Template talk:Aqidah

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aqidah template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Islam Islam portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Murjiah and using "extinct"

The list is not accurate, Mu'tazili is the main shia school but historically it was heavily adopted by those sunni in fiqh (like hanafi mutazilis). So it should be an OTHER school. Moreover, Murjia are definately NOT extinct, some scholars argue that a HUGE proportion of Muslims are influence by murjia philsophy hence why so many muslims you come across don't pray salah! I've named it Other schools because they are alive and kicking sadly lol. Sakimonk ^talk 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but they aren't shia exclusively Sakimonk ^talk 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the schools listed under shia as other, except bataniyah, that's all im asking. because many who follow them weren't shia. Only in modern times it is mostly shia thanks to the dawah of the Sunni leaders following the crusades and Imam Ghazali etc. most Sunnis gave up these deviant ideas but shias kept them. Sakimonk ^talk 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you fix the bracket under sunni Islam, it looks so ugly! Sakimonk ^talk 17:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two threads concerning now-undone edits by sock of blocked editor

Kharijites & terrorist groups @TheDestroyer10: Almost the entire population of Oman is Kharijites, adhering to a sub sect called Ibadis. Do you honestly think 3/4 Oman are terrorists? Secondly, heretics is POV term. They are heretics to Sunni Muslims, and Wikipedia shouldn't be using that term to label an entire religious sect. Thirdly, Al-Qaeda, ISIL, etc are terrorist Sunni groups. They do not therefore belong there. If they are not Sunni, they are Wahabi/Salafi a group sometimes seen to be separate of Sunni Muslims, which already has been listed.--Peaceworld 10:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Peaceworld111: Hi, thanks for your message. Almost the entire population of Oman is Kharijites, adhering to a sub sect called Ibadis. Do you honestly think 3/4 Oman are terrorists? My opinion doesn't matter here, because Wikipedia deals with controversy by finding out the facts from all sides, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Throughout Islamic history, Sunnis considered Ibadis as Kharijis who caused the disunity of the Muslim community. Ibadis, in turn, thought of Sunnis as submissive to political corruption and as deviant from the straight path. Source: The Other Frontiers of Arab Nationalism: Ibadis, Berbers, and the Arabist-Salafi Press in the Interwar Period by Amal N. Ghazal. And if you speak Arabic: بوابة الحركات الاسلامية: الإباضية.. النشأة .. التاريخ.. والواقع أحمد كريمة: دَرّست مع وزير الأوقاف مذهب الأباضية رغم مخالفته للعقيدة The most important groups among the Kharijites are the Muhakkima, the Azariqa, the Najdat, the Baihasiya, the 'Ajarida, the Tha'aliba, the Ibadiya and the Sufriya. The others are subdivisions of these. Common to them all is dissociation from 'Uthman and 'Ali which they consider of greater moment than any other act of obedience. Marriages, moreover, are only allowed on this condition. They hold, too, that those who commit grave sins are unbelievers, and that rebellion against an imām who opposes sunna is a duty and an obligation. Source: Muslim Sects and Divisions by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Karim Shahrastani (Author), A. K. Kazi (Translator), J. G. Flynn (Translator). The Kharijites are the earliest Islamic sect, who were known for their intolerance, fanaticism and exclusiveness. The immediate cause of the Kharijite split was the arbitration to which Ali, after being victorious against Muawiya in the battle of Siffin in the year 648 A.D., submitted. The Kharijites denounced Ali for submitting to human arbitration, because God is sole judge and arbiter. These fanatic rebels fought against Ali, and after his assassination, against the Umayyads. The Kharijites totally rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without deeds. They emphasized the deeds as an essential part of faith. Anyone who has committed a mortal sin is an unbeliever, an apostate. All non-Khariji Muslims are regarded as apostates by them. Source: Journal of Dharma - Volume 12 - Page 16. The Kharijites of the past & QSIS of today: two faces of the same coin? More sources: Political Theory and Institutions of the Khawārij by Elie Adib Salem. Modern Intellectual Readings of the Kharijites (American University Studies) by Hussam S. Timani. Muslim Rebels: Kharijites and the Politics of Extremism in Egypt by Jeffrey T. Kenney. Kharijites: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide by Tamara Sonn and Adam Farrar. By the way, there is a hadith saying that, "The Kharijites are the Dogs of Hellfire." Now, which do you prefer "Heretics" or "Dogs of Hellfire"? Hahaha, just kidding. We can replace this word "heretics" with "takfiris." What do you think?--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @TheDestroyer10: I'm sorry, you still cannot write that, neither "Heretics" or "takfiris", for the exact reason, as you stated "Sunnis considered Ibadis as Kharijis who caused the disunity of the Muslim community. Ibadis, in turn, thought of Sunnis as submissive to political corruption and as deviant from the straight path," which is a WP:POV held by Sunni Muslims, and therefore contravenes NPOV policies.--Peaceworld 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Peaceworld111: Bring up your proofs (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) as you were the one who started this discussion, or I will use my right to do what I want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. "The Kharijites were takfiris, that is, they damned as unbelievers the perpetrators of grave sins. Allegiance to rival authorities was such a sin, so those who rejected Kharijite claims were, in their estimation tantamount to apostates, who had forfeited the civil protection owed to believers. The Kharijite movement fomented rebellions for centuries." Source: The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn by Richard McGregor, Lenn E. Goodman. "neo-Kharijites (Takfiri groups)." Source: The De-Radicalization of Jihadists: Transforming Armed Islamist Movements (Contemporary Terrorism Studies) by Omar Ashour. "A derogatory name used in modern Muslim societies to designate a radical Islamist who attacks fellow Muslims, Khariji, along with terms such as jihadi and takfiri (one who excommunicates fellow Muslims)" Source: Encyclopedia of Global Religion - Page 660.--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @TheDestroyer10: This discussion has been too short to even get it accepted at WP:ANI. Perhaps you want third opinion, or an opinion from another experienced editor/trusted admin?--Peaceworld 09:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Peaceworld111: Actually, there is no need for discussion at all, because the matter is so clear and plain: Khawarij. recent disruption @TheDestroyer10: your recent edits have been causing much disruption in this template. Please discuss your edits here before going through. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FreeatlastChitchat: Are you kidding me? What you did is clear vandalism. If you have any dispute about anything, you should discuss it first!--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @TheDestroyer10: You have already been reverted by one other user. Yet you continue to include your text , which is completely POV and not supported by any source. To post something in a template this extensive and exclusive at least make sure the guy is notable enough to have an article. Abu al-Mu'in al-Nasafi Abu al-Barakat al-Nasafi Muhammad al-Nasafi al-Makhuli Abu al-Qasim al-Hakim al-Samarqandi Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi Al-Kamal ibn al-Hammam Kamal al-Din Ahmad al-Bayadi all have red links, so I will remove them. If you think something should be in the template, make an article then include. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] And I've undone the edits by TheDestroyer10 again. Per WP:BRD this needs to be discussed here. And it's certainly not a minor edit to restore a contested change to the template. Meters (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] And again. Meters (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FreeatlastChitchat: Why did you suddenly change your mind & deleted all my edits Here? I will bring several sources for the names you have mentioned soon.--TheDestroyer10 (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @TheDestroyer10: Yes, I restored the template to its pre-war version when none of our were in play. Perhaps you can discuss your edits as to why they are needed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Start by reading WP:TEMPLATE. This is a template. Any changes to it are immediately included in dozens of articles, so it's particularly important that any changes to it be agreed to by other editors. Adding redlinked articles to the template is definitely not a good idea. Once the articles are written the advisability of including them in the template can be discussed. Meters (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FreeatlastChitchat: Here are the sources: Al-Maturidi and the Development of Sunni Theology in Samarqand by Ulrich Rudolph. Roots of Synthetic Theology in Islam: A Study of the Theology of Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi by Mustafa Ceric. The Canonization of al-Bukhr and Muslim by Jonathan Brown. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam - Page 45. Istihsan: The Doctrine of Juristic Preference in Islamic Law by Saim Kayadibi. Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam by Jeffry R. Halverson. A study on Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and his controversies in Transoxiana by Fathalla Kholeif. And you can also see this link (in Arabic) --TheDestroyer10 (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @TheDestroyer10: and what exactly does this show? What part of your contributions comes from which source? And just why should we include redlinks? Any rationale accroding to policy? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Destroyer blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Fatih (the conqueror of Constantinople)

the list contains too many irrelevant people like Muhammad al-Fatih (the conqueror of Constantinople) and Ali Ünal. In addition many names are on the Sufism template listed here.. They should be deleted68.100.166.209 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Template:Sufism

Many of the names listed here, see * Notable early * Notable modern should not be repeated on this Template:Aqidah. This is not the purpose of the template. Even these names are not listed explicitly on Template:Sufism but links are given like * Notable early * Notable modern 68.100.166.209 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karramiyyah

Should we add the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karramiyya to the template? DivineReality (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]