Template talk:Aqidah/Archive 1

Concerns
How come there are more sections identifying Shia beliefs and practices? This is clearly a call to Shiism.

Striver, why are you going to all the Islam series articles and replacing them with another template???? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isnt it better to have a template that is more accurate? Sorry for not asking everyone first, assumed everyone would agree that the new one for the "Five pilars" and "Roots & branches" articles are better... --Striver 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Striver it is a very good template, but the others are going to be really angry when they get here. :) Please start a discussion on Template talk: Islam or somewhere first. Thanks -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I just realized that :/
 * Did what you proposed in the Muslim Guild talk page. Ma salam! --Striver 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Striver, wait till the other's comment before replacing the original template. Otherwise I'm afraid it will be reverted. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, im leaving things as they are, i gues i have made a good start with the template, and the rest can be finnished with ease by the rest of us.... that is, unless "Somebody" donst manage to delete it all as "shia centric non-sense".... *sight*... --Striver 01:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol. :) Well, it is a controversial replacement for the original template, but I am amazed at your hard work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this template yet, but replacing the existing template on a bunch of pages is inappropriate - I think they should all be reverted until more people have looked at and discussed this template. Turnstep 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking this over, and I am leaning towards supporting this template. My initial reaction was that it was too specific, and brought people in to a level of detail that is not necessary if someone came from another page that was linked to (for example) Hajj. But on the positive side, this template does a nice job of linking together lots of related pages. My one wish would be that everyone work on expanding the Basic Muslim Beliefs page, which will be a very important one as lots of pages will link to it through the large text at the top of the template. If this is a good page, I think it will address my main concern about not allowing non-Muslims to jump to a friendlier overview page. Turnstep 04:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Address concerns here
It is improper to mix Shia and Sunni beliefs together as if they were part of one community. If you are going to mix these two together then why not mix all of the sects in one page. Each section should be separate.

Beliefs is spelled wrong. Otherwise, er...like I said before, the others might get really angry about this template when they get here...

As for me, I have no comment at the moment, but I do think you did some good hard work on it. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thx for the good words, and again, sorry for the impulsive nature of the action, it was driven by frustration.... Feel free to correct my lousy gramar... :) --Striver 01:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it misspelled, it reduces Islam to "belief" and completely ignores history and practice. It also leaves out the Ibadis, which is unfair. It is an abomination. Zora 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How unusual... Ignore 98% of the work, and concentrate on a bad headline and missing Ibadi section. And sum it up as an abomination. Do you take courses for that? --Striver 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. My name is stupid. Which template are u talking about? -- Svest 01:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * This one. Striver wants this template to replace the Islam template on articles about the five pillars of Islam and the Shi'a roots/branches of religion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Lol :P --Striver 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. The stupid is aware now! Please, Shi'a, Sunni, me, you, martians, etc... are irrelevant in the main template. The main tamplate should focus about Islam as a whole and from there we can explain what is shi'a an Sunna. -- Svest 02:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * This isnt the main template, the main template is here: Template:Islam. This is a sub-template. --Striver 02:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am still being a stupid'! What's the problem? -- Svest 02:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Striver wants to replace the original template with this one on the five pillars of Islam and the Shi'a roots/branches of religion articles. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 02:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fanatic. I am not OBL. I just want to know why! -- Svest 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Zora
Zora has decided to invent a new rule: A template can not be added to a article, for example Qiyamah, without here pov being overriden... so, lets override it:

All in favor of adding this template to Qiyamah:
 * --Striver 03:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Opposed:
 * User:Zora - "new template not acceptable"

Add me to Zora! Why? Because this is the first time I am hearing about the template. Can we discuss it first? -- Svest 03:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Dosnt it talk for itself? Its about adding it to the articles mentioned in the template, thats all, no more, no less. In case you missed it: here is it: Template:Muslim_Belifes --Striver 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver. I think you believe better than I do that the more templates we get the more blah blah we get. I am not a fan of complexity of rnow. If the rest of the participants are ok, I'll surely be ok. Bird Flu! Nothing! -- Svest 04:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Me again


 * Lol! :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Template listed for deletion
User:Zoe has listed the template for deletion. To vote go here. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 03:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dont you love it? Its Wajib according to Zora fiqh to VFD anyting that contains anyting related to Shia. I guess Zoe and Zora know eachother... --Striver 04:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What a crock. I have no opinion as to the subject of this template, I listed it solely because it's misspelled and should not be propagated into tons of articles unless it's spelled correctly.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, nothing was implied about Zoe. I don't even know her. I just mentioned her and that's it. If you have any concerns about the template deletion listing please vote at . Regards -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry for accusing you for stuff then, Zoe. As you might know, gramar is not a valid reason to vote to delete something, you just fix it or tell point it out. --Striver 11:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The spelling error was kindly fixed. Now users still need to vote at the link provided in order for this to be kept or deleted. So far it's 66% keep. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we still need to vote? The original submitter has withdrawn her nomination, and nobody has thus far voted oppose. If there are no objections, I will delist it from the TfD. Turnstep 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have delisted it. I still think we need to continue discussion on where and when to use this template though. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the template
Can you inform us guys where the template would be used? Cheers -- Svest 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Everywhere it links to, minus the "green colored" links. I added ismaili section. --Striver 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Objections to template
You cannot just have a Sunni and Shia template. It suggests that Islam condones division and free religious thought and opinion so long as one believes in Allah when it clearly does not. Everyone who claims Islam is not Muslim and thats just a simple fact. If we were to suggest that certain groups were within the realm of Islam because of their claim then you must add Farakanism to the template. After all, they claim Islam. The purpose is to teach ISLAM and not everyone's personal view of what they believe Islam to be. So again, adding Shiism and Sunni together is an error and contributes to the non-muslims misunderstanding that Islam is divided into two major groups. Islam is one and therefore ONLY ONE viewpoint should be expressed. Zora's claim that there is no central authority to define beliefs is incorrect. Muslim beliefs are defined in their holy book and in the guidance of their Prophet. No need to sugar coat anything here. How is a non-Muslim supposed to learn what Islam really is? Is it Sunni or Shia? Is it Sufism or is it Ahmadiyyah? Is it this or that? Is it left or right? etc. When Muhammad taught Islam he did not teach various paths leading to the center rather he taught one Islam and that same Islam still exists today and shall exist when we are all gone. Those editing this forum have a great responsibilty ahead of them. Either you will guide the people to that which is correct or you will lead the people astray. Now setting up other forums about the history of this sect and that sect is something totally different then teaching about ISLAM.

Sunni Muslims, at least, have tolerated a wide range of belief. As long as a Muslim prayed, paid zakat, kept Ramadan, and did Hajj, he/she was accepted as a Muslim. Declaring other Muslims to be non-Muslims was discouraged, as fitna. Some academics have said that this makes Islam an orthopraxy more than an orthodoxy.

Emphasizing belief over practice is inherently contentious. Chosing which groups get to be on the template and which don't is inherently contentious. If you add ALL the groups recognized as Muslim, or claiming to be Muslim, you're going to have a template a foot long. You're going to have to add Ibadis, all the varieties of Salafis and Wahhabis, Barelvis, Deobandis, all the Shi'a sects, etc. etc. What about the Ahmadis? The Qur'an Alone Muslims? Differences within the Qur'an Alone Muslims? What about the various schools of fiqh and kalam?

Bad idea. Very bad idea. Zora 08:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Man, stop whining, whats wrong with you? You cant have a template since it would be to long if everybody would be in it? BAH! There was NO problem excluding the shias from the Islam template, when it only displayed the Sunni Five Pillars and not even hinted that Shia dont use them, justifieng that was covered in the article, but NOW, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, the inability to include EVERYONE makes the template "a bad idea". i KNOW that you KNOW better that so, i dont get what you are after... --Striver 13:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Further, The fundamental basics beliefs of each sects has nothing to do with their level of tolerance. Or do you denie that each group has a official set of beliefs? --Striver 13:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, I deny it, for the simple reason that there's no central authority to define the "official" beliefs. Zora 21:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? Are you saying that the Sunni cetral beliefs are not the five pillars, and the Shia twelver central beliefs are not the roots and branches? --Striver 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are both right. I think Zora's concern is that by making a belief template, we are forcing one particular viewpoint upon the reader of what groups Islam is divided into, the relative importance of each, and the belief system each has. But Striver is also correct that the current Islam template already is forcing a particular viewpoint. Zora, I don't think we have to include every Muslim group in the template, but obviously a line must be drawn somewhere. The only other option is to have a simple "beliefs" link to a page that *does* contain every group. To some extent, many of the templates and pages on Wikipedia are already guilty of oversimplification: it's just not feasible to list every group or exception when making a quick reference list of almost any kind. Questions for you both. :) Zora, do you see the problem with the current Islam template? Can you think of a way to fix it? Do you have constructive criticism for the new template, in regards to where we should draw the line (if you had to)? Striver, can can you be a little nicer in your responses? We are all working towards a common goal here, and Zora raised a legitimate concern. Where would you draw the line? How you would respond to groups that did not make the cutoff? If this new template does not work out, how would you recommend fixing the main Islam one to better reflect a more balanced viewpoint? Turnstep 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Im harsh on her, since i feel she is persecuting me, editing everything i do, deleting everyting i add, reverting everyting i do, voting against everything i propose with words like "a bad idea", "abominanation" and "no good". IN THE SAME TALK PAGE! She can have it, she deserves the harsh words, maybe that will make her realise she is upseting me. Do you see me using the same tone against other people? I feel she have been stalking me for over 6 month, deleting a whole new section only because she does not like the prose, calling it "sub standard english", instead of fixing it to her HIGH AND MIGHTY LEVEL OF PERFECT ENGLISH MASTERY. She deletes whole section of shia belifes, only cause she thinks it bazar gossip, EVEN THOUGH I CLEARLY WROTE THAT ITS NARRATION SHIA QUOTE and did not state them as facts. I HATE HER BEHAVIOR! For other examples of how she treats Shia editors, talk to random Shia editor.


 * Regarding your question, i have no objection to any proposal, as long as i get a templa that includes the Shia roots and branches and i can have it on the appropia articles- really, i dont care.


 * I propose to have Shia, Sunni and Ismaili, the other groupes are to small to be included. If anybody complains, let them expand the template to included them, i dont care. If anyone thinks it will be to long, then we can have a complete list on the Basic Muslim Beliefs article. --Striver 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does it say Sunni Ahl Al Sunnah wa Al-Jama'ah; it sounds very redundant. If the inclusion of links to both Sunni Islam and Ahl al Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah is what we're going for, then we should break it up and write out "Sunni Islam" and place "Ahl al Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah" under it do lessen the confusion.

I should also point out that Striver made a new template (without any prior assent or discussion that I can find) and that a little discussion about its inclusion is needed before placing it on pages: Template: Prophets, salaf and caliphs. Stoa 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest we remove the Ahle Sunnah wal Jama'a part and just keep Sunni Islam as the head - since this wiki is in English. How come the Sunni heading has 2 lines? It makes it look more important than all the rest - doesn't seem fair to give the whole Arabic name for Sunni Islam and not for the rest. Perhaps. the first heading should read 'Sunni 5 pillars of Islam' as one heading. Or perhaps we could make all the other boxes have 2 headings, like: Shia Twelvers Roots of Religion Branches of Religion (we'd take out the shia twelvers part from that one) and Shia Ismaili 7 pillars         etc. --aliasad 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Striver 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shia Druze?
Why does the final section of the box say "Shia Druze"? From the Druze article, I gather that they are an offshoot of (Shia) Ismaili, but not that Druze are considered Shia themselves.--ragesoss 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. --Striver 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected that. Druze don't go to hajj or fast during Ramadan. --71.163.59.186 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Hodrige

Aqida
this is already at the top of the article. --Striver 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of External Links
I just removed the following text from the template: ""

It was outside of the table structure, and thus messing up all pages the template is transcluded onto. Personally, I don't think external links have any place in a template such as this. However, if someone feels that the deleted text is important and relevant, they should feel free to properly re-insert the links into the table-structure of the template. -Dave314159 05:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Qadr / Adl
There are different interpretation about Qadr(divine distiny) and Shia believe in Adalah beside Qadr. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to Islam and also read some part of Shiit Islam by Allame Tabatabee:


 * Destiny and Providence:The Holy Quran in its teachings has called this reign of necessity Divine Destiny (qada'), for this necessity issues from that Source that gives existence to the world and is therefore a command (hukm) and "Divine Decree" that is certain and is impossible to breach or disobey. It is based on justice and accepts no exception or discrimination. God Almighty says, "His verily is all creation and commandment" (Quran, VII, 54), and "When He

decreeth [qada] a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is" (Quran, II, 117), and also "(When) Allah doometh there is none that can postpone His doom [hukm]" (Quran, XIII, 41)... The Holy Quran has called this aspect the truth "Providence" (qadar) and has related it to God Almighty who is the origin of creation, as has been said, "And there is not a thing but with Us are the stores thereof. And we send it not down save in appointed measure [qadar]" (Quran, XV, 21). In the same way that according to Divine Destiny the existence of each phenomenon and even which occurs in the cosmic order is necessary and cannot be avoided, so also according to Providence each phenomenon and event that occurs will never trespass or disobey in the least degree the measure which God has provided for it.

-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Man and Free Will: At the beginning of Islam among the Sunnis there were two schools that were concerned with the theological aspects of human action. One group, holding the view that human action is the result of the unbreakable will of God, considered man to be determined in his actions and held human free will to be devoid of any value and sense. The other group believed man to be independent in his actions, which did not depend upon the Divine will and were outside of the command of Providence (qadar). But according to the instruction of the Household of the Prophet, which is also in conformity with the literal instructions f the Quran, man is free (mukhtar) in his actions but not independent (mustaqill). Rather, God the Almighty through free will has willed the act. According to our previous analysis, God the Exalted has willed and made necessary the act through all of the parts of the complete cause, of which one is the will and free choice of man. As a result of this kind of Divine will, the action is necessary but in it man has also free will, that is, the action is necessary with respect to all the parts of its cause, and possible and free in choice with respect to one of those parts which is man. The sixth Imam - upon whom be peace - has said, "It is neither determination nor free will but something between the two."

POV
The Sunni only "five pillars of Islam" is presented as a Muslim concept. This is pov, uninformative and even missleading. Please revert to a previous version were it is correctly presented as a Sunni concept - Shi'as do not subscribe to that listing. --Striver - talk 00:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Change Links
I think we should consider changing the title of the wikilinked articles to the actual title. I already did it with the two highly unfamiliar phrases to the pages Commanding what is just and Forbidding what is evil. There are a few more that could be fixed, like Kutub, Rusul and Nabiyuun. There is no reason to esoterocise Islam so much, especially if the article in question is titled IN ENGLISH. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the article titles, there is no need to post the Arabic names of the various terms in the template. These are covered in their articles. However, the inclusion of the school of Islam to which each set belongs seems rather crucial. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't have much good faith in the edit, considering it was obviously Klakky who did it since he's pissing his pants over what I've been doing at Avicenna. Check the guys contributios. -- Enzuru 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pillars
The "Five Pillars of Islam" are, in fact, the "Five Pillars of Sunni Islam". Shi'i Muslims follow a different creed. Nota bene: while I don't like your changes, you should at least change Shi'a to Shi'a so as to avoid redirects. I am not reverting you in the hopes you'll express yourself on the Talk page, Klakky. I always assume Good Faith rather than you are adding edit summaries because I noted that one of your characteristic behaviours is not to use them immediately before you began using them...  the Ogress  smash!  17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not Klakky, but thanks anyway, tranny :) Phonelabel (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this template useful?
The first line of template:Islam ("beliefs") links to Aqidah, which redirects to Islamic theology. Which doesn't include the template. So for example on Islamic view of angels what is the point of having this template, since that page also uses the Islam template? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapse
This template occupies rather more space than it needs to. It would be better for its default state to be collapsed, so that on pages such as Islamic view of angels the template doesn't occupy too much of the article. All the information remains easily available. As you can see from, the collapsible version is commonly used. Should you really want to uncollapse it on any given article, that should be possible William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

W complained that Text of first line is blocked. but I don't know what that means. Is it the colour bars, or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The show button blocks the first link to the five pillars of Islam. Besides, a) the template has long been stable, b) it isn't long, and c) the "collapse" functionality hides important information in this case, as readers often want to read each pillar/item mentioned by every section anyway (considering that many of these items are shared and of interest to all sects). Thus none of your arguments for editing this template are compelling. Wiqi( 55 ) 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like that to me. It looks like What-template-aqidah-looks-like.png. What browser are you using? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And having just checked, it looks about the same (ie, fine) on Firefox and IE too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Firefox on Gnu/Linux. Looked fine before your edits. Also, what about the other two points? You do realize that almost of these items are shared between all sects, and there is no point in collapsing them, as that will make the template less useful. Wiqi( 55 ) 19:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you post a screenshot? I suspect the trivial solution is just to widen the template a fraction, but I don't know how much. As to the other points, see for example Akhbar (Shia Islam) (or Islamic leadership, or...) which has a (different) template in its "hidden" state, or indeed I could reference huge numbers of other pages. Most pages with templates don't even put them upfront, but tend to tuck them away at the bottom. Using two large templates just isn't very useful. Specifically: (b) it isn't long? I think it is reasonably long, particularly wrt the size of some of the articles it is in and (c) hides important info? Well, collapse obviously hides something; but the template, being a template, isn't article-specific so there is no assumption that all the info has to be always immeadiately visible William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike the other templates, the collapse functionality here hides information about "pillars" that are shared between all sections. So even those interested in the Sunni section will also find something useful and directly relevant in the Shia/Kharijite sections. Most readers would want to see them all without additional clicks. Second, I see no point to your edits. The template Islam now looks broken too, and there are some problem with show buttons and general looks. You obviously lack aesthetic judgment. So long. Wiqi( 55 ) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously lack aesthetic judgment - but if all this comes down to look-n-feel, there is no real way to resolve the issue. Do you really see no point at all to my edits? I have tried to explain them; I'd have hoped you would agree that (all other things equal) shorter is better. That is the point, really William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet another example of the use of a collapsed template is at Ma malakat aymanukum and sex William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, the 3 templates at the foot of Medicine in medieval Islam. Collapsed templates are commonplace; indeed, the norm. I'm still baffled as to why you are so opposed in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just tried it on a random linux and it looked fine; the same as on windoze in fact William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Still hoping for some kind of discussion rather than just reversion from Wiqi55. Not really sure what No reply on the shared pillars issue is supposed to mean, but I'd still like to see a screen shot of the supposed "bad" state, and some kind of ustification for the non-collapsed state, given the multiple evidence of use of collapsed templates elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, here is the part that you have ignored the last time: "Unlike the other templates, the collapse functionality here hides information about "pillars" that are shared between all sections. So even those interested in the Sunni section will also find something useful and directly relevant in the Shia/Kharijite sections. Most readers would want to see them all without additional clicks." Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when do you speak for "Most readers". And I'm still waiting for a screenshot from you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)