Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Cults


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete (note for full disclosure - two duplicate "votes" (not a vote) were struck out). Proto :: ►  13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Cults

 * — (View AfD)

This article is a vehicle for propaganda and inventions. It makes baseless statements about the listed communities and labels them all as cults without any justification or verifiable sources. Some of its statements could be seen as libelous. The title of this article itself excludes the possibility of a neutral point of view. -- Aylahs (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like labeling something a 'cult' is OR (not to mention POV) to me. I doubt that the Wahabis or the Nation of Islam would consider themselves a cult. GabrielF 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly titled and written. no need for it on wikiped--Tainter 00:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)ia.
 * comment there is a 'standard definition' of 'cult' I does not need to be pure POV, however, without sources saying that individual groups meet those criterion, the concerns about writing about existing organizations are valid. Self-description is not a valid criteria, as no one calls themselves a cult, but there is an accepted definition.  I'd prefer a cleanup attempt to a delete here. Wintermut3 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the information, but rename, rewrite for NPOV or possibly merge somewhere.--Striver - talk 10:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Transform into list. I think a "List of Islamic cults" is better than an article that just lists (alleged) Islamic cults, as this one does. - Merzbow 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename to List of Islamic cults and tag with sources, per Striver and Merzbow. John Vandenberg 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having read up on a few of the listed "groups", I feel that keeping the history of this page on Wikipedia is of no value.  However, I would like to see a new article created to complement Divisions of Islam. John Vandenberg 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I totally agree w/ GabrielF re POV issues as i had personally nominated List of dictators (protected to prevent re-creation) to AfD. I am voting "keep" here as this list would be limited compared w/ the "List of dictators". I suggest renaming it List of alleged Islamic cults and source every single entry (i.e. Who considers X is a cult and how others respond to that). --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  09:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment If this article were to be kept as a list, it would remain inherently biased. The dubious sources suggested by this article's proponents (see Talk:Islamic Cults) consist of blogs, wikis, and religious / political propaganda and do not constitute reliable sources. In the three days since its creation this article has further degenerated, with communities being added pell-mell, being labeled cults without cited sources or justification. Fodder for exclusivist religious propaganda is orginial research at best, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia would undermine its own credbility and neutral point of view by sponsoring such a forum. -- Aylahs (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * re comment I really don't have strong feelings toward this article and my opinion would change of course in case no serious sources are brought. I just believe that this article should never be a list. I totally agree w/ you in that if it is kept as a list it would be biased but i am supporting it as an article; a discussion on how Islam regards cults. Mainstream Islam classifies many other beliefs/sects/doctrines as cults and that is a fact and we should only bring sourced facts like who says X is a cult and why. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * re comment No credible sources describing Islamic cults have been brought forward, instead this article has expanded chaotically and is now labelling significant historical Muslim communities as cults. Even when viewed against developments in the Islamic world, this article goes against the Muslim spirit of respect, moderation and rational dialogue. By contrast, recent endeavours among Muslim authorities of all interpretations have been aimed at increasing mutual respect.


 * A relevant example is the landmark International Islamic Conference held in Amman, Jordan in July, 2005. It brought together scholars, leading authorities and representatives from eight Shia and Sunni schools of thought (Madhahib): Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Zaydi, Ibadi and Thahiri (each of the so-called cults on this page typically adheres to one of these schools). In his address to the conference, King Abdullah II of Jordan said "what is going on in Iraq, Pakistan and other Muslim countries in the form of accusations of apostasy... do not correspond to the principles and spirit of Islam, and Islam disavows them." He continued "in the practice of their faith, the adherents to each of these eight schools of jurisprudence are practicing true Islam," and noted that "the fatwas of the prominent scholars of the Islamic Ummah also accepted as legitimate all forms of worship practiced by adherents to the eight Islamic schools of thought in accordance with their own Madhab."  Finally, he reminded the conference participants that "primary among our obligations as Muslims is to present to the world the true essence of Islam - the religion of moderation, forgiveness, mercy and rational, scientific dialogue. Islam is not the religion of violence and terrorism, or prejudice and isolation."  In their final statement, the conference participants agreed that (i) they are all Muslim, and declaring any person an apostate is impossible; (ii) there exists more in common between the various Schools than there is difference; (iii) no one may issue a fatwa without the requisite personal qualifications; (iv) they called for disagreement between Muslims to be cast aside, and a reaffirmation of their mutual respect for each other.


 * The conference outcome was endorsed by the highest authorities in the Muslim world: Grand Imam Shaykh al-Azhar, Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Sistani, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ja‘fari and Zaydi Shi‘i clerics (including His Highness the Aga Khan, Imam of the Ismailis - see his statement and related news), the Grand Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Grand Council for Religious Affairs of Turkey, and the Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. So even from the perspective of the mainstream Muslim Ummah (community), this article is out of step with all of the major schools of Islamic interpretation.


 * In Islam there is no concept of a cult; it is a term borrowed from western, orientalist lexicon. Its application in the context of Muslim communities is tantamount to an accusation of appostacy. By its nature, this article will sew discord and disagreement and undermines the building of mutual respect between communities. It neccessarily promotes fictitious propaganda issued by people without authority or standing, because those who do have legitimate authoity in the Muslim world are committed to reaffirming respect and setting aside disagreement (as noted above).


 * From a wikipedia standpoint, this all boils down to three things:
 * This article contains no reliable sources (and one would be hard pressed to find any), and the claims asserted by this article are not verifiable;
 * The title and very nature of this article precludes a neutral point of view. It is a POV fork of Divisions of Islam;
 * The article inherently engages in inventing or asserting new information (original research) by its declaration of the existance Islamic cults, which have no basis in the history or traditions of Islam; and by unilaterally applying the term to any group the editors wish to malign. Currently, the article appears to condemn the entire Shia community as a cult (see the main article under Jaffri). This would be equivalent to condemning the entire Protestant movement in Christianity as a cult.


 * The Wikipedia deletion guidelines state that the "three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This article clearly falls short on all three, and by its very nature, it excludes itself from the possibility of ever meeting them. There is no question - this article should be deleted.
 * -- Aylahs (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this comment; it helps to illustrate that there is unity within the Divisions of Islam. When I saw this article & afd, I expected that the article will contain a list of Islamic groups that are not listed on Divisions of Islam.  A closer inspection shows that Islamic Cults is a bad start at that.  However, a quick comparison of the two articles shows that many of the "groups" on Islamic Cults are not found on Divisions of Islam (The Assassins, Wahabi, Haruriyya, Zindikites ... to list a few that WP has real articles about).  Are any of these likely to be added to Divisions of Islam?  If so, I think a quick merge is in order, and then the Islamic Cults article can be deleted.  Of those I have listed, which are not candidates for the Divisions of Islam article; what would you call those "groups" that fall outside of Islam?  I'm not a fan of the word cult, so I'm hoping there is a Islamic term that we could use instead? John Vandenberg 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is well-intentioned, but a careful examination of the groups that you mentioned reveals that many are pejorative names of groups that are already listed in Divisions of Islam. For example, Assassins or Hashshashin are pejorative references to the 12th century Ismailis, and the Wahabi prefer the term Salafi. Both groups are already listed in the Divisions of Islam article - it is quite comprehensive. Some of the other terms used in this article are straightforward derogatory slurs. I don't see anything in this article that would add value to Divisions of Islam, in fact an attempt to merge is likely to undermine the quality of the Divisions article. I still think the best course of action is to Delete this article. -- Aylahs (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can see by reading WP articles, The Assassins and Nizari are two different groups within Ismaili that are not listed on Divisions of Islam. What I am driving at here is whether any of these are outcasts of mainstream Islam; if so, do you object to them being listed on an auxiliary article (name yet to be determined) that would complement Divisions of Islam. John Vandenberg 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the Divisions of Islam article already addresses this. It includes an Other Sects section describing those that consider themselves to be Muslim but are not recognized as such by the mainstream, and a Related Faiths section of groups who do not consider themselves to be Muslim, but who have a historic connection with Islam. With respect to the Assassins, it is a derogatory way of refering to the 12th century Nizari Ismailis. The Nizari are in fact the largest community of interpretation among the wider Ismailiyah and the term Ismaili typically refers to them in common parlance. Incidentally, the Ismailis also belong to the Ja‘fari Madhhab (school of thought). (See the Ismaili Imam's message to the International Islamic Conference.) -- Aylahs (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This still doesnt address the perceived gap I am talking about. If Divisions of Islam is to be NPOV, it should be possible to reach all sects from it. The more direct the link the better IMO; I cant find a link between Divisions of Islam and Nizari (or many of the other groups I've run into over the last hour of research). The problem is that there is bound to be some Islamic groups that are not "sects" (i.e. they are radical deviations from "core" values) and as such I doubt belong on Divisions of Islam -- however they are often notable (similar to Branch Davidian listed on List of groups referred to as cults) -- personally I think a list of these groups would be a good idea, as it draws a line between Islam and those groups, with intelligent explanations of why they are a "cult". That new page can then be added to the See also section of Divisions of Islam, and watched like a hawk to ensure it stays in reasonable shape. John Vandenberg 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The difficulty here is that there are attempts by individuals to invent groups, make baseless claims about their beliefs and practices, then assign their invented moniker to communities practicing valid, historic interpretations. It generates propaganda, confusion and mistrust. These groups are further maligned through labels such as cult, apostate etc in an attempt to narrow the historic pluralism of Islamic interpretation.
 * Radicalism is the antithesis of Islam and has nothing to do with it as a religion. Of course there are radical political movements that seek to use religion as a vehicle; however, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Islam. And unlike Christianity where there is a clear separation between Church and State, Islam does not traditionally make such a distinction; so it becomes difficult to distingish a radical religious movement from a political one.
 * So the dilema: is it possible to create a credible article, with reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and free of pejorative monikers and invented sects, that justly situates certain groups outside the boundaries of mainstream Islam? Given the fluid, pluralist and inclusive nature of Islam and its history, I think that would be very difficult. If we refer back to the statement of the International Islamic Conference, it is inclusive, affirming the fundamental beliefs of those who are Muslim. Beyond the fundamentals, it states that "disagreement... is a mercy" and "variance in opinion... is a good affair." The bottom line is that such an article would require its subject to be a black and white issue - but it is not; it is resolutely grey. -- Aylahs (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment John Vendenberg's hope for an "Islamic" term that could be used instead of "cult" strikes at the very heart of the matter of why this article must be deleted permanently. There is no word in Islamic languages that adequately translates as "cult."  The reasons for this are many, one of which is historical. Unlike in Christianity, which had a central church to define an "orthodoxy," there is no such institution in Islam.  While there have always been very vigorous debates in the 1400 years of Muslim history over which interpretation of Islam is correct, the idea of "cults," in the negative English sense of that word, has not arisen.  The terms commonly used to describe different groups within Islam (or even accused of deviating from Islam) include "hizb" (Arabic حزب), which generally falls much more within the realm of political parties; firqa (Arabic فرقة), which simply means division; tariqa (Arabic طريقة), which means "a path"; and al-milal wa'l-nihal (Arabic الملل والنحل), which basically means "communities and groups".  None of these can be construed to mean "cult" in the sense that it's being used in this article.  In fact, the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed, published by E.J. Brill), which is the standard scholarly reference work for subjects such as these, never uses the term "cult" in this sense in any of its thousands of articles dealing with Islam, nor is a single Arabic, Persian, Turkish or Urdu word in the extensive glossary of the Encyclopaedia of Islam translated to mean "cult" in this sense.  The term simply does not exist in the major Islamic languages, and it carries cultural baggage in English that does not translate into the historical experience of the Muslim community.  Dr. D. Gimaret, in his article on "al-milal wa'l-nihal" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, even suggests that the word "heresy" is inappropriate, let alone "cult," and instead prefers to call this branch of religious polemics as "doxographical" rather than "heresiographical."  In short, we cannot impose a category such as "cults" on Islam, when that category simply doesn't exist in Muslim works written in Islamic languages, any more than we can force Christianity to be studied in terms of Islamic concepts that may have no relevance to the Christian tradition. 74.12.145.234 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is either invented original research or about using wikipedia as a soapbox to offend people. It will cause edit wars and goes against the spirit of wikipedia Scoutfinch07 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Tainter, using cult in the title is biased this POV content doesn't belong Miks110 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Aylahs.  ITAQALLAH   21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see how this will be limited compared to the list of dictators. Anybody who wants to describe any group as a cult could add them here. No real sources have been used, its just a bunch of people imposing their POV and probably lots of groups listed don't even know so they can defend themselves. Eagle68 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks verifiable content.. beliefs section is heavy POV and the rest exists in other credible wikipedia articles Meg3 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Nothing wrong with keeping all the sects in one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.206.56 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 January 2007
 * *Strong keep See Nation of Islam and also the other sects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblood786 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 January 2007 - duplicate "vote" removed  Proto ::  ►  13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Aylahs' very persuasive arguments. Denni talk 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep / Crucial / Mandatory :: I would like to vote in the favor of keeping this very crucial article, specially in the age of wanna-be "Muslim" sects like Al-Ahbash, Ahmadis, Qadianis .etc just to help the world readers to differentiate between the mainstream Muslims and the sects. As a matter of fact, NOT keeping this article corroborates the camoflaudge of these sects to hide behind mainstream Muslims to seek legitimacy, recruitment .etc. It has nothing to do with Muslim unity whatsoever. I hope Wikipedia Administrators will be mindful / careful of all those proponents / adherents of these sects who will try their best to make this page "controversial" to get it deleted from the Wikipedia. McKhan


 * Strong Keep* In todays world we in the United States see bombings between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq and than witness all kinds of individuals stating that they are the main stream Islam, while in fact Mainstream muslims who constitute over 99% of Islam in Shia and Sunnis but people dont know who to look at.   In fact, if one is to look up the suicide bombers it is clear that most of them are members of a sect that follows extremist views such as going to heaven by killing innocent people, while vast majority of muslims are clearly opposed to this. In order to understand Islam and the mainstream Islam it is incumbent upon the editors to have these cults and sects in one section where it is all for see what these small sects really beliveve in.   For instance, the Qadianis claim they have 200 million followers while in fact they have less than 10 million members, the Aga Khanis are less than 5 million members, the Nation of Islam maybe one half million, these sects are not mainstreams.

Just as in Christianity there are the cults such as David Koresh's Branch Dravidians, and the Chritian Identity up in Idaho, those cults do not represent mainstream Christianity, and these cults are listed separately. If one is to look up th Encyclopedia of American Religion, Fourth Edition by J. Gordon Melton, The Encylcopedia lists every single religion in America, including each of the cults mentioned in this article. Thus to delete this article would be unfair.

In fact it would be the same as deleting on the Nation of Islam article the critisms of Nation of Islam. In fact if one puts up anything in the Ismaili article the users who are followers of that particular brand of Islam call it vandalism, while in fact it is a viewpoint which is different than that held by the followers. In one instance a statement was added to the Wahabi sect and a user from Israel objected, eventhough, I doubt very much that Israelis have a very deep understanding of Wahabis, the user called it vandalism, while in truth and fact the United States Government and in particulara the FBI has stated that Wahabis are extremists and that the 9/11 hijackers were all wahabis and that Osama Bin Ladin proclaims himself to be a Wahabi, but the reference was deleted as being untrue and as vandalism.

Here if one is to listen to the argument put forward by the adherents of the view that Islam is a pluralistic religion and all are accepted, than we would not be witnessing over 90 dead bodies in Iraq everyday. In fact my own nephew who was with the 4ID in Iraq was a victim of the cultish violence, in fact he won a purple heart for his bravery. We have to identify the cults in Islam so that the world can see that these cult followers even with their billions of dollars who have bought our Government in Washington, do not in fact represent Islam.

Obvioiusly, the Mormon cultist who was marying off 12 year old girls also did not consider himself to be a cultist. If only the viewpoint of the particular follower of the cult or sect are listed than Wikipedia cannot be called an Encyclopedia but rather a proponent of only the views of the sects or cults that want to propogate their own viewpoints.

I hope that the editors are mindful of the viewpoint that to make a complete encyclopedia all viewpoints must be published.

Thanks for taking the time to consider the above. trueblood 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Exposing cults is not the point, the issue here is that both sides of an issue must be represented. Thus, if former members of certain cults believe that the subject cult is a cult who is a third party to say, therefore it should be included. Furthermore, like in the Hindu Cults in the US the former members did come forward, however the cult members tried to destry the former members. Look at the history of the Church of Scientology. If the opinion of hte deletists is accepted than only the official histories of the cults would be public and the public would be deprived.
 * strong keep Some of the comments above seem to have been made on the basis of the religious view that are no cults in Islam. We have no business deleting an article on the basis of such bias. DGG 07:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and in consideration of McKhan's comments above: exposing various sects as deviant is the last thing we should be here to do.Proabivouac 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

trueblood 19:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC) - duplicate "vote" removed. Proto ::  ►  13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Trueblood786, you may only register your recommendation to keep once, not thrice, as you've done.Proabivouac 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proponents of this article argue that acts of political violence by individuals of a particular religious persuasion justify maligning their entire religious community. How would this logic play out if applied to the Irish Republican Army or the Basque independance movement ETA, whose members are largely Catholic? It would justifiably not be accepted.
 * This article asserts that "cults are new groups with a new novel theology", but the groups listed bear no relation to this definition. For example, the article lists Salafism as a cult (using the pejorative Wahabi), but this is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia - is that country's population of some 27 million Muslims to be characterized as followers of a cult? Similarly, the article listed the Ismailis as a cult (using the pejorative term Aga Khani). Yet legitimate, modern scholarship recognized by academics internationally states otherwise: "The Ismailis constitute the second largest Shi’i community," and “have had a long and eventful history. (Daftary, Farhad, "The Isma'ilis: their history and doctrines", published in 1990 by Cambridge University Press, page xv) . Unjustified inclusions like this are either original research or patently false.
 * The notion of cult has its origins in Christanity, and the word and its connotations have evolved in the Western milieu. By contrast, the traditional languages of Islam do not have a word analogous to "cult". Islam is an inclusive tradition, and has evolved multiple schools of interpretation, each distinct but mutually respectful of one another. This pluralism, which is central to the Muslim ethos, is founded on the Qur'anic injunction, and provides no basis for the notion of cult in an Islamic context. Therefore, this article through the invented notion of Islamic Cult is introducing original research.
 * Wikipedia is founded on three key policies: that information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors are required to uphold these policies, and are encouraged to be bold in removing doubtful and harmful information. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales could not emphasize this more strongly:
 * I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced... We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
 * I maintain my position that this article be deleted and further suggest that, together with its talk page and redirects, it be permanently protected against recreation. To protect wikipedia from potential liability, I also suggest purging the historical revisions together with their edit summaries. -- Aylahs (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Some information shoukd be merged to relevant articles, e.g. Divisions of Islam. --Magabund 23:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The concept of an Islamic 'cult' seems like an invention to me. Besides, the article really doesn't have any citations or references whatsoever. --Bluerain talk 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  TruthSpreader reply 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.