was deposed, there isn't such a person. --Nkv 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

With all the troubles in the world today & not a big guy at the top - it makes for a terrible image of Islam in general - having no network of PR. Also why do the 2 main different branches of Islam hate each-other so much? Is it a Persian /Arabic tribal thing?
 * You're referring to the Sunni/Shia divide? I can tell you that it's magnified very much in the media. Iraqi Sunnis and Shia intermarry. My family and I are Sunnis and when my folks were in Baharain (which is a country with a Shia majority), they received a lot of help from the Shia muslims there. My parents were alone over there and they went through some tough times (hospitalisation etc.) and during all those times, the Shia neighbours they had were very helpful. They still talk about it. There are theological differences and some people use them to stir hatred but that's not the case with the commonality. --Nkv 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that mainstream Islam is a peaceful & respected religion (with not much in it as a comparison with the other main religions in the world.. - they are all much the same) - but the extremists are helping to destroy both the whole religion and also the positive image, yet behind closed doors must Muslims think that 9/11 was the best thing to happen since sliced bread..???!!
 * The majority of them don't consider it "the best thing to happen since sliced bread". It's made life miserable for normal decent muslims everywhere. There's a lot of scrutiny, there's a lot of hate crimes, there is a lot of discrimination etc. because of this event. Most mainstream scholars and laymen denounce the atrocity. However, it's alost a fact that most mainstream muslims are not happy with the way the western powers are treating the Islamic countries so their sympathies are not as strong as they would have been. --Nkv 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for the truth and would be grateful to hear from a Sunni Muslim that isn't going to threaten to cut off my head or try and convince me to convert!!Hayday 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The media portrays everyone that way but that's really not the case. Most muslims (like followers of other faiths) just want to go on with their lives. --Nkv 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm American and not a Muslim, but perhaps the Muslims will appreciate me taking off some rough edges from the questions before they answer them.


 * Would it be good PR for Islam to have one caliph? Isn't that almost like asking if it would be good PR for the Church of England to choose a new scripture? Isn't that up to God?
 * Not exactly. Islam did traditionally have a Caliph. It's a desirable thing I suppose to have an "official" representative but it's not the case now and it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon so I guess we'll just have to live with the situation. --Nkv 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read much about Sunni vs. Shi'a but it doesn't seem to be any more racial than the Thirty Years' War.

This religion is shiite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.106.168 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They won't like to talk about terrorism, but somebody has to talk about it while the weapons are still conventional. Some level of terrorism is supported by Middle East opinion polls, but if I were to ask Muslims about terrorism, I would start by distinguishing that level of terrorism from perceived provocations including Zionism. Art LaPella 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Links being removed then reverted then removed then reverted and it goes on
I think we should decide what to do about the link section of this site. It is consistently being removed then replaced in a long cycle. The list was quite long before and definitely unweildy. Maybe we can decide on some links that are worthy and try to come to something that is comprehensive yet precise. Links I recommend are www.islam-qa.com and www.understand-islam.net. The second is run by Dr. Saleh as-Saleh himself with over 1,000 hours of his lectures. The first is very valuable and contains fatawa from Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid and is very comprehensive. ZaydHammoudeh 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to remove all external links at this point (since they all seem to be quite generic), and then create sub-categories as the main Islam page does. That way submitters realize that the external links section serves a purpose (to provide links to site that cover specific issues in more detail), and may refrain from just dumping dozens of generic links on the page. And, if not-classified links are submitted, it's also easier to weed them out as spam. --Frescard 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that people are definitely doing mass submissions. However, in total over the past week, there has probably been atleast 10 reverts of link deletion on this page so I don't know if mass deletion is a solution either.  I think today alone there has been two reverts.  I think maybe we can discuss the links and come up with 5 to at the most ten (probably in the end around 7) links we think describe Sunni Islam and go from there.  This is my suggestion, but I am open minded.  ZaydHammoudeh 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the same user (using three different account) who keeps re-submitting the links. His first ban of 2 days was just over, and now he's at it again. The next ban should last a bit longer, I would imagine... --Frescard 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked into what you said about the same person using sock puppets to keep reverting. I think you are right about that.  I know the site www.understand-islam.net has numerous lectures explaining the creed of Sunni Islam in detail so I think that is important to link to because it is the creed, not jurisprudence primarily, that seperates Sunnis from Shiites.  ZaydHammoudeh 06:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the page and the site continues to be spammed with links every 12-24 hours. I am not an expert on wikipedia, just someone trying to give humble input; however, I do think given the trend of editting that it might not be a bad idea to put in lock preventing anonymous or recently registered users from editting. This I think is especially needed given the apparent use of sockpuppets to edit this site. I could be wrong on this recommendation. It is just a thought. ZaydHammoudeh 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was more vandalism than linkspam I might be tempted to report/request that as well, but it's relatively harmless. If you think it gets bad enough, feel free to suggest it, or get guidance from an admin as to what point is the right point? - BalthCat 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden is a sunni muslim. Why won't you let him stay in the "see also" section. Futher, many terrorists are sunni muslim and should also be included.
 * Osama Bin Laden isn't even a cleric, why would we link an article about religion to him? We won't link to George Bush from Protestantism either... - BalthCat 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blank space?
Is there supposed to be a big blank space below the first paragraph? I haven't seen this before, so I doubt it's my browser, and usually a chunk missing from an article indicates vandalism. Just curious. Jermor 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The space was caused by the positioning of the demographics image. Because it was lined up on the right, it fell below the chart at the intro, and (therefore) so did the text that followed the image. I moved it to the left side of the page, and that fixed the problem.--Evb-wiki 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ul-Sunna?
In the first paragraph, where it says that "they are referred to as Ahl ul-Sunna", shouldn't the "ul" be assimilated? Mattman00000 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are to write it phonetically yes: "Ahl as-Sunnah", as س (seen) is a Shamsi letter Aaliyah Stevens 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam?
What is the story with the external links in this article? Is it swimming in spam or is it just me? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Me too I post this link http://www.islamhouse.cm/p/1295. Whats the matter! the end of the website com march 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)  what is your excuse to put this site in spam list have you seen it ittaqee Allah. 6 April 2008

Important for 'wahabi' moderators about sunni page
The person who is pasting wahabi and Pro wahabi sites in the external area must know that others are also wathching his acts. as both deobandi barelwi follows school of thought their sites should be typed there not of non sunni beleief Wahabi Ideology. This act will not be successful. either remove the external links area from this page or paste their sunni sites. thnks sunni soldier of islam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 (talk • contribs).

Lack of clarity in issues related kalam

 * Ashari, mutazili, and mutaridi all believe that the existence of god can be proven through reason, this is not unique to mutaridi


 * The emphasis on mutazili beliefs about the created nature of the quran, and that logic behind laws of god can be deduced, therefore suspended when that logic is known needs to be emphasised. Plus their rejection of Khabar al-wahid (single person chain of narrators hadith).


 * There needs to be more explanation of the Zahiris, or thahiris


 * It needs to be stressed that Shia are the only people that hold a Mutazili creed currently. Aaliyah Stevens 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Sunni links and pasting Wahabi links.
All I want to say that most of the time here the person is pasting wahabi sites in the suuni page. If one wish to see can easily watch what Islamonline or saudi islam projects. But we the sunni muslim in Majority follows hanafi shafai maliki hambali schools, even deobandi too believed thses 4 schools. so the links of these Sunni sites like Yanabi .com ,Islamicacademy.org, dawateislami.net,msoamu.org,razaacademy.com should be there on sunni page.

Moderators please note this Point. thanks Indian sunni student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Although you may disagree with the links there, posting and running and slanting the links posted strongly one way is not the solution. In fact, it is very counterproductive and leads to instant reverts.  If you think there are ways to improve the list of links, then forming and presenting an argument is the solution.


 * Comments on your links - First I notice all of the links in the "hit and run" list are Ahnaf and Sufi; they provide no balance and are POV. In addition, here are some other critiques about specific links you post.


 * 1) YaNabi.com - This a forum. Forums are entirely unacademic.


 * 2) msoamu.org - This is simply a student organization at a university. It is not scholarly.  Moreover, it is just a collection of links and videos with little additional works that provide additional opportunity for learning.


 * I recommend that links posted here all follow the official wikipedia policy on sources. Also I advise you not to label or pass judgments on editors.  It is part of Wikipedia's policy not to insult and assume good faith. ZaydHammoudeh 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE GO THROUGH DAWATEISLAMI which is not only a Useful sunni site but also a global sunni movement.

who is giving daily Speeches on Qtv, a Sunni Channel.
 * Sunnidawateislami is Indian Movement in some european Countries. its site also gives full account of Sunnism
 * Yanabi gives most authentic discussion as well as  videos of Sunni Ulemas throughtthe world
 * Wimnet is World Islamic Mission throught the world. with its headquarter in London.
 * Sunni Dawate Islami (India/UK/USA/Canada/Africa
 * Al-quraan Islamic foundation Netherlands
 * Islamic Academy it is most Knowledgeful site
 * MSO AMU India
 * Most Active Site
 * Minhaj Ul Quran An International sunniMovement which is run by Prof tahirul Qaudri
 * hizmetbooks is the most Exhaustive sunni site of Books.
 * raza gives too much Knowledge on Sunni Islam.
 * SDI
 * Noore Madinah Network
 * Derwish
 * Dawat-e Islami
 * YaNabi.com
 * The As-Sunnah Foundation of America
 * Faizan-e Attar
 * Idara-e Tehqiqat-e Imam Ahmad Raza International Karachi (mainly in English)

It is offered that these sites represent different sunni orgn academy's and sunni sources. (These are True Representatives)

where as most of the sites below are either of Wahabi dawah centres or news sites as islamonline or Taliban Alqaeda Supporters Wahabi Sites:

Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance Islam - www.islaam.com Islam Web - www.islamweb.net Islam Guide - A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam. Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Islam Question And Answer Sunni Path - An online Islamic Academy Sultan Islamic Links - www.sultan.org Understand Islam - An Islamic site run by Moiz Amjad.

This article is about Sunni Islam, not the very specific 'Sunni' movements of Pakistan and India
Please be aware that there is a number 'Sunni' movements in the Indian subcontinent, who are Sunnis but they label their particular brand of Sunni Islam as exclusively Sunni, not including other Sunni movements within that new euphomism for the word Sunni, such as the deobandis, tablighis, Jamat-e-Islam. Asian/Indian 'Sunni' movements do not consider these other movements as 'Sunni' in their narrow definition even though these groups are not Wahabi/Salafi - they are part of the Ahl-as-Sunna. Their euphomism for Sunni actually refers to Barelwis and Sufis only as Sunnis, although this article is generally about all those that fall under the banner of Sunni, not just those who are part of Indian Sunni movements. It can lead to confusion about the term. Lets not make this an article about the Indian subcontinent's 'Sunni' movements and stick to the general non-cultural definition: i.e. the classical Scholars of Sunni Islam & the 4 madhabs, not new asian sectarian definitions. For example the UNKNOWN user above claims (with an appeal to sensationalism or appeal to fear that the following websites are Taliban/Al-qaeda Supporterting Wahabi Sites:

Islam Online - www.islamonline.net Islamic City - www.islamicity.com Islamic Finder -www.islamicfinder.org Sunni Path - www.sunnipath.com

This is is clearly incorrect. IslamOnline is linked to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi who is not Wahabi etc, nor is Islamicity, IslamicFinder, and definately not SunniPath.com, which links itself to some of the sites the user claims are genuine Sunni sites. Lets not let this article be hijacked by Pakistani/Indian local inter-sunni rivalries. There are very few Sunni traditional classical scholars that came from india in the first 300 years of Islam when Sunni Islam was formalised. I think one of our primary sources should be the classical works on http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ Aaliyah Stevens 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JamaateIslami / Tablighi themselves are not Sunnis
I have not read or heard any where in any Literature of Jamaateislami or tablighi jamat that they Belonged to Sunnism .They have created new Movements in Sunnism. They have Claimed it in many Places. same is the Condition with Deobandis that they with above these two groups have always treated Non sunnis Scholars whether they are Wahabi or not, as Authentics. In Whole of the Islamic History Except IBN e taimiyya ,ibn abdulwahab and his supporters and their movements ,the Muslims have a graet Majority of Sunnis. and these sunnis never accepeted the teachings of NON sunnis or any new Movements in Islam. It must be remembered that all the four schools have always Considered Sufism as most Strong way of Purification in each and Every Islamic Country. and the sunnism is used and Defined by the Sufi Scholars and Preachers Everywhere. Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi,Mualana Rum,Nuh Ha Mim Keller,Imamaahmed Raza khan,Hazrat Ahmed Maliki of Mecca,Hazrat Jalaluddin Suyyuti, Shah Abdulahaqmuhaddith Dehlavi, Shahabdulaziz , etc are some of the Name of Scholars of the Great Repute  who are not only well versed in Sufism but always Supported Sunnism the haq,the Truth throught the world.

Come to the sites, most of the sites on sunnis page belong to the ahle hadiths and wahabis who even opposed the sunnis and their four schools. Then How can those sites be there on sunni Page ?

Can u Challenge the Turkish sunni literature at www. hizmetbooks.org www.raza.co.za or www.islamicacademy.org or www.yanabi.com ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.100.151.36 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanx for fixing The sunni External Links
thanx for re-adding good sunni external links instead of the other websites which only represent the Barelwi movement and does not represent the whole sunni branch...the current external links are really excellent and represent real sunnism in all over the world...keep it up and all the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.14.233 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Mu'talizah and Salafi in a Sunni article?
Should either of these be referenced as Sunni? The Mu'tazilah have been regarded as heretics by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari schools, and certainly not part of Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l Jama'a. Also, there are hardly any true Mu'tazilah left today, although there's some influence of their thought in some Shia writing.

The Salafis are clearly aligned to the views of Ibn Taymiyyah, Barbahari, Bin Baz, ibn al Uthaymin, etc who were regarded as anthropomorphists by the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari. The majority of other scholars who would have to be identified as Sunnis distanced them from their literal interpretations. Artichoke84 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Artichoke, there seems to be some misunderstandings in your post. It should be clear at the end of his life, Abul-Hasan al-Ashari (the founder of the Ashari school of thought) said in his book Usool al-Diyaanah that he was on the madhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.  This same Imam Ahmad said (as quoted in the article), "The hadeeths (regarding the attributes of Allah) should be left as they are...We affirm them, and we do not make any similitude for them. This is what has been agreed upon by the scholars."  Similarly, Imaam al-Bukhaari said, "Whoever resembles (i.e. makes tasbeeh of) Allaah to His creation has committed kufr (disbelief) and whoever denies what Allaah has described Himself with has also committed kufr.  Indeed there is no tasbeeh at all in that which Allaah has decribed Himself with, or what His Messenger has described Him with."  The quote from Imaam Al-Bukhaari is important for several reasons.  First, no one will claim Imam al-Bukhaari was not sunni.  Second, Imaam al-Bukhaari clearly explains the creed  of Ahlus-Sunnah which is that Muslims should affirm what Allaah or His Messenger affirmed for Himself.  Third, he states that there is no anthropomorphism is affirming what is affirmed in the Sunnah and Qur'aan.  This is the creed of the Salafi school so by all means they are Sunni. ZaydHammoudeh 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not the whole of the matter, because if that were the entirety of the case, then the Salafi school would be no different to the Athari school. Unfortunately, the scholars from which the Salafis draw their guidance, do make likenesses by way of similies, and adding on interpretations that the salaf never claimed for themselves. There is no question that the Salafi school is associated with the people I mentioned in my original post, so let us examine some of their statements.

Ibn al-Uthaymin claimed that: "Allah is in the heaven in person (bi dhâtihi) but despite this He draws near to the servant during the latter's prayer, just as the sun is in the heaven, while its rays reach creatures on earth." There is a clear addition of simile and likeness there, whereas the position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and al-Bukhari was always bi la kayf ('without saying how').

Bin Baz on the interpretation of Imam al-Tahawi's definitive Sunni aqida says that: "Allah is beyond limits that we know but has limits He knows". The actual text of Imam al-Tahawi says: "He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created entities are." There's a clear difference here. One text says He is beyond having limits placed on Him, and the other affirms some.

Ibn Taymiyyah: "The Creator, Glorified and Exalted is He, is above the world (fawqu al-`aalam) and his being above is literal, not in the sense of dignity or rank. It may be said of the precedence of a certain object over another that it is with respect to dignity or rank (rutba), or that it is with respect to location (makan). For example, respectively: the precedence of the learned over the ignorant and the precedence of the imam over the one praying behind him. Allah's precedence over the world is not like that, rather, it is a literal precedence (i.e. in time). Similarly the elevation above the world could be said to be with respect to dignity or rank, as for example when it said that the learned is above the ignorant. But Allah's elevation over the world is not like that, rather He is elevated over it literally (i.e. in space). And this is the known elevation and the known precedence." Again, this is not an Athari point of view, since it seeks to explain these verses of the Qur'an. The behaviour of the salaf was Athari, in that it never sought to say how. Imam Malik said (r): "The establishment (al-istiwa') is known and its modality (al-kayf) is unthinkable and to ask about it is an innovation (bid`a)."

al-Ibana which you have cited, is a corrupt text which, quite apart from the issue of anthropomorphism, incorporates a claim which states Imam Abu Hanifa was an apostate. If Imam Abu Hanifa is not a a Sunni Muslim, then what are the majority of Muslims supposed to be when they follow him? Artichoke84 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion looks rather ridiculous to me. Artichoke, nobody aside from you and Sr. Shabiha dispute that Salafis are Sunnis.  Now, I could go into the quotes and point out the issues with your misquotes, mistranslations, and the like, but there would be no point.  Wikipedia is not a forum for debate; it is a place to provide encyclopedic information.  I'm sure you're a nice person in real life but we don't know each other and most likely won't meet each other, so trying to argue talking points back and forth seems a bit pointless.  We shouldn't be here to try to convince other people or are arguments and thus edit articles to reflect our own personal opinions.  We collect information and make it available and the fact is, nobody rejects Salafis as being Sunni, even if they do strongly oppose Salafis.  Unless of course you're going to argue that your own personal opinion holds so much weight that we should use what you've said here as a citation in the article, there is no point to this discussion.  Salafis are Sunnis - even people who oppose them agree.  That's what is commonly known, and that's what goes in the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is not for promoting a specific Sunni view, or your favourite external Websites
Therefore I am removing all external links except those that are agreed upon by ALL sunnis: Sufis, Salafis, and all. e.g. Nobody can dipute Al-Azhar.Aaliyah Stevens 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to come up with an list of external links that all Sunnis can agree upon, but this seems impractical and to an extent arbitrary. How can we decide what is agreed to be all sunnis?  I will give the example of the al-Azhar since you mentioned it.  Many, especially those Muslims who want to see the overthrow of the Muslim governments in the Middle East, see al-Azhar in the pocket of the leadership.  Others also see Azhar as bowing to Western influences in some of their recent fatawa most notably the fatwa on interest.  Therefore, a list of websites all Sunnis can agree, while a good thought, is not practical or possible.  I think it is best right now to get rid of all the external links until something better can be divised.  ZaydHammoudeh 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you point about al-Azhar, and I too am of that opinion of it being in the pocket of the government, but it is still recognised as the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, along with the University of Fes (Qarawiyin) and Islamic university of Islamabad, many Islamist leaders who oppose the "puppet" Tantawi have themselves graduated from there, although it's leader / spokesperson Tantawi maybe a puppet, the courses it offers are still recognised. As for the other entries muslimphilosophy, and Al-tafsir, etc they are purely non POV, archives of classical Islamic work, academic, not propoganda, or hold opinions of recognised Sunni scholars Aaliyah Stevens 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How can u Add Salafi sites in Sunni Link area ?There is no relevancy at all. Read their literature First. Can u Ignore sufism in Sunnism ? it is sufism which has spread the sunni islam through out the world. Even if u ignore it in sunni link area u can not make it disappear from the Islamic history. What about www.hizmetbooks.org and www.islamicacademy.org ,www.raza.co.za ,and www.wimnet.org One should know if the Barelwis are part of sunnism then the Barelvi sites deserve a Place here on this sunni link area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabiha (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Although I sympathise with your sentiment, and I myself am a Sufi, as were all the major thinkers of Sunni ISlam, e.g. Ghazali however:
 * 1) We should not put culturally specific (i.e. Pakistani/Indian urdu barelwi) sites on this page, this is not about Sunni islam of the barelwi persuation in the subcontinent, and no major Sunni Scholars came from there in the development of sufism or Sunni Islam in the first few hundred years. Barelwis do not exist anywhere except in that region. I find the notion that Sufism=Barelwis disingenious on the part of Barelwis, because sufism is much bigger than Barelwis.
 * 2) Please tell me what sites you think are here that are "Salafi"?? There isn't any.
 * 3) There is a seperate link to Sufi, and Barelwi, and there is links to Imam Ghazali who was the most famous Sufi scholar on earth. So nobody is ignoring Sufism, unless you thin Sufism is Barelwi dominated, which is clearly not the case, as Barlwis have only been around about 100 years. Aaliyah Stevens 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have added links to specific groups such as Minhaj al-Quran and dawat-e-Islam, this is very wrong. This lays the basis for other people to add their favourite groups, this is not about Sunni groups, it is about Sunni Islam. If we were to allow websites for specific groups, then others would add Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, Hizb-ut-tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islam, etc etc which would end up a very long list. Please stop doing so, Minhaj al-Quran etc are NOT the only or main sunni group in the world, in fact the largest Sunni group in the world, is probably the umbrella of Ikhwaan al-Muslimeeen and it's various branches globally, then maybe Tablighi jama'ah, but we have not added thier links. Aaliyah Stevens 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, one link, Sunni Path, Allows & praises Milaad and links to some of your other websites. Aaliyah Stevens 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then You think that if in few hundred years of islamic history no Muslim scholar came from India then How does it affect the Contribution of World famous scholars who have shown path the true path to millions. Did You forgot that Hazrat khawaja gharib nawaz and Hazrat Shahwaliullah Dehlavi from India were not only sufis but  were Scholars too. Can You deny the fact that India pakistan and bangladesh  contains most of the Muslim Sunni Population and the islam which they Practised is not new but it Sufism. Can You Ignore them ? Infact noone can ignore them. Do You know that Sunni Markaz of Kerala www.markazonline.com is the largest islamic sunni University of the India. They are not hanafi by School but are Known as Barelwis by the so called Reformers in Islam such as Ahle hadiths and Jamaat e Islami because they practised sufi sunnism. And You must Know that Barelwis have not made them so.They have practised it from their Births. This sunni sufism is Known as barelwism in whole of the India including the state of Kasmir ,pakistan and bangladesh.

and Moreover The sites such as Islamic finder ,islamonline.com,islamonline.net desreve Place on wahabi page. Specially these three rejects what u say sufismand sunnism. u said u believe in sufism. Do u go to Dargahs of Wali or do u ask for dua or intercession from him ? All these acts throug out the world are Practised by majority of Muslims and Specially by sunnis. Then all the sunnis including sufis are committing Shirk. And they are not muslims according to these sites. and if u are adding any islamic University site then the site of Markaz desreve a Place here.

please also comment about www.hizmetbooks.org, www.islamicacademy.org www.sunnah.org ,www.raza.co.za

Do u know that Barelwi term is getting Popularity in Europe for Sufi Peoples ? U must read the great Mujaddid of the Century Imam ahmed raza khan at www.alahazratnetwork.org


 * Firstly I find it very difficult to understand your English, and you obviously havn't undertsood mine. Secondly I am from Europe, a Sufi Sunni, so you can't tell me that the term barelwi is same as Sufi in Europe, when it clearly refers to a man from a town in India. Please get this throough your heads: 'Not all Sunnis are Sufi, and not all Sufis are Barelwi, and therefore not all Sunnis are Barelwis, and not all non-Barelwis are Wahabi. This silly narrow minded logic highlights the problems I have with subcontinental barelwis who claim they are the only Sunnis. IslamOnline.net is NOT  a wahabi site, it is linked to Yusuf al-Qardawi who is not a Wahabi, he is a Sunni graduate from Al-Azhar. And if you could read english properly I never said that no scholars came from India in the last hundred years, I said no scholars came from india in the first few hundred years of the formation of Sunni Islam. The founding Scholars of Sunni Islam are Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and their students, none of them were barelwi or from India. Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

plz reply all my  questions which i have raised  and also comment on the sites which i have written there. so it is on You what u consider by the term sunni. But as far as indian subcontinent is concerned all the sufism practising muslims are called Barelwis by the persons who rejects it.


 * I don't understand your english fully. Anyway, as I said, yes I agree barewis are Sunni. However Barelwis are a subset of Sufis, and Sufis are a subset of Sunnis. I intend to only include links to recognised universities, encyclopedias, repositories, and globally known Sunni sites that aren't sectarian or accuse everybody who is not with thier group as 'Wahabi'. Barelwis are a group of Sunnis, just like the Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi Jamaat, or Hizb ut-Tahrir are groups, but i do not include their websites. One rule for all. SunniPath.com should satisfy you anyway. Aaliyah Stevens 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Are You the sole Moderator
The thing which u have said here is that You intend to Include Encyclopedia and recognized universities. So the www.markazonline.com and www.hizmetbooks.org deserve a Place on this sunni Page. Shabiha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.225.3.6 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

markazonline.com is not a university, it is a charity which runs schools.
 * I'm not sure about it being a university but it's definitely more than a charity that runs schools. It creates syllabi for Islamic education at all levels (school and higher) and it offers a number of Sharia degrees. People who graduate from there are called "Saqqafi"s (like those from Azhar are called Azharis). It's got quite a bit of a reputation in India and a medium reputation in the Sunni Arab world. Teachers from there often go to Azhar and other universities so it is a recognised place. It's disingenuous to call it merely a "charity that runs schools". I know all of this because it was situated a little away from where I completed my degree and I still attend classes which are held by people who studied and graduated from there. I think your facts are wrong. --Nkv 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

hizmetbooks is not an encyclopedia. Look up the definitions of the words, and don't try and hoodwink users into thinking so. the universityies in india that have official websites are: Jamia Millia Islamia: http://jmi.nic.in/, and http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm Aaliyah Stevens 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indian institutions are not always rich or technically inclined enough to have sites. There are some rather influential ones that don't have any internet presence at all. --Nkv 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree but we are debating external web site links for Islamic universities. markazonline.com is not one, and if we are to put some up it would be Aligarh. Which are well known, I have been and lived all over the arab world and have never heard markazonline.com mentioned,  Why do we need to include every single uni, the big ones will do. Aaliyah Stevens 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't really think it's a matter of much relevance what links are in a WP article about Islam. I'm just correcting an error in what you said about the Markaz being a charity that runs schools.--Nkv 11:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now u did not find even Markaz as University which has made 800 hundreds  graduate this year .The Sunni markaz  kerala or other markaz does not need  governmental recognition or affiliation. It has Alazhar recognition and its degrees are recognized by AMU Aligarh, Jamia millia and jamia Hamdard  and you will deny now even most reputed sunni university as  university which is jamia ashrafia mubarakapur Azamgarh   www.aljamiatulashrafia.org/. The students of which adds Misbahi to their names and hundreds of Scholars are grduated every Year. You dont have enough excuse to remove hizmetbooks.org and islamicacademy.org Shabiha


 * Shabiha, talking to you is very difficult because your English is very good. But I will try, but I doubt you will understand the point: Major universities are listed, we don't have to list every Sunni school in the world. Secondly, there is a difference between graduating from a school or madrassa, and graduating from a university. I'm not denying that those schools are Sunni, so stop speaking and treating their non-listing as some sort of denial of their existence or an insult to them. Aaliyah Stevens 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

U have to justify removing all my sites which are sunni and have Global Presence. If Most Reputed Madarsas of India i.e Islamic University Markaz and ashrafia dont satisfay ur claims then u may not paste there any other Uni .because  it doesnot satisfy me and thousands like me the indian Sunnis. ok shabiha !
 * I think it's okay to leave the link there. User:Aaliyah Stevens does have a point as to it not being prominent enough but I don't think it's worth this much of debate and edit wars just to decide. After all, it's just a wikipedia article. --Nkv 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is about Indian pride in Sunni Islam, or some sor of obscure indian sunni nationalism, I find your motivations highly questionable. Anyway, I have added what is probably the most reputable Indian Islamic university - Deoband. Lets put this issue to rest, the only problem now is what if an indonesian, uzbek, Nigerian, Malay, bosnian, or turk Muslim says that their sunni Muslim university is not represented?? I have added an indian university so leave it now!Aaliyah Stevens 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not (about Indian sunni pride). You probably know how harmful pride is. I don't mean to be rude but I don't think it really matters to the students or to the teachers of a religious institute whether they're mentioned on wikipedia. I just feel that the frustration and debate involving a single link has been too much and that doesn't help in anyway. I was just suggesting that you need to chill out a little bit. I addressed it to you rather than to the other editor since I find you more articulate. --Nkv 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaliyah I appreciate you taking it on yourself to try to improve the quality of this article. It is good to be enthusiastic, but you are kind of trying to use an iron hand to achieve the goal. Originally, I assumed good faith for your actions and thought what you were doing was a genuine attempt to be even handed. However, the "see also" section you reverted and added to was already very Sufi leaning. Your additions of kalam only compounded that. You are a self-avowed Sufi; to make statements of the need to be NPOV and equitable then to make the see also section so one sided is unfortunate. You really made the "See Also" section reflect primarily one view when you accuse others of advocating views of a very narrow section of the Sunni population. You can't have it both ways. ZaydHammoudeh 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aliyah ,Removing others and adding Your favourite Links on wikipedia will not help the Users. The Deoband You know is represented by a particular group and Markaz and ashrafia by other Group of sunnis. Same is the Situation with Your most of the Links. Crores don't think the Link You have Pasted there as Reputed .The links U have removed are not Considered as reputed by crores of Sunnis. The thing is that Wikipedia should give clear and adequate representation to all sunni groups.Wikipedia is here to tell about all those who considered themselves as Sunnis through out theWorld. Can any one Deny ? Wikipedia should have listing of all the major Sunni Educational as well organizational Links onitSunnipage .Person Like You only doing what is seeming good to You. shabiha

Zayd, if you look at the history of my edits, I have been trying to prevent this page being hijacked by Salafis/Wahabis and by Sufi Barelwi or Hanafis of the Indian subcontinent. It find it amusing that on the one hand I am accused of being pro-Wahabi, and on the other I am accused of being too pro-Sufi! Your statements on my addition of Kalam to the "See Also" section implies that Kalam was solely a Sufi activity, not a Sunni one. Engagement in Kalam was a practice of all of the early Sunni scholars to combat the false Kalam of others, and legalistic Sufism (not the Bhudist influenced type that suspends Sharaih) has had almost universal appeal in Sunni Islam, so belongs there. Also, how is it one sided to include Ghazali who is the most well known Islamic scholar after the four Imams, and respected in east and west. His name is more known throughout the west (rightly or wrongly) than even some of the 4 Imams for his thoughts.

Regarding the addition of the hizmetbooks and associated link, and the removal of the Uni of deoband, I am opposed to both:
 * hizmetbooks is a partisan site full of rantings against 'wahabis' and Abdul-Wahab in "Confessions of a British Spy". It is a thoroughly anti-Salafi site: Zayd I'm sure you will agree with me on this
 * The Uni of Deoband is probably the most reputable Indian Uni, and cannot be compared to the link that it was replaced with. If I include both, then we will end up with a list of all the schools, back street madrassahs, semi-recognised unis from every country there.

Shabiha how can you argue that all sunni institutions of all those who consider themselves Sunni should be included when you argued against the "Wahabi" links, and you removed the universitu of Deoband. Wahabis consider themselves Sunni. Following your logic we would end up with a thousand external links. And to conclude the list I settled with is "my favorite" it totally wrong, I included only notable and undisputed links: Does anyone object to Al-Azhar? No!. I think external links should only include undisputed links such as Al-Azhar, Islamabad, Fiqh al-Akbar by Abu Hanifah, and academic sites, not proselytising links like yours. Allowing them opens the floodgates to all other to add their favourite group's schools

Does anyone object to these links, and on what basis? They neither Wahabi nor Pro-Barelwi:


 * Al-Azhar University, Cairo
 * Fiqh al-Akbar by Abu Hanifah
 * Muwatta by Imam Malik
 * Searchable Ar-Risala by Imam Shafi'i
 * Developing Humility in Prayer, by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
 * Islamic Law Infobase
 * Altafsir.com
 * Philosophia Islamica
 * University of Southern California, Compendium of Muslim Texts
 * SOURCE METHODOLOGY IN ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE (Usul al-Fiqh), by Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani

The links should stay as these only, as only these will be undisputed Aaliyah Stevens 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object but you'll find plenty of wikipedians who think that you're being partisan and excluding links that represent them (the Indian contingent being a good example). Off the cuff, I can suggest University_of_Al_Karaouine which is older and arguably more reputed than Al-Azhar. I can also suggest  which is representative of the Ba'alawis of Yemen who simply cannot be ignored in the history of Sunni Islam. As for the links you've suggested, I have mixed feelings towards them them. Philosophia Islamica for example is simply a set of articles on Islamic philosophy with many by Orientalists and others who never spoke for Sunni Islam in it's history. It, in my humble opinion is much more irrelevant than the markaz site that was suggested earlier. Okay, coming to something more constructive, I think we should frame a policy of what kind of links we should have on this article first. Academic institutions are out I think. We should have a separate page for them that list them by region. Everyone from Azhar to the small madrassas in some countries can be listed there. Primary texts and their translations by reputed people are okay. What do all of you think? --Nkv 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be accused of being partisan, if my argument is simple; that we should list lowest common denominators of Sunni Islam, because all else is, and will result in partisan proselytizing. Yes, I agree with excluding links that represent groups and parties, not Sunni Islam as a whole, and if that makes petty people feel alienated that's tough, because wikipedia and any encyclopedia should not be bullied into accepting something as mainstream, or representative of something bigger. We need to make a distinction between Sunni Islam/the 4 math-habs, and the the relatively new competing groups and movements that are branches of Sunni Islam. I would object to listing the Ba-Alwi school because it is one tariqa among many, and we would then have to list every school of every Sufi tariqa.

I agree that we should rule out schools etc, and allow primary texts of major Sunni A'ima many of which are published on Philosophica Islamica, however I think it is impossible to miss out Azhar as the most respected, and oldest Sunni University. Although Jamiat-al-Qarawiyin may be older, and may have been reputable, it is now almost forgotten, has no external link, and is not recognised anymore, I've been there and it's in ruins. The problem you are going to have is the same problem we have with listing schools, somebody from India or Pakistan will believe that their Imam or Sheikh is on par with Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or Ghazali and want their works listed too, then Ikhwaanis will want Hassan al-Banna's or Syed Qutb's works listed etc etc etc. Thats why I hold the potentially most unpopular rule, which is "list only the common denominators between all Sunnis" which will be the 4 Imams, their teachers and their students, + other notables like Ghazali, Suyuti or Nawawi. Nobody can argue that they were not true Sunnis. This will exclude people like Ahmed Rida Khan Barelwi, or Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab or ibn Taymiyya, which people will attack as not proper Sunnis. Aaliyah Stevens 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Can you wikifiy those links you posted above and create a new subsection on the talk page on the lines of "link discussion" or something? We can debate and decide here then. --Nkv 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links Criteria
As stated above, this article is about Sunni Islam, not Sunni groups, Sunni sub-sects and Sunni movements. These groups, movements and sub-sects have their own page e.g. Barelwi, Wahabi, Ikhwaani.

The external links should only include:
 * Works of scholars agreed upon by all Sunnis from the formation era of Sunni Islam
 * Agreed.--Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Trends & topics accepted by all foundation era Sunni Ulema
 * Agreed.--Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Islamic Academic Institutions agreed upon by all Sunni notables
 * This is arguable. People can make cases for all sorts of institutions. I think we should not mention any. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i also Object to his Section .It is hard to show second most reputed University after Al Azhar.

Shabiha
 * It may be best to keep links for academic institutions on the articles for those respective academic institutions. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Purely academic reference sites
 * Only if they're by Sunni Ulema. Stuff by orientalists is hardly reliable. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i Agree that Orientalist should not have a Place on Sunni Page they have made their own Interpretations.
 * Agree with Nkv. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add/discuss any other criteria.

So far we have:


 * Al-Azhar University, Cairo


 * Nobody can seriously dispute the authority of Jamiat al-Azhar in Sunni Islam
 * Academic institute. Best not include it--Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is already an article on al Azhar; this article is about theology, not institutions. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * International Islamic University, Islamabad


 * Nobody can really dispute the authority of Islamabad either because the senior professors are from Azhar.
 * Same as above--Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I oppose the inclusion of al Azhar. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference site on Usul and Fiqh, and uses Classical sources
 * Islamic Law Infobase
 * Looks okay. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the link is dead, either that or it's my browser. So no opinion as of now, I guess. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is purely a reference site of an academic nature
 * Philosophia Islamica
 * Too much orientalist stuff. I'm strongly against this. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nkv again. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is purely an academic reference site for classic Islamic books etc
 * University of Southern California, Compendium of Muslim Texts
 * Excellent. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes Abu Hanifah
 * Fiqh al-Akbar by Imam Abu Hanifah
 * Good --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good, though Abu Hanifa already has his own article. It's not a big issue but I would humbly suggest this link be moved to the article for him or at least the one about madhahib. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes Imam Malik
 * Muwatta by Imam Malik
 * Good --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Same suggestion as above. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes Imam Shafi
 * Searchable Ar-Risala by Imam Shafi'i
 * Good --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Same suggestion as above. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody Disputes Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
 * Developing Humility in Prayer, by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
 * Good --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the above four links don't really discuss Sunni Islam. They're books by the 4 Imams. Maybe we should put them in one link "Books by classical Sunni scholars 1,2,3,4"? --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a much more valuable resource to explain the views of Imam Ahmad and Sunni Islam would be his treatise Usool as-Sunnah. This has been translated into English and PDF versions are available from the publisher.  I think that would give significantly more insight into his views and Sunni Islam. ZaydHammoudeh 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Same suggestion as above. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, could you post the link? Aaliyah Stevens 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a book explaining Usul in Sunni Islam
 * Source Methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), by Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani
 * Okay. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not familiar enough with it to say either way. If everyone else seems alright with it then leave it, I suppose. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sunni Path ??? Shall we keep this? Any objectors?
 * Arguably an academic institution but contains a lot of practical stuff that supplements an encyclopaedia entry. --Nkv 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. It's an openly partisan site, as they call to Sufism on there.  I'm not bashing Sufism, but we should keep off any partisan links. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we Should Continue with Sunni Path. AS it has been seen that a Particular User is trying to Impose its Own thinking on Wikipedia ,it is suggested that other Users should come forward to make this Page really rich.
 * A plethora of links doesn't make a page rich. It just messes things up. --Nkv 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

the Other academic site may be www.islamicacademy.org
 * Looks like an educational institution. --Nkv 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons Nkv stated. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

though the Hizmet Books criticizes Wahabis but it has  books on Sunnism with  Authentic and Reliable refrences of Sunni Ulemas. The Books on This Site are not found any where.Any one can Examine their importance to Sunnis of the World.
 * It's an openly partisan site. It might make sense to link to specific texts if they're of any value but the site as a whole, no. --Nkv 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Site is the Work of Prof Masud Ahmed at www.masud.co.uk on traditional Islam.
 * Mas'ud is not a Professor. And the articles on his site are arguably favourable towards Sufism (while I personally think that that's a genuine part of Islam, let's stick to only non-controversial stuff). --Nkv 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. It's even more partisan than SunniPath, openly calling to Sufism and against Salafis.  Again, i'm not taking issue with anyone who feels that way, but such a blatantly partisan site isn't acceptable here. MezzoMezzo 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha's disruptive edits
Shabiha, I have warned you before, please stop persistently adding your links at random intervals, we are trying now to discuss the issue, but you have again added more (some obscure) links, in what seems to be a "revenge edit" against Dalaa. Both edits were wrong. Aaliyah Stevens 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aaaaliyah i have not made any revenge Edit.I always tries and believe in giving  representation to all  Sections. Dont u think that a Sunni Page must have at least one Link related to all the sub groups. Thats Why i Edit it. shabiha

No, we should not have a link for every sub-group. that would be a very long list, and we were discussing this above, so I do consider your edits disruptive. Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Foundations of the Sunnah has less words of the Imam, than modern Salafi arguments/spin
This new link added by Zayd, is much more in terms of words and text of the book, written by modern Salafis, and only one section of the book contains the 90 or so statemnts (in 3 parts) of Imam Ahmed. This is unacceptable, unless we find an unadulterated translation, otherwise we will have to use  the previous link on Salah. Aaliyah Stevens 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaliyah, you consistently accuse others of bias and spin etc. However, most of the links you post are full of Sufi bias. I held my tongue for a while, but this time it needs to be stated.  I will give the example of Sunni Path just for the sake of the point.  The front page of Sunni Path has information about the Mawlid.  I ask that you please provide me a single sahaba that celebrated the mawlid please.  In addition, if you read their fatwa, it does not represent the views of most of the early scholars.  For instance, on the fatwa on the Raafidah (Rejectionist Shia), they fail to differentiate between the two types of kufr established by the scholars that there is general and specific kufr.  For example, in general, those who claim the Qur'an has been changed are kaafir; no Muslim can deny that.  However, if a particular person claims the qur'an is changed, the scholars do not apply the kufar to him individually until the conditions are fulfilled and the impediments removed.  In addition, lets look at some of their fatawa on Sufism.  An example is here: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=895&CATE=1.  First they quote Jalaluddin Rumi who may Allaah have mercy on him was not a scholar but a poet.  In addition, lets look at another fatwa http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=5826&CATE=3400.  It states, "Those who criticise Sufism normally don't understand what it really means."  Many Sunnis would not agree with that.  This site is full of Sufi spin.  If you want to remove links without spin, then you should hold up your own links to the same criteria.  That is only justice.  ZaydHammoudeh 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zayd you state: "most of the links you post are full of Sufi bias." Most? please be careful what you accuse me of. There is a big difference between most and only s single site. Fine we will remove SunniPath.com. I have no problem with that. I think you should "hold your tongue" a little more, all you had to do was point that stuff out rather than go into a long diatribe.

Anyway, I fail to see how the above addresses the point of the link you put up which is primarily not the words of the Imam Ahmed. Let's agree to remove both, until we find an unadulterated translation without over extensive commentary by Salafis Aaliyah Stevens 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Zayd if Sunnis start asking Fatwa from You will be ashamed .Can You cite a single Quranic or haditths Reaference which Clearly rejects Celebration of Miladun nabi . This is Sunni Page and a Huge majority of Sunni Throughout the World celebrate it . we need not any Proof to remember Holy Prophet on his B'Day. As in Terms of Pious deed no Proof is Needed.
 * Any way can u cite any Quranic or hadith reference allowing the Destruction of Roza's,Dargahs Qabrs of sahaba E kiram . Which has became a History in saudi(British)Arabia by the napak hand of M. ibn A. Wahab and his associates.
 * YOU wahabis have dual faces.In ur fatwas u claims to be only muslims and says shirki People to other sunnis. But to show world that u belong to Majority u try to show as Sunnis . Like here . ::What are u doing here when u are Wahabi.
 * Dont U Know that almost all the sufism beleivers are sunni and they celebrates Milad un Nabi . ::And it is bitter Truth that in almost all the countries islam was Spraed and Developed under the abl;e Guidance of Sufis.
 * Anti sufi People are new Concept . Look at Islamic History . Are all the Muslims Before 18th Century were Commiting Shirk or they were not Muslims ? Or You are the Sole Muslims on the Earth?
 * Shabiha

Shabiha, please, if Islam and Sufi tazkiyyah can't control you to be nice and civil to your brother, then read WP:CIVIL wikipedias policy on civility. Also, learn that Islam is not Urdu or Indian, and Urdu and Indian words are not Islamic words: using urdu "sahaba E kiram", "Miladun nabi" "Roza's", "Dargahs" are urdu/hindi terms, and not every Muslim in the world is Indian/pakistani. How many times do I have allude to this point!!

Fuss-ha(classical or standard) Arabic is the language of Islam, not Urdu. How do you expect the rest of the Muslim to understand you if you use Indian words, and the fact that you don't know the difference shows how much experience you have with the Arabic language and books of Fiqh. So I suggest you don't debate this issue here, if at all. If you really want to debate the issue do it on the Mawlid page. Zayd, don't rise. Aaliyah Stevens 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont try to teach me what u dont Know. Sahabae kiram Rozas or dargahs i used for the sake of putting my point. I never said that Islam is limited to Urdu or Hindustan or Pakistan. U cant be the Master of this Page .The Point i intend to Prove is that A site should not be  removed from this sunni page because it tells about Maulid ,the rememberence of Holy Prophet S.A.W. You should also know if some one will try to remove a sunni site on this basis then Each and every one has right to discuss this issue HERE, not Any Where. Any way Have You bought this Sunni page ? shabiha
 * Assalamu alaiku Shabiha. I think you and Aaliyah (and Zayd and myself too) have similar intentions. We want to see this page on wikipedia become a good one which shows Sunni Islam properly to the world. Since we all are very eager to show this, we are becoming emotional about small things like links. Let me try to say in short what the problems here are.


 * 1) Shabiha is from an Urdu Sufi background. The role of Sufism in Islamic history is great. But there are lots of sufis who are not Indian. So, if we put purely Indian links in this article, the article will start becoming one sided.
 * 2) Aaliyah is from a European background. She's trying to put links which are quite well known to everyone and remove ones which have only local (Indian) significance. Hence, she sees the articles and sites that are purely dealing with Barelwi or Urdu content as not adding much value.
 * 3) We cannot resolve this problem by calling names. Shabiha, you say on your page that you believe in peaceful propagation of Islam but if you call people "dual faced" and things like that, they will only start hating you. It's against the Sunnah of our blessed Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wassalam) to do that. Please don't destroy your deen for the sake of an article of Wikipedia. It's not worth it.
 * 4) There is also the problem of language. Shabiha, your English is sometimes hard to understand and so people might think that you're saying things which you're not really meaning. This will create more trouble. Please try to simply state your views rather than accuse people. That really leads to bad feelings.


 * Now let us think of some ways to solve this mess,


 * 1) We will try to keep this page with links that refer only to classical Sunni scholars (we discussed this in the link criteria section above). If anyone has suggestions, please post them. Shabiha asked Aaliyah is she bought this Sunni page. She didn't and that's why we are discussing this here. It's not useful to get emotional and accuse people. That's bad Adab. Let's all agree to discuss links on the talk page before altering the main article. Otherwise, we'll get into more fights.
 * 2) Even if we don't agree with the Salafi brothers like Zayd, we must respect him. He's also recited the Shahada and he's trying to make this page good too. We have a separate page on Sufism so if we have links that are specific to Sufi practices, we can put them there rather than on this page about Sunni Islam. On this page, we can put links which everyone agrees with. No one will disagree that Imam Abu Hanifa for example was a great scholar and a great Muslim. We can put a link to a translation of his book. etc.
 * 3) Let us all remember that this is a time of trouble for the Islamic community. We should be staying united rather than fighting like this.
 * Forgive me if I have offended any of your. Wassalam. --Nkv 07:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hayyak Allaah ya Shabiha. I want to say first al-hamdulillaah (All Praise is Due to Allaah) that no one asks me for fatawa because only the faqeeh is qualified to give fatawa, and I am by no means a faqeeh. Since I do not give fatawa, I do not take people out of the Sunnah Jama'ah like you state, "In ur fatwas u claims to be only muslims and says shirki People to other sunnis"  However, Shabiha your words accuse me of not being Sunni when you say, "What are u doing here when u are Wahabi." It is ok with me if you want to insult me; I don't particularly mind. However, in insults, it is only proper to be accurate and let me say unequivocally that I am not Wahhabi. I have never been Wahhabi nor do I expect to be Wahhabi. Maybe I have misunderstood your words Shabiha. The others are correct when they state that it is not always easy to understand your argument due to the language barrier.

Next it is important to state that the actions of the Muslims (be they Sufi, Salafi, Takfiri, etc) are not evidence against Islam; Islam is evidence against their actions. It is not appropriate to frame your argument to say that most Muslims do a certain action so it is permissible. Moreover, it is important to know the crucial principle in usool al-fiqh, "The fundamental principle concerning worship is prohibition; nothing is permitted except that which Allaah (subhaanallaahu wa ta’aalaa) and His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) legislated." The best two evidences for this principle as explained by the scholars are the two authentic ahadeeth, “Whoever does any action that is not in accordance with this matter of ours (Islam) will have it rejected.” (Reported in Saheeh Muslim, (English translation no. 4267, book 18) and ‘Whoever innovates anything in this matter of ours (Islam) that is not a part of it, will have it rejected” [Reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (English translation vol. 3, hadeeth no. 861) and in Saheeh Muslim (English translation no. 4266, book 18)]. Enough between all of us is the words of the Prophet. I understand that this last paragraph was off topic but I wanted to provide an answer since I was asked.  ZaydHammoudeh 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zaid I regretif Ihave Offended U. I stated that Because U said  that SunniPath has  given  Significance to  Milad and  that was notCelebrated Bythe Sahabis .Each and Every Pious act Which we are doing  or are Trying to do in this era was not Practiced by the Sahabis So WE may  Not End that Practice Which is  Legaly valid  in Islam. Dear NKV I agree to You that we should have a Consensus on the Sites Which should be there on this Sunni Page. I ask a Question ,Should not a Practice Which is Observed  by the Huge majority of Sunnis as Pious, Deserve aHonourable Place Here? Or TheNon Sunni ideology Will Affect the Listing? Shabiha


 * There are large groups of Sunnis (eg. The Deobandis) who do not celebrate the Mawlid. So, I don't think we need to add links articles about it. Sunnipath.com *might* be a good idea but I'm not militantly in favour of it. If we can come to a consensus, that's fine. --Nkv 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shabiha, you continue to make the accusation that those who disagree with your views are not Sunni despite the fact that you criticize some Muslims for supposedly doing the same thing. This seems to be a continuous problem and is evident in most of your posts here.  I advise that you stop this behavior as it is neither productive nor accurate.  ZaydHammoudeh 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick note NKV: Deobandis allow Mawlid, SunniPath.com is primarily a deobandis site, look at the fatwas they give on mawlid. They only have a problem with the way it is practsised today in the sub-continent. Aaliyah Stevens 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems this discussion has run its course; the remaining disputed sites are Usool as-Sunnah, Sunni Path, and Philosphica Islamica. I think they should be removed and the external links issue put to rest for now. Any thoughts? ZaydHammoudeh 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Better lack of links rather than presence of links *and* perennial argument. --Nkv 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How can u add th Site which are Totally unrelated to Sunnism  for ex International Islamic university of islamabad has nothnig Informative accept about university. Junaid

I am removing these Sites which are neither Discussed and nor are Sunni.
 * Islam Guide
 * Islamic City
 * The Islam Page

These represent Salafi /Wahabi /JamaateIslami View. Shabiha 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting links.

Sr. Shabiha, please be reasonable and remember your Islamic manners. Even if we take issue with some links or sites, you can't slander them without proof. You do have a history on claiming that sites and resources that don't agree with your viewpoint "aren't Sunni"; this, coupled with your history of vandalism - and I know of this because i've had to revert edits where you've blanked pages before - makes me a little nervous. Please check your intentions and remember that simply stating "i'm removing these links on the talk page" and then doing it without getting feedback does not constitute open discussion of the issue. MezzoMezzo 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam-Guide seems alright. I take issue with some of the authors but the information doesn't look too bad.  And to say it isn't Sunni is simply ridiculous.
 * Islamicity, to my knowledge, is just a news/current events site, so I don't think it's appropriate anyway. Again though, to say it isn't Sunni makes no sense.
 * Islamworld is a page i'm not familiar with. It's a little long for me to look through the entire thing - maybe some of the authors are controversial, I don't know - but at first glance it doesn't seem to be bad.  And like the first two, I don't see how it isn't Sunni.

Cleanup the cleanup


&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some issues I have (i'm willing to help with this article)
I have noticed that Sr. Aaliyah and Brs. Zayd and Nkv have been doing a standup job on this article, and I have to say I really am impressed by the patience and cooperation i've seen in mediation what should and shouldn't be in this article. Out of respect for the work put into it, I wish to discuss my issues here before making any edits, as I wish all disputes on an article could be handled in such a mature fashion. For the consideration of those interesting in improving upon this article, I have some suggestions for which I am seeking feedback: Again, I am seeking feedback here - primarily from the three aformentioned users that have been doing such a good job in editing, though others are welcome as well. I hope that I can help everyone to enhance this article and keep it informative and to the point. MezzoMezzo 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the section titled Sunni schools of law (madh'hadb), there is a line under the subsection for Hanbali that I found odd - "Modern Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia apparently claim to follow this school." First of all, not all Hanbalis are Wahhabis - in fact, some of them have been Sufis.  Second, not all people commonly known as Wahhabis are from Saudi Arabia.  Third, not all Hanbalis are Wahhabi, which is the insinuation here since that is what little is posted in this subsection.  Fourth, not all followers of the Hanbali madh'hab are in Saudi Arabia.  Fifth, the language "apparently claim" seems rather derogatory to me.  I suggest the sentence be changed to "This school of law is followed primarily in the Arabia Peninsula."
 * My second issue is the title of the section Sunni theological traditions (Kalam). Not all traditional theologans in Islamic thought were people of kalam - in fact, the article on kalam itself doesn't really mention that and could use some work.  If some people believe the strength of kalam theological dialectic is sound then that's fine, more power to you.  But putting that in parenthesis in the title suggests that all traditional Sunni theology was based on kalam, which is historically inaccurate.  I suggest removed that from the title of the section.
 * In addition, I noticed something in the introductory section. While the article highlights how Sunni Islam is based from those who accepted Abu Bakr as the rightful first calpih, it also refers to this process as Shura and supporting of elections.  This seemed very POV to me initially, as i've never heard of such an opinion.  When I clicked on the article for that I saw that indeed, some Muslims do feel this supports the idea of "Islamic democracy".  Also, the article rightfully points out that many traditional Muslims (myself included) disagree with this.  I am not arguing that point or saying that anyone reading this must agree with my opinion on that; what I am saying is that the article on Shura rightfully highlight opinions from both sides and this article shouldn't take either side. MezzoMezzo 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you have said, just that Kalam during era of great debates, was used to refer to any discussions related to theology and Aqueeda, not necessarily the negative way we understand the word today. So Imam Ghazali had his Kalam argument which was in fact not Kalam by todays standards at all, it was simply demonstrating that there has to be a creator of the universe. On the Shurah issue, I agree we should not use the word democracy, but it is true to say that Sunnis accepted the principle of Shurah as the basis of supporting Abu Bakr, he sought the mandate of the Ummah the next morning after Saqifah, while the Shia rejected that this was relevant in choosing a Khalif - as they believed Ali was Masoom and divinely appointed.Aaliyah Stevens 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the first paragraph so it is more balanced and easy to read if you are not sunni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Caliphs are four not three!!!
For the caliphs,

why the fourth caliph ali ibn abi talib is not mentioned with the other three caliphs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalaaa (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added him to the template. → AA (talk) — 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadi is not part of Sunni Schools of fiqh!!!
There are only four sunni schools of fiqh and they are hanafi,shafi'i,maliki and hanbali.... Ahmadi is not included and it is not right at all to add it to sunni islam page, ahmadis are different thing, they are not sunni and even they are not muslim....thats what majority of muslims say.....please delete Ahmadi from the sunni schools of fiqh... Thanx to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated Template:Sunni Islam and removed Ahmadi from the list. → AA (talk) — 10:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Write only in English please and improve the sunni islam page!!!
For the Sunni Beliefs section, can you please just write all beliefs in English words not in arabic using english letters and that will be very helpful for people who dont know arabic this much and please improve the sunni islam page because it neeeds lots of improvements...sunni islam is islam itself because we all know that most muslims are sunnis, so please improve the sunni islam page so it can represent muslims and sunnis in a better way to others...Thanx very much to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.207 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA
"For instance, there is no Sunni–Shi'a breakdown available for many countries, and the CIA World Factbook"

I looked up indonesia a couple days ago, I only saw: Religion Muslim..Mallerd 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia is Sunni... Here Syi'ah is persecuted(yeah. Just 2 years ago some mobs burned down a syi'ah ulama house, claimed he is infidel, because he told the people to pray on natural ground only. Not that I disagree with them, though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.196.233 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to show how Sunnism is unique
So, if one goes to the Shia template, or the Ismaili one, or the Alevi one, one sees right away how these groups differ from other Muslims. But what about Sunnis? Like the other templates, the stuff under 'beliefs' is so general most of it applies to every other group. Belief in angels and the unity of Allah? That's almost everyone. There needs to be something that points out the belief in the sahaba, their uprightness, the rashidun caliphs, and Sunnis view the conflicts of the sahaba between themselves.

This includes the general article itself. Great, four schools of fiqh. Now how is this group different from all other Muslims? Anyone who reads this will have no clue whatsoever.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sunni_Islam&diff=135335163&oldid=135335015 Everything about these issues is Sunni-Shia oriented. Now, that's true, they are very Sunni-vs-Shia oriented. But how can we avoid that, after all, that's what we're basically comparing Sunnism to? I agree, we need to state what makes Sunnism unique without making it sound like we're purposely comparing it to the second biggest branch, but how do we go about doing that?

Right now, I'm doing a total rewrite of the Shia article, but I already know what we can get across and not seem like it's an argument. With Sunnism, it becomes more confusing because of its 'orthodoxy' and majority. It seems every point is comparing to someone else's group, but that's mainly because Sunnism is seen as the norm.

We need to write up points of importance, and expand on those points. They can't be too Sunni-vs-Shia centric, but they need to get the uniqueness of Sunni fiqh and aqeedah (mostly aqeedah) across. So, what do we need to do? --Enzuru 08:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be on the talk page for the Sunni Islam template? MezzoMezzo 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where it started :) I suggested it be discussed here as the issue isn't just what to include in the template but a more wider discussion on what is unique about Sunni Islam (Enzuru please correct me if I'm wrong) and how to elaborate on that in this article. → AA (talk) — 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, that's a lofty task. Perhaps we should divide it up into sections before we go through and discuss everything?  Like, Sunni fiqh, Sunni history, Sunni aqeedah, etc.? MezzoMezzo 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, AA, and you have a great idea MezzoMezzo. So let's think this out. As far as sections go, here is what I'd make them in order of most important: 1) Sunni aqeedah (Sahaba, Ahlul'bayt, Rashidun caliphs) 2) Sunni history (Khadija's daughters besides Fatima, marriages to daughters of Umar and Abubakr, the Sunni khilafat from Rashidun to Ottoman), 3) Sunni fiqh (basic Sunni rulings regarding halaal/haraam like pictures that other groups have no problem with), 4) Subgroups within Sunni aqeedah and fiqh, and 5) anything else you guys can think up. --Enzuru 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We should probably also include the six articles of belief and five pillars according to Sunnis. The issue of contemporary figures might come up but I have a feeling that one will be very contentious. MezzoMezzo 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll be doing figures in general, historical and present. Most likely though, right after hitting al-Ghazzali we'll start hitting the walls of controversy, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and the like. --Enzuru 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that looks like you, me, Itaqallah, and AA are on board. It might help to get a few more people as well; once we do that, where do we start?  I'm not sure how we go about this, whether we start a project, or just do it here, or something else. MezzoMezzo 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Best to flesh it out in a /Sandbox/. → AA (talk) — 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be a while before I get on this, but I will. --Enzuru 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on dude, don't be a bum; you brought this to our attention to begin with. I'll totally work on it if you do. MezzoMezzo 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandbox updated. -- Enzuru 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the "beliefs" section is basically the six articles of faith accepted by all Sunnis. There is also a separate section for the three schools of aqeedah under theology, though the six articles are part of aqeedah; I would put the first two subsections under the ideas section, about the Rashidun and companions, under aqeedah as well as that's something basic to Sunni belief that to my knowledge Sunnis all agree on as well.


 * If those are indeed put together, it may also make sense to put both the modern movements and madhahib subsections under one larger section heading about different movements within Sunni Islam. Those are my main suggestions, the history section looks solid.  The demographics section might be tough though, as I haven't found any reliable statistics on Sunni demographics to date, if you guys could find anything it would be new to me. MezzoMezzo 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've made some minor tweaks to the TOC and added the standard sections that will need to go on the end. Also, the section about Hanafism on the subcontinent need to be either Indian subcontinent or, better in my view, remove that heading altogether and just describe it in the relevant movements where they started from. → AA (talk) — 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking good everyone. I took out the Subcontinent thing. And MezzoMezzo, could you do what you were explaining to the Sandbox? I somewhat get it, but rather would have you do it and perhaps change the idea around as you go along. -- Enzuru 08:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry but I just read this article and came out with no idea whatsoever what made Sunnism unique - I read a few other article particularly about the Shi'a and that made things much clearer. The Shi'a article had a good "Overview" before the demographics to say what made them unique; that was helpful. Something about how the Sunnis recognise the original caliphs would surely be useful - there's nothing in the article whatsoever about this. Why make people go through fifty template articles just to understand the basics? Also, the Shi'a article says that they are *minimum* 10% (10-15), this article says they are *maximum* 10% (7.5-10). Bit of a contradiction there. --DreamsReign (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunni view of hadith
I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean: "These two books (Bukhari and Muslim) are strict in their accuracy...." Is it intended to mean that both books largely agree with, and therefore re-inforce, each other? I think a re-wording of this sentence for clarity would be worthwhile. 86.138.213.109 (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanded the introduction
I'm sure people will want to edit some things in what I wrote, perhaps remove some things and add others. They are of course welcome to do so, but the intro certainly has to contain a fair bit more than it previously did, so I'd like to ask not to blindly revert my edit if somebody disagrees with parts of it or thinks they should not be in the intro. The part about the caliphate and the Azhar at least seems fairly uncontroversial and fairly essential for an introduction to Sunni Islam. Of course the article urgently needs a history/origins section as well, although I can already see the problems that'll cause concerning what is "Sunni" history as opposed to general Islamic history... Paul Willocx (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Al Azhar has influence amongst Egyptians especially and other Arabs to an extent, but I wouldn't put it in the lead. It has much less influence amongst non-Arabs and almost no influence amongst non-Ash'aris, and you could arguably put places like Islamic University of Madinah, International Islamic University Islamabad, and/or University of Al-Karaouine up there too.  I'd argue to just remove it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit my knowledge about Islam may be a bit Arab-centered... but until somebody writes a full section on religious authorities or hierarchy, I'd say we should have something about it in the intro, even if you think there should be more in there than the Azhar alone. Paul Willocx (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. You think there should be something in the intro until somebody writes something on hierarchy?  That's not the issue i'm taking.  It's just the fact that non-Arabs have their own institutions they take from, and even people in different parts of the Arab world geographically take from other places as well.  Non-Ash'aris in general don't look to Al Azhar at all, so you have pretty much all the Maatureedis and other groups looking to other institutions as well.  It just isn't factually accurate to mention Al Azhar in particular when most Muslims are taking from other institutions and there is no one place that most Sunnis look to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant, obviously the article needs a whole lot of expansion, with, among others, a section on religious hierarchy, but so long as that isn't there, a few lines in the intro is better than nothing. But okay, I'll rephrase... Paul Willocx (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to seem like I was dogging you. But thanks for being understanding.  I'll tell you what, let me know when you want to look into the hierarchy section and i'll contribute what I can as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Might as well discuss what should be in that, then, unless that's being done elsewhere already... the guy who made that edit earlier had a point in that the ulama certainly should be mentioned in there, and I suppose the historical power struggle between ulama and caliph, including the mihna and whatnot. Then a number of universities at least, and maybe some other names... Damn, there's a ton of work left on this page. :P Paul Willocx (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Source used in the section demography
I wonder how reliable is a source to cite, in which such insulting views are expressed against Shias.^ "How Many Shia Are in the World?". IslamicWeb.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-18. I Quoute: "It is important to remember that Shia have a high birth rate since their religion allows adultery (Mut'a). The percentage of Shia this time is relative to the percentage of Muslims." First of all Mut'a is not adultury but temporary marriage. Even if one pejoratively takes it as prostituion, it does not mean that it increases the number of Children born. Secondly in more cases in that source Shia's are presented as opposed to Muslims. Words like "in relation to Muslims" and "their Religion" clearly suggest such a view.--Tirip (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

sunni muslims
I am a muslim and i just wanted to tell everybody that all muslims are sunni muslims. This is because to be a sunni muslim is to believe and follow the ways of the prophet muhammed (pbuh). Now all muslims do this this so are not all muslims sunni muslims? This means that SHi'a muslims are alos Sunni Muslims, it's just they do not believe in the four rightly guided caliphs. But the point is that, unlike what everyone thinks, you can't compare Sunni muslims to SHi'a muslims as they are sunni muslims themselves. 78.146.81.123 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not particularly convincing as far as inclusion in an encyclopedia...--Hawkian (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The shia's dont blame the fourth caliph but the first three caliphs. if we pay attention then this becomes true because the second caliph was the one who went to Fatima binte Muhammad's house and he gave warnings to her. as the holy prophet quoted 'Fatima is part of me and who ever hurts her hurts me and who hurts me hurts Allah'. Plus Fatima was not given what was left for her, Fidak. Which upset her and according to hazrat Aisha she was hurt because of this. Ali ibn Abitalib didnt recieve the caliphate. I think we muslims have forgotten the incident of Ghadi re Qum which is recorded in Ahmad ibn Hambal's Mishqat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.11.208 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some improvement needed?
So far the article seems to just distinguish different schools of Sunni thought. This information should certainly be included in an encyclopedia article, but there should also be a paragraph or two that defines what Sunni Islam itself is, that is what distinguishes Sunni from other types of Islam. An encyclopedia article on a subject typically first discusses that subject, then discusses sub-classifications, right?

Islam in South Asia
Why is there a separate section in the article for Sunni Islam in South Asia? There is no explanation given for this supposed significance beyond Sunni Islam in, say, Africa or the Middle East. The entire section is unreferenced as well. I really see no reason for this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph of Sunni Islam Page Need to be removed
I am appalled and shocked at the first paragraph of the Sunni Islam article. I implore and beg any moderator or anyone who have access to the page to remove the blasphemic paragraph as it suggest a negative meaning and probably from a non-Muslim point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genzee0505 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was the navbox template that got vandalised that made that message appear. I've reverted the edit to the navbox. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and origin of the term
Can we have a section devoted to the etymology and origin of the term? Faro0485 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added a little summary but wouldn't mind if someone expands it Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hanbali = Muwahiddun = Wahhabi?
I'm confused by the terms. Are these all synonyms? They all seem to refer to to the branch of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Do we need the "Islam in Foo" categories for this article?
I note the bottom of the page has categories "Islam in Turkey", etc. As well as several misformatted redlinks such as "Islam in pakistan" and "Islam in UK". Given that Sunni Islam appears in most countries of the world, and outweighs non-Sunni Islam in all but a few countries, do we even need those categories? I'm going to be bold and remove them, particulary as the current ones are non-exhaustive, and several are redlinks, but I welcome any counter-argument. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahl Sunnat
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahl Sunnat
Ahl sunnat is the largest and True branch of Islam. Whole Muslim in the world are .... ahl sunnat's websites: http://www.shababeislami.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahlsunnat (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Star and Crescent
The Star and Crescent are a symbol of the Ottoman Empire and NOT a symbol of Islam. I would appreciate it being removed as it appears in my Facebook profile under my religion, and could confuse the public reading the article. Sunni Islam is following the Sunnah of the prophet PBUH and there is nothing "sunni" about the star and crescent symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.26.82 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My Prophet was not a shia/sunni, but a Muslim, So I am also a Muslim
http://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Prophet-was-not-a-shiasunni-but-a-Muslim-So-I-am-also-a-Muslim/121137917946481

My dear Brothers and Sisters,THINK ABOUT IT!!! And change your religious views from Shia/Sunni to MUSLIM, as out beloved Prophet wan not a Shia or a Sunni, So we are not. As Muhammad was a Muslim, so are we, only MUSLIM, not a bit more not a bit less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msakpak (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographic section
I decided to write the section like this: User:PassaMethod who is lowering the percentage of Sunnis in several articles to 75% minium (which no source supports) reverted my edit to his version which is: I believe that my version is better because it helps readers understand more. To keep my version please vote Keep at the bottom, but if you don't want my version vote No Keep and explain why? Thank you.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is no accurate statistics but a comprehensive 2009 demographic study of 232 countries and territories by the Pew Research Center reported that 87–90% of the global Muslim population follow Sunni Islam.  The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that Sunnis constitue 90% of all the adherents of Islam  while the The World Factbook states over 75% ."
 * "Estimates of the world Sunni population varies from 75% to 90% of all muslims. The remaining belong to various other denominations".

Alternatively, vote Oppose if you oppose the wording of the first paragraph, or Support if you support it


 * Keep--Kiftaan (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge both for best result - I find it hard to believe Socalled Sunni numbers could be as low as 75%. I dont mean to be bias but usually when someone says they are Muslim, sunni is almost implied. Because they are in such high numbers. Shiite is a minority group. Anyway as with many stats, it is better to report on variety and arm the reader with this reality of different stats. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. We can start as "Estimates of the world Sunni population varies from over 75% to 90% of all muslims." and then add my wording.--Kiftaan (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Firstly, the above paragraph is factually incorrect, because it says "Majority of oher sources report Sunnis at 85-90%" even though several sources give different figures, (i.e. 80%, , , , , , ; or 75% , , ). Secondly, why should Encyclopedia Britannica and others receive special mention over all the other references out there? Thats not neutral is it? Its a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV  Pass a Method   talk  11:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:PassaMethod is misusing guestionable sources. He keeps listing links to self-published (unreliable) sources  that redirect back to the same CIA "over 75% Sunnis / 10-20% Shias" website.  Also, just read the names of the books he keeps listing as his sources and pay attention to the years:
 * A world theology: the central spiritual reality of humankind (year: 1991)
 * A dictionary of modern politics (year: 2002)
 * The World Religions Cookbook''
 * Inside Muslim Minds
 * Who Gets to Narrate the World?: Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals
 * Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2004
 * What do these outdated and questionable books have to do with determining the current correct percentage of Sunni Muslims? That's like someone tries to show you books about raising animals when you're trying to learn about car engines. The last one Islam and the Ahmadiyya jamaʻat: history, belief, practice is based on John Esposito (2002).
 * Please stick to quality not quantity. You may find many books that mention that there are aliens from Mars on earth but does that make it true? These guestionable sources that User:PassaMethod keeps bringing are "not acceptable" per WP:USERGENERATED, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and many other reasons. I suggest that we stick to the academic sources (PRC, Britannica, Berkely, etc., and end this meaningless game.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just jumping in without properly understanding the conflict. But I would note that only so many bodies have done stats on this topic. It is not like some of those sources mentioned in the current article are the people who went out and did a count. They themselves are using CIA etc. I dont know the policy re: stats but I think direct sources are all we need. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason i keep listing refs from Sue Huett and Chapman is because you keep trying to discredit the CIA figures, but they obviously thought the CIA source was strong enough to publish in their books. If you stop discrediting CIA, i will stop listing references which boost CIA. CIA is used all over wikipedia as a reliable source, You're the first person i've heard complaining about CIA reliability. Pass a Method   talk  17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, who is Chapman? How many books did he publish? Where did he get his education? What is his profession? As for Sue Huett, she is doing what most ordinary Americans do when seeking general information about the world, and that is going straight to The World Factbook (CIA) because in America this is the most popular site especially since it is based there. We are not seeking general information here, we are going beyond that because we are not ordinary and we don't think that the CIA is the only source. The CIA is only useful when there is no other better source available. The Pew Research Center (PRC) estimate is more credible than all because it's current and is explaining how it got the estimated figures on Sunnis and Shias, something all the others failed to do. PRC is aware of all the other sources as listed in the "Footnotes" and I believe that what we are doing here is just wasting time because we are trying to do what PRC has already done. I'm not complaining about the CIA, I've been using it to access info since late at least 2002. I pointed out and showed you crystal clear evidence several times in the other discussions that it (CIA) does make many errors just like other sources do. You value CIA website more than what it really is.--Kiftaan (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example of reliablity. CIA states that Life expectancy in Afghanistan is 45.02 years but the World Health Organization (WHO) shows 47/50 years, and Afghanistan Mortality Survey (AMS), which is backed by USAID, UNICEF and others, show 62-64 years.  AMS is more reliable because the CIA is outnumberd. Similarly, the CIA fails to explain about its Sunni/Shia estimated figure, and alot of information in its website is outdated or incomplete.--Kiftaan (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors have already pointed out and i will say it again. Wikipedia does not go by common sense, as per WP:No original research. Your proposal will result in a lot of collateral damage since the majority of statistics used on wikipedia are based on CIA. If we treat Sunni stats differently we will have to rearrange the whole wikipeddia too. So we are going to change all of wikipedia tfor your sake? is that what you're saying? Your effort to discredit CIA has not won support on the RS notceboard, so that should be the end of the matter. Also, you keep repeating yourself. You've said the same thing over 6 different pages. Repeating yourself does not mean that people are going to absorb your point of view. Pass a Method   talk  19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Wikipedia goes by common sense, what the heck are you talking about? This is my proposal:
 * "Estimates of the world Sunni population varies from over 75% to 90% of all muslims. There is no accurate statistics but a comprehensive 2009 demographic study of 232 countries and territories by the Pew Research Center reported that 87–90% of the global Muslim population follow Sunni Islam.  The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that Sunnis constitue 90% of all the adherents of Islam  while the The World Factbook states over 75% ."
 * How will this result in a lot of collateral damage? What are you talking about?--Kiftaan (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that if we discredit CIA for these arricles, then we have to do the same for all the other articles. CIA is currently used in hundreds, probably thousands, of articles. Pass a Method   talk  21:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kiftaan. PassaMethod often misuses sources. I can point out examples where he does. Look at his recent edits to the human and pedophilia articles, for just two examples. He was reverted because of misuse/inaccuracy. He also tries to silence those who disagree with him by reporting them. He reported you and me, Kiftaan. 69.50.198.243 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Athari as a School of Theology
Please see talk sections in Talk: Athari and Talk: Islamic theology.

In the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box that is used as a standard reference on many pages "Athari" is mentioned as a school of Islamic theology. I do not believe that this is correct. I have put my case on both of the above talk pages and hope that this issue can be resolved soon. My suggestion is to delete it from the "Part of a series on Sunni Islam" box and delete it from references as a theological school as there is no credible evidence to suggest that it is considered as such, again as per my comments on the talk pages. --Ddragovic (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Original Research implying the first Muslims were Sunnis will be removed
The pictures of the Prophet's mosque and maps of the Rashidun Caliphate do not belong here unless there's a reliable source to prove that the Prophet and the first caliphs considered themselves to be "sunnis." c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  01:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Septate You seem to want to engage in an edit-war, (which you should avoid) please explain your removal of sourced content from the history page here, and also re-including the pics I removed against NPOV. Show me how/why (with reliable sources) those 2 pictures belong here (which have nothing to do with Sunnism), and what reason you had to remove the content on the history of Sunnism, which was reliably sourced. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will just point out that an "enormous" (see edit summary) amount of text added by User:Code16 to the History section was about Sunni history, and didn't amount to more than a normal-length section. So yes, it would be perfectly "compatible" (citing edit summary again) with this article. As to "Citation needed" tags, those really shouldn't be removed until there is an inline source verifying the challenged material - that's just Wikipedia basics. LjL (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @ User:Code16!

Do uu really think that content was relevant to History section??? You can't just write anything by saying that it is sourced. It hurts me not because it is irrelevant to the article but because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia! What would a reader think when he/she finds out that he/she is not reading the history of Sunni Islam but instead Wikipedia is teaching him/her that 'one should not think that early Muslims followed Sunni Islam'

You should overconfident because I can refute your whole ' sourced claims' by stating only one hadith which is believed to be true by all Muslims except quranists. The hadith (saying of prophet of Islam) states that 'there will be 73 denominations of Islam and only one will go to heaven'. (This is the same hadith that ruined by faith in Islam because I realised that there was only 1.39% chance for me to go to heaven'!) This hadith has 2 implications no#1 Islam supports denominations and no#2 there is no such term as 'Nondenominational' in Islam and early Muslims also belonged to a particular denomination.

In end I just request u that plz don't use Wikipedia for promoting unity among Muslims u can have your own site for this purpose and other thing I want to say is that if you don't understand this then keep doing what u are doing. I will neither disturb u nor admin on this topic because I don't care anymore! @LjL the fact that Sunnis believe that Abu Bakar was first Caliph and Ali was fourth one is a universal fact. It will be unnecessay and undue if we site sources. Septate (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No. You're wrong. Citing sources is almost always necessary and due. I do understand that you're upset because you think Code16 is trying to do something as heinous as "promoting unity among Muslims", but what they really are doing is expanding the History section with relevant, sourced material. Hadiths are not a reliable source for anything except their own content. LjL (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits by 59.181.52.81
The IP in question has been repeatedly making edits that are, well... suboptimal in nature. And in the lead section, at that. Could someone have a look at them? They have bad grammar, are uncited, and they don't really seem to belong in the lede. I've reverted them before with edit summaries, but the user just keeps making more without responding. LjL (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverted to last stable version. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's another IP now 59.182.194.161 and one of the edit summaries made it seem like they are working together. Page protection might be in order... c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  15:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I already asked for protection, but for now, an admin has chosen to block both IPs instead. Unless a third IP appears, there should be no need for further action. LjL (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the block, that should work. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Color bias
The map showing Sunni/Shia world demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam#mediaviewer/File:Islam_by_country.png the colors are biased, pro-Sunni.

Muslims perceive green color as muslim color - Sunnis are in green, but Shias and Ibadi are in other colors than green, which may mislead people to think of Shias and Ibadis as less muslim.--184.161.146.100 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mislead who exactly? Other muslims? 81.18.66.242 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not a muslim, but yes, It's a bias. Colors should be neutral, and not the official muslim color for one group or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:490C:D1E:F9F2:1CCF (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bakri
In the section Lexicology, this sentence appears: Some followers of Shi'ism refer to Sunnis using derogatory epithets such as nasibi and Bakri.

Although nasibi is defined on its own Wikipedia page, no gloss is given for Bakri. Capitalisation suggests a proper name; then again, Google image search throws up images of livestock. Can anyone help? Nuttyskin (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Sunni Islam template
Please comment on this RfC, related to the Zahiri school and the Sunni Islam template. Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content deletion by مصطفى النيل

 * Your edits have now been reverted by 3 different editors. That should signal to you that something is wrong with what you're doing. Please stop deleting sourced content arbitrarily, without discussing on talk page. c Ө de1+6 TP  01:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently this user has deleted the same content 3 times already today, I've submitted a report. c Ө de1+6 TP 


 * good on you. I'm surprised that somebody would so blatantly delete nearly the whole lead of such a high-importance article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello :-). I Added important info and a reliable source, and I removed (one) person's opinion on Sunni Islam where he tries to judge weather Sunni Islam represents the original Islam or not! Because one person's or even few persons opinion is not a reliable sources at all in Wikipedia on such a huge issue and global religion. Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are neutral and do not promote one's or even few people opinion on a religion. I also removed one person's false claim who maybe said (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus). I didn't remove just because I couldn't find the original source to read claimed quotation and because it is an opinion of one person only, I removed it also because it is completely false info. Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant.. etc are still Sunni-dominated regions. Best wishes for you. مصطفى النيل (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So an admin already explained to you (on your talk page) why your reasoning isn't valid for removing said content: "The information you removed was supported by an authoritative specialist source which meets our reliable sourcing standards." Please refrain from repeating this incident as it violates guideline. Thanks. c Ө de1+6 TP  11:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The opinion of more than one scholar was removed, and those opinions were in books published be reputable publishing houses. This isn't up for an editor to simply decide whether *they* personally like it or dislike it. Lecturing multiple users reverting you, after an admin already explained what was wrong with your edits, is combative even when it's done with polite terms. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Guys, You may help me to keep Wikipedia trustworthy
Hello :-). In fact, Aaron W. Hughes is a Professor of Jewish Studies, not Islamic studies. He only has some interests and writings about Islam but he is NOT a specialist on Islam. So, I hope from you to remove his claims about Islam from Wikipedia to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also hope from you to remove the clearly false info which says (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus) because it's proven that these claims are completely false as an official Congressional report says. So, I hope everyone be helpful keeping Wikipedia trustworthy and avoid edit war. Thanks :-). مصطفى النيل (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, you just deleted the same reliably sourced content, against consensus, after multiple users including an admin warned you not to do so... Also you're making major changes without establishing consensus. EDIT: I've reverted your changes. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 20:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You need for other people to actually agree with your points before you can act on them. If you revert again without other editors agreeing with you, I will block you for edit warring no matter what you post on the talk page before hand. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The edition you both are trying to enforce has no consensus also because I don't agree with it for objective reasons! مصطفى النيل (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Consensus exists even if you're ignoring it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from consensus issues, the cited source (pp. 35-38) contains nothing even remotely resembling the added text. Eperoton (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be out of line for me to suggest that we're facing an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, in my latest edit I didn't remove the false claims or anything. I just added info and reliable sources and I hope everyone cooperate and avoid edit wars against my latest edit. مصطفى النيل (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * YOU are the one who is edit warring. YOU are the one misusing sources and inserting incorrect material to the article. YOU are the one who is causing the problem. STOP edit warring against multiple editors and discuss why exactly you want to enact the changes you want to make first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with مصطفى النيل latest edit. شامخ بشموخ (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then address the concerns raised above (e.g., the failed source verification) and get a consensus for the change. Eperoton (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * شامخ بشموخ You now have 2 warnings by two different editors on your own talk page regarding these edits, plus Eperton's advice above. And since you're raising the exact same issue as مصطفى النيل, all the points by the other editors to him also apply to you. Read the previous threads on the subject to familiarize yourself with the issue. There is failure of verification and consensus to deal with, and you can't simply delete reliably sourced content because you don't like it.  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 16:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, I agree with مصطفى النيل edit. أحمد المنصورة (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SPI here. Eperoton (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the edit of مصطفى النيل so whats the matter here?! متحور (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Seeming original research in the pillars of iman section
I have some concerns about the pillars of iman section as it stands currently. There were some issues of POV insertion (albeit unintentional since it seemed very conventional) which you might notice in my edit summaries. I'm more concerned about the claims of modern-day movements (I'm assuming you intend Salafists and Wahhabism) rejecting what are considered "traditional" aspects of Sunni creed. There are a few issues I'm seeing here. At this point it's best to discuss further, but my main concern currently is that the section is being turned into the personal commentary and views of editors on Tahawi's creed. The solution in most cases like this is to simply scale back recent edits and only present what can be supported with reliable secondary sources, taking care not to take sides in the debate about who's traditional/orthodox and who isn't (re: the problem of presenting Azhar as "traditional"), and ensuring that the content of articles is based on the body of published work and not original prose. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The points denoted with asterisks are only cited to the book by Tahawi itself; such a citation only points to Tahawi's own comments, not what other groups accepted or rejected.
 * Tahawi's book is essentially like a series of bullet points, albeit some longer than others. Transcluding the entire book to this article isn't helpful nor encyclopedic, and without secondary sources, we have no way for determining which points are more notable than others.
 * Tahawi's book as a citation ends up constituting original research if we, as editors, read into it what he must have intended or what the implications of his views were.
 * The assumption that Ash'arism and Maturidism are traditional whereas the Salafist creed isn't constitutes a combination of OR and light POV pushing, since the Salafists claim that their creed predates their modern movement. Their claim is also one that can't be accepted as objective fact, but the point I'm making is that presentation of the view of either group as truth would constitute an OR issue if presented without citation, and a possible POV issue if citations is provided but only to support one side of the disagreement.

possible change?
this edit was requested

Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

changed to this

Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic early leaders Khalifas.

I'm unsure so leave it here for experianced users to decide, thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The current phrasing reflects the cited source. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunni Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523213658/http://www.classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer to http://www.classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA?
Does anyone else think this article might be appropriate to protect per Arbitration decision? I don't actually notice anything in this article that might be directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but Israel is mentioned in a reference...

Please ping me with any response, as I am not watching this page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the decision? I'm not familiar with it, and others might not be either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:ARBPIA. The specific part where the protection was decided is at WP:ARBPIA3. Although I would suggest waiting until the article increases in edit activity first before requesting protection if this can be reasonably construed as such. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the year or so that I've been watching this article, it has suffered relatively little disruption and none that I can recall relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Enforcement of 500/30, in particular, would take up time and effort, which I think would be more profitably spent elsewhere. Eperoton (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Belief in God having created creation with His wisdom[35]
This is erroneous wording in translation.

It is: Belief in God having created creation with His Intellect but/with HER wisdom (in either his owm mind or hers).

In english, intellect and wisdom have distinct neuro linquistical pathways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.87.64 (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam
If this article included reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, it would clarify how these are different to the Six Pillars of Imam, which the article currently lists. Vorbee (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the five pillars of Shiite faith? I think they don't belong here. RezviMasood (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)