Talk:Sunni Islam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unfounded and Reference-less Assertions

Don't know why but this page is full of claims without any reference to the source, leave alone a reliable and verifiable source. Needs a thorough cleanup.RezviMasood (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: What are you on about? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: There are many assertions which need quotation of a neutral verifiable independent source. I have tried a little bit to improve the academic quality of the page by removing such assertions which completely lacked the source. More require to be removed pending quotation of source. Request fellow contributors to kindly add information with acceptable references only. So that the information becomes meaningful for a neutral researcher. Winter vacation coming I will probably be able to devote more time to the job. Warm regards. RezviMasood (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@ResviMasood: so everything you removed is contentious or disputed, and where there was a nearby source you checked to make sure that it didn’t also cover the material you deleted? Doug Weller talk 08:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: Also why do they need a neutral source? Nothing is wrong with a WP:BIASEDSOURCE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

But if these sources are biased it should be mentioned and not written like it is part of Sunnism, I guess. If biased information dominant the article (especially then it is about 90% of Muslims) it is better to remove it to avoid confusen and making this article distracting.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have not removed things because they are disputed. Most of the things have been removed for want of a source. If the editor knows the source he / she may kindly restore them after inserting proper source. RezviMasood (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That’s probably a bad idea, especially if you’ve removed text that is widely accepted to be accurate. I know you’ve removed some accurate text about relationships because you didn’t like it. And we aren’t a neutral encyclopaedia, we allow sources with a point of view. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: citations need to be done properly and for books contain page numbers. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"we allow sources with a point of view" - only when we attribute that point of view to the source. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I do not think that I have removed texts about relationship because I did not like them. I have removed relationship of both Abu Bakr and Ali, because they were out of context here. Because that relationship was not the criteria for selection of caliphate.RezviMasood (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Okay I will add the relevant page numbers. But are we going to ensure the same for all citations?RezviMasood (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Both the sources quoted are a detailed discussion of the aftermath of Prophet's death and his succession. One i.e. Maududi is a known Sunni scholar and the second Jafri's book is a Doctoral Dissertation and dwells upon the Demographic and the Social milieu in which these things were taking shape and has extensively analysed its own sources for their neutrality. Excluding the sources of early history having any bias to the Sunni or the Shia point of view. I invite any interested reader to go through the introductory chapter and the chapter on methodology.RezviMasood (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I think I have questioned only one source which is a webpage. I quote "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters" from WP:BIASEDSOURCE referred by you. And don't you think @VenusFeuerFalle: has made a point for usRezviMasood (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: Webpages can be reliable sources if by an expert in the field. The point made by VenusFeuerFalle doesn't make sense to me, so I suggest if they explain if they want that point to be taken seriously. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Dont you think that the the phrase "Unlike the first three caliphs, (Rashidun), Ali was ..." gives a false impression that Sunnis believe only the first three Caliphs to be included in Rashidun and exclude Ali from it? is it a factual position?RezviMasood (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Regarding acceptability of web pages I differ on the ground "...be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." from WP:BIASEDSOURCE RezviMasood (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: Actually you are correct about with regards to the Rashidun. That should be change to the first three caliphs of the Rashidun or something along those lines. What bit exactly do you differ on in regards to the acceptability of web pages?

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you so much for accepting my point. In fact from the succession line remove the word Rashidun. That the first four are considered Rashidun is already addressed below on this page. I quote "The first four caliphs are known among Sunnis as the Rashidun or "Rightly-Guided Ones"..."RezviMasood (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Regarding reliance on web page, yes I have my serious reservations. Cant we find a better source to make the same point?RezviMasood (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Which web page? What point? You can always add {{better source needed}} (template:better source needed). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Okay revert it but add the suggested {{better source needed}} tag there.... Happy editig... I am going offline for few hours... Will join you afterwardsRezviMasood (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

RezviMasood has remove material that he says isn't disputed but is unsourced, but left in material with old citation needed tags. This is not improving the article. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: and @Emir of Wikipedia: if you don't mind I may try modification of the sentence "Unlike the first three caliphs, (Rashidun), Ali was from...." to make it more objectively correct. Without removing any content. RezviMasood (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Shall we just revert back to the version before Rezvi edited, and work from there? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: How about putting it this way "Unlike the first three caliphs, Ali was from the same clan as Muhammad, Banu Hashim, and Shia Muslims consider him legitimate, inter alia, by favour of his blood ties to Muhammad. The Sunnis consider all four of them the "Rightly Guided ones" ([Rashidun]).

Or as under "Unlike the first three caliphs, Ali was from the same clan as Muhammad, Banu Hashim, and Shia Muslims consider him legitimate, inter alia, by favour of his blood ties to Muhammad" Because the information that all the four are considered Rashidun is already available on the page in the following text. RezviMasood (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Under the section on "History" it is already there as under:

"The first four caliphs are known among Sunnis as the Rashidun or "Rightly-Guided Ones". Sunni recognition includes the aforementioned Abu Bakr as the first, Umar as the second, Uthman as the third, and Ali as the fourth." RezviMasood (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the page has again become badly lacking citation and if I am not wrong Wikipedia encourages removal of such material over addition of Citation needed tag because this just increase the pending work and makes the page less reliable for a visitor. Let's hope we by exercising a little more rigor will provide all necessary acceptable citations soon . RezviMasood (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: Can you provide WP:DIFFS showing where that has happened? I restored some text that was actually in the source, so I doubt it was me. Policy actually says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Doug Weller talk 14:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For example the entire section on "Sunni view of hadith" is without any reference at all. There are other such sections too. Now I have tagged many of them you can see on the page. Another thing I couldn't understand is why some of us here on this page are insistent on permissibility to use WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Any how I think now let's leave it to the original author of those sections to provide the reference. RezviMasood (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This bit is now an unacceptable mess

Pillars of iman[edit] Main articles: Iman (concept) and Islamic theology All the branches of Sunni Islam testify to six principal articles of faith known as the six pillars of iman (Arabic for "faith"),[35] which are believed to be essential for salvation. These are: Beliefs of the Sunnis may be listed as under (Asterisk * show those beliefs in which some Sunnis disagree):

Belief in the six principal articles of faith being essential for salvation for Muslims[36]
Belief in God having created creation with His wisdom[37]
Belief in Muhammad having been the Seal of the Prophets or the last prophet sent to mankind[38]
Belief in the Quran being the eternal, uncreated Word of God[39]
Belief in the beatific vision being a reality in the afterlife, even if it will not be all-encompassing and the "manner" of it remains unknown[40]
Belief in the Night Journey of Muhammad having happened in a bodily form, while he was "awake"[41]
Belief in the intercession of Muhammad being a reality on the Last Day[42]
Belief in God's covenant with Adam and his offspring having been "true"[43]
Belief in Abraham having been God's "intimate friend"[44]
Belief in Moses having conversed directly with God without a mediator[44]
Belief in the idea that wrong works in themselves does not make a Muslim an "unbeliever" and that it is forbidden to declare takfir on those who know that what they are doing is wrong[45]
Belief in it being wrong to "make a distinction" between the various prophets of God[46]
Belief in believing in that which "all the prophets" brought from God[46]
Belief in avoiding "deviations, divisions, and differences" in the fold of Islam[47]
Belief in venerating all the Companions of Muhammad[48]
Belief in the existence of saints, and in venerating them and accepting the traditional narratives of their lives and miracles[49] (*)
Belief that saints, while exalted in their own right, occupy an infinitely lesser rank than the prophets and that "one of the prophets is greater than all the saints put together"[49] (*)
Belief in the Signs of the Apocalypse[50]
Belief that Jesus is the Promised Messiah of God and that all Muslims await his Second Coming[50]
These six articles are what all present-day Sunnis agree on, from those who adhere to traditional Sunnism to those who adhere to latter-day movements.

First, "These are: Beliefs of the Sunnis may be listed as under (Asterisk * show those beliefs in which some Sunnis disagree):" isn't proper English and is unsourced - it had a citation needed tag but that's been removed, which is contrary to what the editor said they were trying to do.

Secondly the 6 pillars aren't listed, although the bottom of a list of other beliefs, some of which have asterisks saying that not all Sunnis believe in it, there is the statement "These six articles are what all present-day Sunnis agree on, from those who adhere to traditional Sunnism to those who adhere to latter-day movements." That makes absolutely no sense. I'm beginning to think this all needs reverting. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that a list of the six principles should be there. But what I suggested was only a valid source. And there must be many. We should try to find and and include some of them in the article. Best regards RezviMasood (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope your problem has been addressed adequately along with a reliable source. RezviMasood (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of references and further reading material

Friends I hope Wikipedia is meant to inform not to conceal information. I hope that it is a policy here to remove unreferenced material and to provide reliable references where needed. I inserted a very reliable and neutral source "The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam" here

"Unlike the first three caliphs, (Rashidun), Ali was from the same clan as Muhammad, Banu Hashim, and Shia Muslims consider him legitimate, inter alia, by favour of his blood ties to Muhammad."

This book completely outlines the difference on succession of Muhammad and how these differences ultimately led to the formation of separate Sunni and Shia sects. I also included it in the list of Further Reading.

I am surprised that it has been promptly removed on the stated ground "Undid revision 815867816 by Doug Weller (talk) rv myself, why was this published by Lulu if it's also published by OUP Pakistan?"  

Well let me add it is also published by Oxford University Press. You can find it here: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780195793871

Now will anyone enlighten me whether publication of a book by multiple publishers makes it more reliable or less reliable? And in case you say it makes it less reliable kindly refer the Wikipedia policy in your support. Regards RezviMasood (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC) RezviMasood (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral to be reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@RezviMasood: I'm very concerned about the comments above, as they don't reflect what happened. Yes, I removed it as the link was to a Lulu published book. I then restored it as it's an OUP book. Yet you seem to have missed this entirely and are asking why it was removed. This is pretty careless of you and I hope is a one-off and that you aren't making similar errors in your editing. We don't include sources in further reading, by the way. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Doug Weller:... RezviMasood (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Tag bombing

@RezviMasood: I'm reverting your latest series of edits as it included a major WP:TAGBOMBING run. Please note that WP:V doesn't require text to be sourced; it requires content to be verifiable. This means that cn tags shouldn't be added unless you have a good reason for challenging the content. Some of your tags were introduced in the middle of text with citations, for unclear reasons (have you checked the next cited source?). Some were placed in sections which are a WP:SUMMARY of the lead from the corresponding main article, which you should consult if you're concerned about the sourcing. Some were statements of common knowledge, and it's not clear what your issue was. Your efforts to improve this somewhat sloppy article are welcome, but please take the time to actually improve it and explain the reasoning behind your edits rather than simply covering it with tags. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Eperoton: for enlightening me on the policy. Regards RezviMasood (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

the lede could be more clearly phrased

hi, i think the lede is unclearly phrased

"Sunni Islam primarily contrasts with Shi'a Islam, which holds that Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, not Abu Bakr, was his first caliph"

i am writing this from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar in this subject and having read this phrase it wasnt until I read the intro to the Shi'a Islam article that i realised what this is saying, that Sunni Islam hold's that Muhammed did not appoint a successor.

The Shia Islam page has a simmilar phrase in the lede differentiating Sunni and Shia Islam but the Shia Islam page has an additional sentence which further clarifies in positive terms what Shia Islam holds

"Shia Islam primarily contrasts with Sunni Islam, whose adherents believe that Muhammad did not appoint a successor. Instead they consider Abu Bakr (who was appointed Caliph through a Shura, i.e. consensus) to be the correct Caliph"

- I think this is why the currnet phrase is confusing, because it uses a negative to say what Sunni Islam -does not hold- which is that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the first caliph, instead of saying -in positive terms- what Sunni Islam -does-hold.

I propose adding an additional sentence to this article after the sentence I have highlighted which puts in positive terms that - eg

"Instead they consider that Muhammed did not appoint a successor."

-or more accurately what Sunni Islam holds. As I said I am completely uninformed in this topic so do not feel very equipped to write this additional clarifying sentence but think adding one would be helpful in making the lede clearer and would make the article consistent with the phrasing of the Shia Islam which is clear and which could be good for further clarity. I could work out what the phrase would be which wouldnt be much more than my proposal but if someone feels more qualified please add a sentence instead, I wont add my draft sentence to the page.

Best Veilofdarkness12 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the opening of the lead is poorly written, but I think it needs a more thorough solution. The two opening sentences are trying to define the term through its history, and instead end up obscuring and trivializing the subject. Some -- seeimingly most -- encyclopedias don't attempt to explain the Sunni/Shia split in the opening sentences at all, leaving it for later:

 The Sunnis are the largest branch of the Muslim community, at least 85 percent of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. The name is derived from the Sunnah, the exemplary behavior of the Prophet Muhammad. (The Oxford Dictionary of Islam)

 Practiced by the majority of Muslims, Sunnī Islam is based primarily on the sunnah, the customary practice of the prophet Muḥammad. (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World)

 the belief and practice of mainstream, as opposed to Shia, Islam (see Shiites). Sunni Muslims, constituting over 80% of all believers, follow the sunna, a code of practice based on the hadith collected in the Sihah Satta, six authentic Books of Tradition about the prophet Muhammad. (A Dictionary of World History (2 ed.), Oxford University Press)

 Arabic Sunnī, member of one of the two major branches of Islam, the branch that consists of the majority of that religion’s adherents. Sunni Muslims regard their sect as the mainstream and traditionalist branch of Islam, as distinguished from the minority sect, the Shīʿites. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Those that do mention the split right at the outset, explain something about the different conceptions of political legitimacy rather than just mention the names:

 The Sunni movement can be identified in terms of its differences with the second largest division of Islam, the Shi'ite, with whom it shares the fundamental creed of Islam. After the death of the Prophet, the political issue of how leadership was to be chosen split the new community. The Shi'a of Ali (literally, the party of Ali) insisted that the Prophet had intended for his cousin Ali to succeed him, while the majority of Muslims maintained that the caliph should be elected and did not have to belong to the Prophet’s family. The Sunnis maintained that since the Prophet had not clearly designated a successor, his Sunna (example, custom), by which they were to abide (hence their name), mandated elections. (The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa (2nd Edition), MacMillan Reference)

 The majority tradition of Islam, comprising around 72 per cent of all Muslims, and distinguished from Shi'ite Islam in recognizing successors to the Prophet Muhammad (caliphs) without insisting that these had to be his descendants. (A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (3 ed.), Oxford University Press)

How about something like: "Sunni Islam is the largest denomination of Islam. Its name comes from the word Sunnah, referring to the exemplary behavior of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. The differences between Sunnis and Shi'as arose from a disagreement over the choice of Muhammad's successor, and subsequently acquired broader political significance, as well as theological, philosophical, and juridical dimensions." End of paragraph. Then the next paragraph can explain the succession controversy.

Eperoton (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Implementing this proposal. Eperoton (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Representation of "Shi'a View"

Thank you @Edward321: for taking interest in my edit regarding the paragraph:

According to Sunni traditions, Muhammad did not clearly designate a successor and the Muslim community acted according to his sunnah in electing his father-in-law Abu Bakr as the first caliph.[3][2] This contrasts with the Shi'a view, which holds that Muhammad intended his son-in-law and cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib to succeed him.[4][5]

Please note the phrase under question says: "this contrasts with the Shi'a view, which holds that ...".

Now let's frame the moot question. And that will be whether the Shi'a view is that Mohammad simply intended Ali to succeed him or appointed Ali to succeed him? We are not writing here whether Mohammad did or did not appoint or nominate or intend to do so. What is being presented is only the Shia view in this historical debate.

So, what source can be more reliable than the official declaration of Sistani, for quoting the Shi'a view? The other faction, though lesser in population is the Ismaili, we can attempt to find their view on the subject, too, which I did in the words of Mawlana Hazar Imam. "Imam Ali declared the Successor of Prophet Muhammad in Sunni Hadith Literature". Ismaili Gnosis. Ismaili Gnosis. Retrieved 25 December 2017. As you know, the Shi'a divided from the Sunni after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Hazrat Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, was in Shia belief, named by the Prophet to be the Legitimate Authority for the interpretation of the faith. For Shi'a today all over the world, he is regarded as the first imam..

There are numerous other authorities who tell you that this is a widely known fact about the Shia view. The NY Times reference that was already there, and which you have reverted to also states that "...Shiites believe that he chose Ali, his cousin and son-in-law", although I will not regard it as a reliable source because they have rather accepted their half and rudimentary knowledge of the subject by inserting at least two "Corrections" after perhaps hurriedly publishing their article, one on Jan 3, 2016 and the other on Feb 2, 2016. Have you read the other source that was removed by me, which you restored, by the way? If not, kindly do so now. Kindly quote for our knowledge, the sentence or paragraph on the Shia view regarding whether Mohammad did appoint or simply intended to appoint or didn't appoint Ali to succeed him? Do you call it a reliable source?

I agree with you that the sources I quoted here may not be called neutral they have a Point of View - the Shia Point of View on the question. We have already discussed on this talk page at many places that a source need not necessarily be neutral. In fact while presenting the point of view of contending parties on an issue it will always be WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Hope you understand and do not just pass a judgement on reliability of a source, casually. Warm regards and merry Christmas. RezviMasood (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Further, let us add another source which fulfils even the criteria of neutrality and that is Jafri, Syed Husain Mohammad (27 August 1976). The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam (Millennium (Series)) (The Millennium (Series).). Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press (First Published By Longman Group Ltd and Librairie du Liban 1979). p. 19 - 21. ISBN 9780195793871. The Shi'a unequivocally take the word in the meaning of leader, master, and patron, and therefore the explicitly nominated successor of the Prophet. The Sunnis, on the other hand, interpret the word mawla in the meaning of a friend, or the nearest kin and confidant.. Hope that satisfies you and all others on the issue.RezviMasood (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Reading the above, I think that it needs to be said that, while there is a requirement that cited sources be reliable, there is no requirement that cited sources be neutral. The requirement is that the non-neutral views of sources be presented in a neutral manner. See WP:DUE.

Also, though I am no expert on this topic, it seems to me that "by God's command" is central to the Shi'a view on Mohammed's appointment of a successor and is missing here. See e.g., Shia Islam#Succession of Ali. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right the Shi'a view rightly stated will be "By God's command Muhammad appointed Ali as his successor" but that is already there in the page Succession of Muhammad which I have linked with the word succeed in the text.RezviMasood (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a contradiction?

The article on Shia Islam says that Sunni Islam does not uphold the idea of Muhammed appointing a successor; wheras this article says he did, that it was Abu Bakr. Can this be clarified?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Shia Islam article says, "Shia consider Ali to have been divinely appointed as the successor to Muhammad", As I read this, it implies that Shias disagree with the idea that Mohammed had divine authority to appoint his own successor. I'm not sure whether or not it is needful for this this article on the topic of Sunni Islam to confront non-Sunni disagreements with Sunni beliefs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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/20101205042656/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/reference/glossary/term.SUNNAH.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/reference/glossary/term.SUNNAH.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060223020644/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/sunni/matur.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/sunni/matur.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

History

The History section of this article seems really bad. Firstly, the "main article" of Caliphate isn't a history of Sunni Islam, but a list of Caliphates, so shouldn't be described as the main article. Secondly, it starts out with "One common mistake is to assume ...". I assume instead that there are many English-speaking readers of this article who know little about Sunni Islam and would have no such assumptions, and would like to know something about the history instead. Thirdly, compare the histories of equivalent Christian denominations: History of the Catholic Church and History of Protestantism - they are far more detailed. Is it not possible to write in a similar way about Sunni Islam? Horatio (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Horatio I've removed the link to the "caliphate" main, valid point. About the leading sentence though ("One common mistake is to assume ..."), it's just paraphrasing the quote in the secondary source, which describes this assumption as a common mistake generally for all (muslims and non muslims alike.) It's actually not an audience specific issue, but a very general point. Keep in mind that most non-Muslims are usually just exposed to Sunnism and its derivatives. cӨde1+6^TP 15:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing links in history

The history section, from the time of the Caliphs jumps right to the 20th century with the following assertion:

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.

In the process many many milestones in the long arduous journey have been completely missed. Thus a seeker of knowledge about Sunni Islam with little or no prior reliable information on the subject remains completely bewildered. We may also safely assume that a majority of such seekers of knowledge landing on the page will be attracted to this place because they have heard things about the subject - Sunni Islam - in the media or in gossips in the contemporary 20th and 21st century context, and want to clarify their doubts here. This becomes specially important because the Sunni Islam as informed on this page is the world's largest religious denomination, followed by Catholicism. May be this is why Sunni Islam has affected the planet most or at least has been the single biggest generator of news the world over in the contemporary period, specially post cold war (In fact during the cold war too and even prior to it). It has had its active role in the first world war, in and during the second world war, post second world war in very big events changing the face of history and geography like the partition of India into India and Pakistan followed by partition of Pakistan in Pakistan and Bangaladesh, in the economic shock of 1970s, in rise of Talibans in Afghanistan during its communist rule (or Russian occupation), in post disintegration of USSR period in Chechen war and Bosnia etc, in rise of ISIS, in 9/11, in the Afghan war, in Kashmir, in terror attacks in India, Europe and other places, in Rohingya crisis, in triple talaq and Halala controversy in India, in rise of right wing majority politics in India, in treatment of/attacks on minorities like Qadianis and Shi'as in Pakistan, vis-a-vis contribution in science technology and medicine, poverty eradication, and development of economic thought and other intellectual pursuits, and many other such things. I therefore earnestly urge all editors working on this page to fill up this gap based on reliable sources. Warm regards and happy new year. RezviMasood (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of my contribution on 07:43, 2 January 2018‎ by HindWIKI

Hello HindWIKI thank you so much for your interest in my recent contributions to the History section, which you have removed on the reason of being Unnecessary, COI. For ready reference I am reproducing below what you removed:

====Transition of caliphate into dynastic monarchy of Banu Umayya====
The seeds of metamorphosis of caliphate into kingship were sown, as the second caliph Umar had feared, as early as the regime of the third caliph Uthman, who appointed many of his kinsmen from his clan Banu Umayya, including Marwan and Walid bin Uqba on important government positions, becoming the main cause of turmoil resulting in his murder and the ensuing infighting during Ali's time and rebellion by Muawiya, another of Uthman's kinsman. This ultimately resulted in the establishment of firm dynastic rule of Banu Umayya after Husain, the younger son of Ali from Fatima,  was killed at the battle of karbala. The rise to power of Banu Umayya, the Meccan tribe of elites who had vehemently opposed Muhammad under the leadership of Abu Sufyan, Muawiya's father,  right up to the conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, as his successors  with the accession of Uthman to caliphate, replaced the egalitarian society formed as a result of Muhammad's revolution to a society stratified between haves and have-nots as a result of nepotism, and in the words of El-Hibri through "the use of religious charity revenues (zakat) to subsidise family interests, which Uthman justified as "al-sila" (pious filial support)." Ali, during his rather brief regime after Uthman maintained austere life style and tried hard to bring back the egalitarian system and supremacy of law over the ruler idealised in Muhammad's message, but faced continued opposition, and wars one after another by Aisha-Talhah-Zubair, by Muawiya and finally by the Kharjites. After he was murdered his followers immediately elected Hasan ibn Ali his elder son from Fatima to succeed him. Hasan, however, shortly afterwards signed a treaty with Muawiaya relinquishing power in favour of the latter, with a condition inter alia, that one of the two who will outlive the other will be the caliph, and that this caliph will not appoint a successor but will leave the matter of selection of the caliph to the public. Subsequently Hasan was poisoned to death and Muawiya enjoyed unchallenged power. Not honouring his treaty with Hasan he however nominated his son Yazid to succeed him. Upon Muawiya's death, Yazid asked Husain the younger brother of Hasan, Ali's son and Muhammad's grandson, to give his allegiance to Yazid, which he plainly refused. His caravan was cordoned by Yazid's army at Karbala and he was killed with all his male companions - total 72 people, in a day long battle after which Yazid established himself as a sovereign, though strong public uprising erupted after his death against his dynasty to avenge the massacre of Karbala, but Banu Umayya were able to quickly suppress them all and ruled the Muslim world, till they were finally overthrown by Banu Abbas.
====Caliphate and the dynastic monarchy of Banu Abbas====
The rule of and use of the title "caliph" by Banu Umayya came to an end at the hands of Banu Abbas a branch of Banu Hashim, the tribe of Muhammad, only to usher another dynastic monarchy styled as caliphate from 750 CE. This period is seen formative in Sunni Islam as the founders of the four schools viz, Abu Hanifa, Malik bin Anas, Shafi'i and Ahmad bin Hambal all practised during this time, so also did Jafar al Sadiq who elaborated the doctrine of imamate, the basis for the Shi'a religious thought. There was no clearly accepted formula for determining succession in the Abbasid caliphate. Two or three sons or other relatives of the dying caliph emerged as candidates to the throne, each supported by his own party of supporters. A trial of strength ensued and the most powerful party won and expected favours of the caliph they supported once he ascended the throne. The caliphate of this dynasty ended with the death of the Caliph al-Ma’mun in 833 CE, when the period of Turkish domination began. 
====Sunni sentiments in the contemporary era ====
 

I wish to discuss the two reasons you stated one by one here-under:

=====Unnecessary=====

As discussed in this section of the talk page, to complete the progress of history from the Rashidun period to the present time it is very much necessary to trace caliphate through the entire period, up to the desire to claim caliphate and restore it in the recent era by a number of Sunnis, first in Afghanistan and then in Syria, the concept of caliphate being germane and seminal to the Sunni faith. If we do that it is necessary to discuss the Umayyid and the Abbasid periods. After presenting my point of view on why this discussion is necessary in the article, may I request you to kindly tell us where the Wikipedia policy permits removal of material with reliable sources to be deleted on the judgement of an editor that it is unnecessary?

=====COI=====

I am unable to understand as to where do you find a COI in these edits, duly supported with verifiable, acceptable and neutral sources.

Kindly review and revert your deletions. You are welcome to collaborate in adding the history from fall of the Abbasid period to the fall of Ottoman caliphate and then from there to the present day. In case you have a neutrality of tone issue, or have a differing material on Umayyid or Abbasid periods which is reliably sourced, kindly add the material and rephrase my words as you deem necessary with a proper justification. Warm regardsRezviMasood (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gazi Husrev-beg mosque.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Translation suggestion

Sorry, I accidently hit the enter button, before I wrote my edit-summary. I made the suggestion, because the Germa article got some good infos regarding the history of Sunni identity, which this article still underestimates. Like most Artciles about Islam on the English Wiki it is very "Salafi-Centric", the German article could provide improvements.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Where is 4 Madhab❓ - Owais ^Talk 18:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction with Shia Islam article

The Shia Islam article says that Sunnis hold that Muhammad did not choose a successor, and that Abu Bakr was chosen amongst his companions, whereas this article says that Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was choose chosen but Muhammad as his successor. I don't know which is accurate, but this should be reconciled.. :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

and does not emphasize that much. change to: but does not emphasize that much. 47.41.162.191 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done by another user. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jimjammcjames.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Geographic representation of Sunni population

It would be nice to have a section in this page that gives information about the geography of the Sunni population. Other pages for religions, ethnicity, race and even political ideology often have a map showing the location and/or concentration of a group of people. Baring that, a list of countries with estimated number of Sunni Muslims (census data?) would also be helpful. The article says 85-90% of the world's Muslims are Sunni. So a global map would be appropriate. I would like to see, for example, which parts of the world outside the Middle East have the largest populations of Sunni. MandieJ1975 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn and reinstated. I am changing the move request to move to Sunnism and Shiism. Mast303 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Sunni Islam → Sunnis
• Shia Islam → Shias

– WP:COMMONNAME and consistency. Names of other religious sects don't use the name of the main religion in the title. Note: If you think we should move to singular Sunni or Shia, put that in your response. Mast303 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - “Sunni” or “Shia”, singular or plural is referring to an adherent, not the religion. We wouldn’t move “Protestantism” to “Protestants” or bluntly “Islam” to “Muslims”.

I may consider moves to “Sunnism” and “Shiism”, if there were enough evidence to support those asWP:COMMONNAMEs. Estar8806 (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Shia Islam/Archive 3#Requested move 22 January 2021 for a previous move discussion that suggested moving Shia Islam to Shi'ism. Dekimasuよ! 03:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: per above. The article is about a denomination not adherents. Non-starter. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Names of other religious sects don't use the name of the main religion in the title" is not entirely true. See Chalcedonian Christianity. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but Protestant Christianity redirects to Protestantism. Also, looking within Islam, Hanafi, Maliki, etc. do not use "Islam" in their titles. @Estar8806, @Iskandar323: Also, Sunni already redirects here; we don't have a separate article on followers of Sunni Islam. Same with Shia. Mast303 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument isn't exactly cohesive. You're not requesting a move to Sunnism or Shi'ism, both of which were rejected at the RM cited above, but "Suuni(s)" and "Shia(s)". Protestantism is not called "Protestants", and Sunni Islam wouldn't be called "Sunnis" either. As Iskandar said, the article is about the denomination not the adherents. Estar8806 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also you're mixing examples. Hanafi, Maliki, etc. are legal schools within Islam, not denominations, and while 'Hanafi school of Islam' might be precise, a suite of titles like that would obviously throw up concision issues. But more broadly you may be correct, but not in the way you think. Yes, maybe Hanafi, Maliki, etc., as bare adjectives, need a name review. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I went to poll Britannica, and, sigh, it's also inconsistent, with Hanafi school for one, though at a url ending 'Hanafiyah', and Maliki for the other, but at a url ending 'Maliki school' - go figure! And the others: [1][2]/ Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – any claim that something is the WP:COMMONNAME is worthless in a requested move if no evidence for that claim is provided. If someone would go look at the expert sources on Islam (and to a lesser extent other data points such as Google Scholar hits, Google Ngrams, etc.), I think Sunnism vs Sunni Islam and Shi'ism vs Shi'i Islam might be a close call, especially for the latter (though the current Shia Islam seems much less common to me; using Shia and even Shi'a rather than Shi'i seems to be a Wikipedia thing, which you will find everywhere on this website, mainly because editors aim for consistency with ... what is already everywhere on this website). But then to really find out, someone would need to go look at the evidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I saw the alternative adjective of "Shi'i" mentioned in the other RM, but in my experience, based on my interaction with sources, if that "Shi'ite" is by far the more typical alternative to "Shi'a", whereas "Shi'i" seems like a rarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, Shi'ite, that's the word I used before I ever came to Wikipedia. Must have been the most popular variant in the subset of sources (mostly about early Isma'ilism, ghulat Shi'ism, Jabirian Shi'ism, etc.) that I read, too. But on Wikipedia, Shi'ite is almost never used, and now I don't use it either –strange how this website can influence one's habits. Anyway, a future RM should start with looking at the evidence of common usage in sources, something I admittedly don't have the time for right now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Note. I plan to cancel/modify this discussion and make a move discussion to move Sunni Islam to Sunnism and Shia Islam to Shi'ism. That will be more appropriate. That also means that there will be new and different comments. Mast303 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.