Talk:Quranism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

'Quran alone' Description

Hi. I had edited the description of "Quran Alone / Quranists" yesterday, but Mrabcx edited it back to what it was. I have to say he has got it wrong. Can he please tell why he says it was easier to understand?

The actual description was:

"Qur'an alone Muslims, Qur'anic Muslims or sometimes, anti-hadith Muslims are those Muslims who reject hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, and follow the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, without any further additions. However, some Muslims who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "Muslims", and not "Qur'anites"."

These are the problems with the descriptions:

"Qur'an alone Muslims, Qur'anic Muslims or sometimes anti-hadith Muslims..."

Rejecting Hadiths does not make a person "Quran alone". It is whether you accept the quran or not that makes you "quran alone" or "quranist". People who reject the hadith but accept the bible are not "quran alone".

"...are those Muslims who reject hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, and follow the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, without any further additions..."

There are groups(including me) like www.iipc.tv who reject not only the hadiths, but also the bible and historical details as well. So "quran alone" is not only about rejecting the hadiths as the article says.

"...However, some Muslims who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "Muslims", and not "Qur'anites"..."

I think that only the "ahle quran" and "tolu islam" gruops call themselves "Muslim"(and "tolu islam" is not completely quran alone, they accept the hadith partially!), while the other three groups on the list as well as www.iipc.tv do not go by the label "Muslim", but call themselves "submitter/muslim to God" (with lower case "m").

You can confirm this on the biggest "Quranist" forum www.free-minds.org/forum .

"Muslim" is a different word.

I know what I am talking about. I am a "Quranist" myself and have been into this stuff for six years now.

So I had edited the description as follows:

"Quranists or Qur'an alone people are those who follow the Qur'an (Islam's sacred text) without any additional details. Some reject only the hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, while others reject the Bible and historical details as well. However, some who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "muslims/submitter to God", and not "Qur'anites"." Fahadkhan12 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Peace!

I would like to submit to you that there are a number of Muslims who the follow Qur'an alone as their sole source of scriptural spiritual guidance, who indeed DO refer to themselves only by the term "Muslim". I too have frequented the many 'Qur'an alone' web sites (and have followed this path for even longer than 'six years', for whatever that's worth =), but it seems to me to be a contradiction for one to label themselves as "Qur'an Alone" being that this term DOES NOT exist in the Qur'an as a designation for those who claim to adhere to it (the Qur'an). This designation "Qur'an Alone" comes from a source OUTSIDE of the Qur'an, so using it to formally label ones religious status is contradictory, at least for one who claims to follow only the Qur'an.

I know this is not a debate on Islam, but it is a discussion, and being so, i think it is acceptable to bring in what the Qur'an actually says:

In chapter (surah) 22 Verse (ayat)78 the Qur'an says:

YUSUF ALI TRANSLATION: And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!

PICKTHAL TRANSLATION: And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture), that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper!

SHAKIR TRANSLATION: And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!

So, according to the Qur'an itself, those who follow the Qur'an are "Muslims", pure, plain and simple... but we all have the free will to call ourselves what we like i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedbilal (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Quranism" and "Quranists"

I think that the terms "Quranism" and "Quranists" should also lead to the "Quran Alone" article.

I agree, the term Quranist is a simple, popular term to describe those with 'Quran Alone' views.

In response to the section above this one, it seems relevant to add here that whilst Quranists would very likely call themselves Muslims, I do personally, that is not the point. The English speaking world at large would generally call everyone who followed the Quran a Muslim, reserving Quranist for those that follow it exclusively.

The real question is whether to adopt the seemingly more correct term 'Quranism' instead of the more popular, but awkward 'Quran Alone'. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Major dispute over why neutrality is needed

QA- HEY, who removed the 99 or 114 names of GOD section and why?

Not all Quran aloners consider code-19 to be a major part of belief. Please be objective in this case. Also user: Edip Yuksel's views on the "Names of God" are not necessarily those that form the belief of all "Quran-aloners". Please provide sources if your claims are true. Thanks and sorry but this is encyclopedia policy. --Anonymous editor 23:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- OK then well use most of the Quran Alone believers support code-19. Fine? And as for thre 99 and 114 names if u only have a prob with edips views then y not remove just tht part iusnatead of the whole section?

Both the code-19 and the 99 and 114 names section is disputed material as it does NOT apply to ALL Quran aloners and if you are going to add that in that will break the neutrality of the article (against policy). There needs to be strong clarification that these views are followed by all aloners. Objectionable material, not proven that all or even "most" Quran aloners believe this. Neutral point of view needed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Ok but it applies to most of them.

No that is objectionable. What sources say that "most" believe it? That can't be proven and must be avoided. There is already a link to the Rashad Khalifa article if people are interested in code 19. Also we cannot add Yuksel's theory because he is not a well-known scholar of any type. I am sorry about this but this is Wiki policy. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 23:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- If you must you can create your own section which for eg states 'Quran Aloners who dont believe in code-19' or put on the code-19 section 'code-19 Quran Aloners views' BUT DONT DEÖETE IT

Listen, it is against Wiki policy to represent the view of some while not representing others. I am trying to enforce this policy and please do not keep inserting the view or you will violate the 3 revert rule and may be banned. If you are going to make an assertion, please have the sources to back it up. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 23:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- We tend to represent both. Lets make two sections. Ones for code-19 Quran Aloners and one is for code-19 rejecting Quran Aloners. Hows tht?

Here I integrated the code 19 section. Take a look. Yuksel's section can not be added though as he is not a well known scholar of any sort nor does his theory for the basis of anything close to a majority of "Quran aloners". Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Now ur saying some quran aloners believe in code-19. Now u r biased. Y not say those Quran Aloners who believer in code-19?

No I am not biased, I am saying that some do believe in it. You can NOT speak for all Quran-aloners because this is not a personal webpage, this is an encyclopedia. Do not make definite statements such as "there are two types" or that "most/all believe it" because that is not known and has not been supported. This is the most neutral the article can be without having to delete those parts or tag it for neutrality dispute. I think you unserstand what I am saying. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- As regards to the 114 attributes being found by edip thts a fact n ill even give u his phone no so tht u can confitm: 001-520-4811919. Call him n hell tell u himself. Its a fact tht he has claimed n found them to be so. As for the Quran Aloners i can speak for many of them coz i know them good enough. The qs is do u know any of them? If u dont then plz stop removing sections without knowledge.

Please understand this is an encyclopedia this will not be allowed. One person's theory does not form the basis of belief. I know you believe it because you are his friend, but this is an encyclopedia and not a personal webpage. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Did we say tht it does? We just mentioned his name coz it was his finding and it is notable. Thts all. No bias whtsoever. On the other hand u isnisting on putting in SOME Quran aloners who believe in code-19... shows clear bias. Who told u tht there r only some Quran Aloneres who believe in code-19, eh?

Well if not all of them do, then some of them do. Most of them don't either. Do you want me to say that a "few" of them do? See this is the problem, you are not realizing this is an encyclopedia article and this is your own personal Point of View. I have to be objective to respect everyone and wikipedia policy and word the statement so that it follows this. Please realize that this is not a page devoted only to your view. So far I have integrated all legitimate material that you have written in an Neutral manner. Usually other editors would remove most of the material completely, but you will find that many of them will agree with the neutral manner that I am modifying it. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- No we want u to say 'THOSE Quran Aloners THAT believe in code-19...' thts the neutral way. Get it?

Sorry, but that is your own personal opinion and not correct wording. There are even other editors who are agreeing with me now and removing those edits. In some cases that is fine and in others that is incorrect wording. Sorry if you can't understand. --Anonymous editor 00:24, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Wait a min now? Ur saying tht ir should be SOME Quran Alone Muslims believe... without u urself knowing whether it's ome or most of them who believe tht way. Im opting 4 a neutral statement i.e. THOSE QURAN ALONERS WHO... Now if there r other Quran Aloners they r most welcome to add info to this article and represent their views in a neutral manner too. However saying SOME Quran Aloners believe tht way without knwoing is clearly biased.

As I said before, in some cases that is accurate wording and in others that is incorrect. Where you added it most recently is okay, but your prior one was inaccurate. Hopefully this dispute is settled now and you will obey the neutral policies of wikipedia. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:31, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- We always opt for neutrality at least in our view. As far as Edip is concerned it's a pity so many claim that they dont know him. Just type in Edip Yuksel at google or yahoo n ull see more than 10,000 websites showing up. Edip Yuksel was a famous sunni scholar prior to his fleeing to the USA in the 80s. He had so many debates with famous sunni scholars. just view his article 19 questions for Muslim scholars.

I don't agree that we should know him, so many people do get 10,000 hits. I do agree that they should not have deleted his page. I think it was because User:Edip Yuskel was not exactly the best in keeping neutral. He is notable, even if not in American I think he'd meet requirements by Turkish people... but, that is hard to gauge. I think you should try a vote for undeletion. gren 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the Yuksel's and Janjhua's (his friend) pages was self-promotion. There was a large picture there and any attempt to make the article more neutral resulted in reverts by them and anon IPs (100% likely Janjhua and Yuksel themselves) to promote themselves and rally support. There were no sources given and it was being used as a personal webpage. So the article was nominated for deletion by several administrators. I think reading wikipedia policy might help them avoid problems in the future. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:10, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

quote:

I don't agree that we should know him, so many people do get 10,000 hits. ---I do agree that they should not have deleted his page.--- I think it was because User:Edip Yuskel was not exactly the best in keeping neutral. He is notable, even if not in American I think he'd meet requirements by Turkish people... but, that is hard to gauge. I think you should try a vote for undeletion. gren 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Khizar- Im with you on that one. And another thing. Edip's page was created by ME, Khizar, NOT himself. I asked his permission ofcourse and he requested me to do it for him in the way i fell right so i did all the job. So if there was anything lacking neutrality in his page im the one to be blamed NOT Yuksel. This time i'll try to make his page as neutral as possible and i'll add a small pic.

Code 19 + naming

I think this should be put into a separate article otherwise it is going to start dwarfing this article which is related by some Qur'an alone members but not by others.

Also, I think the title should be Qur'an alone probably, or Quran alone at least, it's not a proper name it's just the name of a concept. gren 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with name change. This is not a proper noun so it should have a change in the name. A separate neutral article for code 19 would be appreciated but I am sure self-promotion will be inevitable for some. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is a religion of two people significant?

So far as I can tell, most of the followers of the assassinated Rashad Khalifa are organized as United Submitters International. They seem to be large enough to have conventions. So, they're probably encyclopedic. However, the Quran Alone Muslims seem so far to consist of two people, Edip Yuksel and his friend Janjuah and so far as I can tell, they believe that the United Submitters have deviated from the truth and they alone are carrying forward the real teaching of Rashad Khalifa. See this essay on Edip Yuksel's web page [1]. If we have a religion of TWO PEOPLE, then it is not encyclopedic, however heartfelt it may be.

I believe that the Submitters are also known as Quran-alone Muslims, in which case it is somewhat deceptive of Mr. Yuksel to try to pass himself off as the real "heir" of Rashad Khalifa. Which he has been doing for a busy two days on Wikipedia, defacing one article after another. The article on Rashad Khalifa seems to be fairly balanced and NPOV. The United Submitters article could be made so with a little work. Right now it passes people over to this article, which seems to be Mr. Yuksel's vanity article.

This article should be rewritten to be NPOV, explaining that the United Submitters are also known as Quran-alone Muslims. I don't think Mr. Yuksel should even be mentioned. As noisy as he is, he is not a significant movement.

Yes, I sound angry. I am. I've spent way too much time removing Mr. Yuksel's graffiti from various Islamic articles. Zora 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zora, constant self promotion by "aloners" has been a very big problem for us who are trying to polish Islam-related articles. I sincerely hope that they will avoid this in the future and follow what Zora, I and others have constantly said both on discussion pages and on their relative talk pages . --Anonymous editor 01:05, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

As I state in my above section Quran Alone should be Qur'an alone... which is just the concet of hadith rejection and the various things that fall out from it. Within that you have those that follow code 19 stuff and United Submitters and whatever else... So, I think the concept is notable enough since hadith have become a lot more accessible and therefore there is more common knowledge and discussion about them. I don't see a problem with eliminating Yuksel from this article either. Notability is a hard thing... sometimes it only takes one book for people, other times it takes more. I don't think the standards are (or can be?) too clear. gren 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)

and

i have to admit, I would be hard pressed to name another prominent Muslim who follows Qur'an alone besides the deceased Rashad Khalifa and ...Edip Yuksel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.91.212 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the list of Quran Aloners removed

Zora you seem to be the only one who keeps on removing whatever is put by us Quran Aloners. Dont you wanna know the truth? Dont you wanna find out how peaceful and at the same time logical, rational and just we are? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaasssssssse, dont mitake us with the sunni or shia traditonal "muslims". GOD Bless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.83.112 (talk • contribs) July 12 2005

I think a list is quite in appropriate for several reasons 1. Self promotion (it seems that user:idmkhizar is promoting himself in the list 2. Who has decided that these are the "most famous living QA"? Many of the entries seemed to be the bloggers and forum posters in the linked websites, that doesn't give them any sort of notability, millions of people contribute to one forum or other, but they are not "most famous". Certainly, Edip can be linked in this article as "see also", but I don't really see anyone else's notability.

Finally, I find the anon's comment quite offensive, what exactly do you mean by we-are-logical-peaceful-rational and "don't mistake us with the sunni or shia muslims"? Please be respectful to other beliefs, people would do the same to yours. And stop self promotion, it doesnt really help any cause. --Ragib 20:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Article title

I just came across this page and I am surprised that the article title is not Quranic Islam (referring to Muslims who only accept the Qur'an and reject everything else as aberration) - I think this is more accurate since the term "Qur'an Alone" seems to refer primarily to the United Submitters (which IMHO this article places too much focus on since there are already articles on Khalifa and his group). Sound alright to everyone? SouthernComfort 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Quranic Islam would too ambiguous, IMHO. All Muslims are convinced that their Islam is Quranic. Of course, most of them also accept the hadith and sunna, so it is the reliance on the Qur'an alone that is the hallmark of these non-mainstream groups. Zora 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"All Muslims are convinced that their Islam is Quranic." Actually, I'm not sure if that is true as regards Shi'a Islam. Shi'ism is similar to Roman Catholicism, where tradition takes precedence over the primary religious text. That's my understanding, at least. At any rate, I've been searching for some non-Khalifa material dealing with "Quranic Islam" to no avail. There used to be an Iranian site for a Quranic Muslim group there, but I can no longer find it, so I'm assuming it's been shut down. I just find it very strange that this line of thought is solely attached to Khalifa and Edip Yuksel (sp?), who seem to have some rather odd ideas. SouthernComfort 13:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy article should not have been removed

Why was the apostasy article removed? It explained clearly what Quran Alone Muslims think about this today so crucial aspect. At least now Zora and others should have realized how different Quran Alone Islam is from corrupt Hislam(Hadith Islam). Quran Aloners NEVER EVER even think of killing apostates of their belief. Infact they continue to support them and logically explain their standpoint. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

It was argumentative. It was an attempt to say "Us good, them bad". Also, it's not clear that the various groups of Qur'an Alone Muslims share anything OTHER than a rejection of hadith. Your group may reject the death penalty for apostates, but other groups might not.

JK- FIND ME ONE QURAN ALONE GROUP WHICH BELIEVES TO KILL OR ISSUE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR APOSTATES, JUST ONE. None of them believe this and there should be no two doubts about it. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

I found one website, a while back, arguing for slavery on Quranic grounds. Are you going to claim that all Qur'an Alone Muslims support slavery? Zora 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JK- The site was surely a Hismalic one. What Hismalics(Hadith Islamics) argue, even on Quranic grounds, we do not take seriously as they frequently put verses out of context or see them in light of hadith. Jonny K

Bit by bit, article had been distorted

I just wasn't paying enough attention. Bit by bit, the article had been turned into an argument FOR the Qur'an-Aloners and many completely unsupported and unverifiable claims had been added.

There's one bit left to do -- the list of "anti" links really should be pruned down to the best five. I'll do that when I have time. Zora 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JK- Oh so here we need time but when it comes to removing sites from the Quran Alone section, and this is infact a Quran Alone article, then theyr immediately removed. I find that kinna unfair. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

Aslam Jairajpuri and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan

Why was the discussion on Aslam Jairajpuri removed? Any Ahle Qur'an worth his salt knows how influent Jairajpuri was in the formulation of Ahle Qur'an thought. A detailed discussion on Jairajpuri, as also Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's Qur'an-only stance, should necessarily be a part of this page. Else, a separate Ahle Qur'an page, distinct from this one, should be started. USI should please stay away from vandalizing the new page.

The USI followers are a nightmare. I was surprised that this article was so biased when I read it the other day, so I tried to edit it today to improve it a little. It was almost immediately re-edited to a more pro-USI position. When I tried to put it right, I also sorted out some typos and minor errors. It was reverted back to an earlier edit about an hour later with all the errors to boot. At this point I was sent messages telling me I was breaking the rules and to leave the article in it's current state. These accusations were based on any petty technicality that these USI 19ers could dream up. It was like being sued. Besides, whilst maintaining standards is important, it is a higher priority to keep the articles objective I think. They seem to have an especial dislike for any mention of the Free-Minds community. If they insist on corrupting these articles, we should maybe review the United Submitters International article, the really biased one they have written on themselves, bring it up to accepted standards a bit. :) Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some guy named Itaqallah removed my external links

Please state as to why this was done. JonnyK

yes, your external links. they have been removed per WP:EL. also see WP:OWN. ITAQALLAH 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has deleted my external link

Block quote

someone has deleted my external link but why? Your external link??? WP:OWN. WP:SPAM. One or both surely applies. --kingboyk 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is spelt Qu'ran not Qur'an

Anyone interested in expanding the article?

(nt.) ~ That would be nice, if it's possible.

-- Mik 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see it happen, it looks like a glorified stub at the moment. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

In Opposing viewpoints, I wonder if someone can explain how the statement that most (or even all) traditional Sunnis and Shias agree that hadith are integral is "dubious"? I think it's more or less a given, even the hadith article doesn't have a reference to back up the claim of the hadith being indispensable to mainstream Muslims. I edited that section to try and neutralize it a bit. Leena (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Sunni by definition follow Sunnah and Shiaism is based on Hadith of one variety or another. Hadith are an integral part of Sunni and Shia Islam. Who would dispute this fact? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-organised Qur'anic Muslims

The "Non-organised Qur'anic Muslims" section was removed a while ago, but I believe mentioning this segment of the movement would be beneficial to the article. Not all Qur'anic muslims belong to a group. I would like to add parts of the original section to briefly describe this segment. Thoughts appreciated. Leena (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. 24.174.111.197 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this. To only focus on organisations makes the article really incomplete. Please also see 'The very mention of non-affiliated Quranists' section below.Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Salah Timings

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE GRACIOUS, THE MERCIFUL

Salaat Timings

"And certainly have We explained for mankind, in this very Qur'aan, models of every circumstance. Most of mankind then have been too haughty to respond thereto except in disbelief." [Q: 17.89] This and similar other Verses in the Qur'aan tell us that it contains examples for every circumstance/situation that we face in this life. These models/examples are explained therein for guiding our actions in those circumstances. And the Verse emphatically asserts that the necessary explanation is contained 'in this Qur'aan' itself and nowhere else. This should suffice for us to know that Salaat timings are explained in the Qur'aan itself.

One of the repeated and binding directives in the Qur'aan is: aqueemis salaat (regulate prayer)! Regulating prayers, inter alia, implies offering the prayers at fixed times. Now let us examine this aspect of the prescribed salaat (herein after referred to as the Prayers): whether the fixed timings therefor are clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan, and if so, what those timings are.

The timings for the Prayers are generally considered to be given in the Qur'aanic Verses 11.114, 17.78, 24.58, 2.238, 30.17-18 and 20.130.

In Verses 20.130 and 30.17-18, the word salaat is not mentioned at all. All that these two verses tell the believers is that they should remember Allah and glorify Him at all times of the day and the night, when they are awake and not sleeping. This, the believers should do, whether while offering the ritual Prayers or while doing any mundane work. The obvious purpose is to keep the minds of the believers riveted to Allah, and to Allah alone, while they are in the process of offering the ritual Prayers, and to prevent them from going astray while engaged in doing some worldly work. It is while doing the mundane work that the believers tend to forget Allah and the Satan manoeuvres to get them astray then. These Verses therefore cannot be considered as prescribing the specific timings for the Prayers. The Qur'aanic Verses are divine and therefore ought to be perfect. The timings given in these verses are too general and vague to be the perfect, divinely prescribed fixed timings for the Prayers. It is the wrong human interpretation of these Verses - as indicating the timings for the Prayers - that is responsible for attribution of vagueness (nauzubillah) to the divine Qur'aanic Verses.

Verse 24.58 does mention the words salaat-il-fajr and salaat-il-ishaa. But the qualifying words fajr and ishaa are not clearly defined here to give their exact time-frame. The reference to the two words in this Verse is for the purpose only of indicating times of privacy for adults - before the fajr (morning) Prayer and after the ishaa (evening) Prayer. Giving the exact time-frame for the two Prayers was not the intention. The time-frame, obviously, is given elsewhere in the Qur'aan. Of the three remaining Verses quoted above, the earliest, in chronological order of revelation, is 17.78. It says, "Regulate the Prayer for setting of the sun to darkness of night and recite the Qur'aan at dawn. Indeed, recitation of the Qur'aan at dawn is a thing witnessed." This is the first divine Order in the Qur'aan for regulation of the Prayers. From this it appears that this evening Prayer was the first of the daily Prayers to be divinely ordained for the believers. And it gives the exact time-frame for the evening Prayer, viz., the dusk before nightfall. Like some other directives in the Qur'aan (prohibition of intoxicating drinks, prohibition of Ar-Riba etc.), the directives regarding the Prayers are ordained by the Kind and Understanding Lord gradually and step by step so that the implementation thereof doesn't become a burden on His creatures, the human beings. Along with this evening Prayer, the other thing ordained by this Verse is the recitation of the Qur'aan at dawn. At that time, apparently, the Dawn Prayer was yet to be prescribed. The next Verse revealed in chronological order, specifically on the subject of salaat timings, is 11.114: "And regulate the Prayer at the two ends of the Day and nearness to the Night. Indeed, the good deeds dispel the bad deeds. That is a reminder to those who remember." This Verse, in addition to confirming the dusk Prayer prescribed in Verse 17.78, prescribes the dawn Prayer as well. The phrase 'at the two ends of the Day and nearness to the Night' effectively covers both the periods of the dawn and the dusk.

Then comes, in chronological order, Verse 2.238: "Guard the Prayers and the Middle Prayer. And stand devoutly for Allah!" During the initial stages of my studies of the Qur'aan, it made me wonder as to why the Perfect Lord had to mention the 'Middle Prayer' separately in that Verse. Wouldn't 'Guard the Prayers' cover the 'Middle Prayer' too? But then it dawned on me that Verses revealed prior to 2.238 had made no mention of this 'Middle Prayer'. The earlier Verses had prescribed and referred to only two Prayers, viz., those to be offered during the dawn period and during the dusk period. Now this Verse 2.238 refers to those two Prayers prescribed earlier, and it also prescribes a third Prayer - the Middle Prayer. The Middle Prayer had therefore to be mentioned separately. The time range for this Middle Prayer, obviously, falls exactly in between the period of the dawn and the period of the dusk. Since night is divinely earmarked for the rest of the human mind and body, the Middle Prayer has to be during daytime. It may conveniently be called the Mid-day Prayer - corresponding to the Zuhr or the Jumua Prayers.

Except for the three above mentioned timings, I find no other time-ranges specifically prescribed in the Qur'aan for the Prayers. The salaat-il-ishaa mentioned in Verse 24.58 has got to be the Evening (Dusk) Prayer prescribed in Verses 17.78 and 11.114. No time-range in the night has been divinely prescribed for the Prayers. What was prescribed in Verse 17.79 (without any specific time range) was optional and specifically for the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Sofqur (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) --Sofqur (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this really belong here though? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Quranist

'quranist' is the term most quran alone muslims like to call themselves

thats why i'd prefer if you dropped the 'quran alone' tag from the page

thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Jigglyfidders, it's appreciated. The difficulty in what you're suggesting, is that the article itself is named "Qur'an alone". It would surely be quite confusing to the average reader when they glance down from the title to the first line of the article and see that the term used in the title itself doesn't appear in the first sentence in definition form; including that definition is a standard practice here in Wikipedia. I'd be more than willing to re-examine the title itself as being inappropriate in this context, but I'd suggest that that change might prove controversial and should be properly discussed on the article's talk page in an attempt at forming consensus. As I mentioned in my edit summary, "Quranist" appears to be used a fair bit, but "Quran alone" also commonly appears as well in searches. In my opinion, our discussion should properly shift to the articles talk page so that other editors opinions can be included as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the above two postings from my own talk page in order to encourage further discussion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The term Quran Alone is really not very good English, can one be a Quran Alonist, or a Quran Aloner? It doesn't work, but it has stuck somewhat. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

United Submitters International

The USI make daily edits, deleting obvious facts and editing in obvious fallacies, this morning I added the factual statement that many Quranists do not pray according to Sunnah. It has since been edited to state that all Quranists pray in exactly the same way as orthodox Muslims with one minor exception I couldn't read because it was in Anglicised Arabic without explanation. When I tried to re-edit the article to a more objective position, for the third time in 24 hours, I was asked not to make changes without consulting others via this page, but I am only trying to prevent what I'm being asked not to do! What can be done about this? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i removed your 'freeminds heading' under quranist sects as it is a website, not an organization. The claims of number 19 by Submitters is not notable enough to be in this article and is discussed enough here United Submitters International.

You have made 2 other controversial claims which according to wikipedia policy would require a consensus;

Two other? I never described the Free-Minds community as an organisation and I only mentioned the 19 thing as an example of differences of opinion under the header 'Doctrine', it can hardly go unmentioned in a section on Quranist doctrine. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

-That Quranists reject organized religion

I did not put that, it'd make no sense anyway given that your lot are Quranists and have a sect and an acclaimed Messenger of the Covenant etc., so please read it slowly next time. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

-The sentence "There is also disagreement about how prayers should be performed. Certain groups promote performing prayers in an orthodox fashion" doesn't make sense since even Sunni muslims pray differently among different madh'habs. There is no such thing as "orthodox fashion" prayers.

The sentence "There is also disagreement about how prayers should be performed. Certain groups promote performing prayers in an orthodox fashion." made perfect sense in context. Beside's, can't you edit it to address this highly pedantic point? No, it seems you just delete outright any views you don't like and then attempt to justify it by arguing trivial points that amount to semantics at best. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For this reason i will remove these 2 sentences promptly. If you want to make any further such controversial edits they can be discussed on this talk page and i will respond in short notice.Someone65 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to run everything by you now? How about you take a breath and calm down sir. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The very mention of non-affiliated Quranists...

I have been accused of promoting the Free-Minds website because I insist on mentioning it in the article. It is mentioned because non-affiliated Quranists are being written out of the article altogether. Free-Minds is the most prominent community of individualistic Quranists currently and it's mention gives the article a better weighted completion than was the case when considerably less well known groups were mentioned, because they have a leader and followers?

To have an article on the Quranist movement without mention of one of it's most prominent communities, so as to save having to deal with somewhat more ambiguous subject matter, amounts to dumbing down. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss and agree which external links should be included...

There is some disagreement over this issue. I personally think that one of the 'Collections of Quranist Articles' links should be purged and the rest left alone, what do others think? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the criteria you are using to decide which one is to be removed? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The quality isn't great, just self-published POV, and there's four of them, but I don't suppose they're doing any harm. I'd have to have another look through them. I don't know why I used the word 'purged', perhaps put too fine a point on it. Regards, Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Standardise spelling of hadith

There seems to be some confusion. As I understand it, 'hadith' can be used as a plural so the following would be correct:

He'd heard many hadith, but this hadith was different.

When referring to the Hadith, the canonised collections, then it is a proper noun and so it should be capitalised:

The Hadith contain many hadith.

Is this correct? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done It is correct as it is right now. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you? What's the  Not done all about? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Qur'an alone

I have referred this page to the above following an ANI report. This is a content dispute, so take it to that appropriate venue. In the mean time, take care not to chuck accusations of vandalism around. Content disputes are not vandalism. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The debate is available on my name, talk, page thingy. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it will stay at the above noticeboard. Don't try to divert it again. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have introduced a criticism section with the views of classical and contemporary Islamic scholars.Jaw101ie (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaba

The heading talks about rejected practises, so this sentence i have removed is superfluous. 84.13.59.203 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

IIPC's description

Why edit IIPC's description? Why reduce it to one line? Can anyone reply this time please? thanks.

-Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and the text should therefore be short and to the point and it is not the place to propagate or promote personal views. A declaration such as "is the most Quran-only group" etc is not objective and did not seem appropriate, at least to me.

Revision

I rewrote the article to conform to what we currently know about "Qur'an Alone" Muslims, and to removed the huge swathes of incoherent propaganda inserted by Mssrs. Yuksel and Janjuah. There is a link to Mr. Yuksel's page in the text, and anyone interested in the minutiae of his beliefs can consult his site. There is no need to burden Wikipedia with the details of a belief that is not reliably known to be held by more than two people. Zora 29 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

QA- That was no propaganda. Everything stated was factual and accurate. However we cannot stop you from editing or rewriting anything. All we can do is continue our work and hope that the truth will reach out there one day. We had also given you the phone numbers of Edip: 001-520-4811919 and Khizar: 0049-511-4498174. If you doubt any info that we presented labelling it as propaganda why did you not first call us and clarify the issue?

---

We do not have to get your permission to write about you!

QA- We never said you need to but we preferred that you have the courage to call us directly.

We do not want to publish anything untruthful in Wikipedia. If we say the Submitters believe X, and the Submitters don't believe X, then it should be corrected.

QA- As said before nothing was untruthful. All was based on facts. Wherever it was the case that not all Quran Aloners believed in a certain way the phrase THOSE Quran Aloners who... or SOME Quran Aloners... so that was perfectly fine.

However, this does not mean that we have to include everything that the Submitters, or Edip Yuksel, wish to publicize. You may be sincere, you may believe it is true, but that does not mean that it is of interest to people using Wikipedia. It is sufficient to include a link to your website so that anyone who IS interested may do further research.

QA- How do you know people are not interested. We believe people are very interested to know this since then they would understand that the real terrorism comes from hadith not Quran.

If other people are interested, they will write about you. Topics in which many people are interested usually get lots of editing. You don't get to decide that people are interested; THEY get to decide. Zora 29 June 2005 11:07 (UTC)

I notice that you have reinstated your vanity page. Not everyone mentioned in Wikipedia deserves an article. There are many many names without articles. IMHO, Edip Yuksel should be one of them.

QA- NO Edip Yuksel deserves an article of his own since that chap Ali Sina also has one, and he is way not as famous as Edip. Also Mr. Sina hides away while Edip has made his phone and pic public. What kind of bias is that?

If you want to convince other people that you have some religious knowledge, surely a bit of humility would be in order. Charlatans are known for self-promotion, not saints. Zora 29 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

QA- We never said that we are saints. All we want is that the truth should reach the people out there and that the Quran has nothing to do with the terrorism caused by those mainstream "Muslims" whlo believe in hadith.

Specifics

This contains a lot about why they disagree, but what specific things that are different to mainstream Islam does the Quran Alone approach result in? Morwen - Talk 29 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should mention some of the Muslim practices that have a stronger rooting in the hadith than the Qur'an (and hopefully there will be sources for all of this) and show them as things that are traditionally rejected as from God by Qur'an aloners. gren 29 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Why are there less pro Quranic sites than anto at the bottom

Yseterday i tried to equalize the lists at the bottom and today i once again see the Hislamics removing sites from the Pro section. What kinna hypocrisy is this? Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

Non-Muslim critics of hadith.

I deleted a sentence in the Notable section on non-Muslim critics of the Hadith.

Non-Muslim scholars of Islam, such as Maurice Bucaille, John Esposito, Joseph Schacht and Cyrus Hamlin also criticise Hadith.

The do not appear to be Quranists as per the definition given on the page, therefore i thought it wise to remove them from the section on notable Quranists. IrishStephen (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

References

I restored it, because I don't see anything that says that section is for "notable Q"; it is just headed "notable". Anyway, if you don't like it in that section, it would be better moved elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Quraniyoon

i want to change the title to Quraniyoon. Any opinions? Pass a Method talk 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the reason behind your idea? I see no reason to change the title to Quraniyoon, besides, you'll get us into a big issue of how to transliterate قرآنيّون properly into English: Quraniyoon? Qur'aniyun? Qur'aniyyun? I believe that Quranism/Qur'anism is sufficient. --Agari (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the form most commonly used in spoken Arabic would be قرآنيين ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, change the title "Qur'aaniyuun", because they are not people who believe in the Qur'aan alone but people who believe the Western Colonialislism of the Qur'aan. In other words, they just like those who impose the Hadiith (Bible-subordinated) onto the Qur'aan, they are both Biblical!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.182.33 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Image is not of Quran

The image with file name "HolyQuran.jpg" is not a picture of any page in the Quran. From the text, it is most probably a book of prayers whose main text is in Arabic, and sub text in some other language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabil.mneimneh (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine - Overview

I think these two sections can be merged into one. I don't see why they're divided. Any ideas? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture is NOT a page from the Quran

The picture captioned "a page from the Quran in Arabic" is NOT from the Quran, but it is simply an Arabic prayer with the Persian translation under every line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.173.85 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

wrong image

previous image was not holy Quran it was a page of Mafatih al-Janan prying phrase, i changed it.Anvar11 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

History

The History section is, for the most part, entirely some random wikipedia editors thoughts. Further, there are no sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.127.37 (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to attempted addition of "Answer to Quranist Rejection of Orthodox Muslim Theology"

I did not perform the revert of this material, however I support said revert wholeheartedly: this article is specifically about Quranism and its rejection of the hadith, reasons for it, and what makes it unique. This article is not the place to initiate a religious argument or war, nor to show favor for one view over another: merely to present factual, encyclopedic knowledge of the subject at hand. This being the case, there is no room in this article for a dissertation on why people who do NOT ascribe to this belief think this belief is wrong. Even if the content is well written enough for a wiki article, if it belongs anywhere on the wikipedia at all, it is in an article or articles re: the opposing, hadith-centered beliefs, or another article entirely focused on the differences between the two. Since there cannot be proof of, evidence for, or a resolution to any of the claims made by either group for their position that could be recorded or relayed in any sort of factual manner, there can not be a resolution or reconciliation between them, Q.E.D., such an addition is counter-productive and not of value to this particular/specific article.

In short, adding a long, point-by-point breakdown in Article "A" about why people from Article "B" think the people in "A" are wrong is merely incitement of controversy at best, and bears all the hallmarks of the beginning of a religious flame/edit-war: you do not need a list of grievances and counter-points here for it to be obvious from the lead-in on that this belief system is in opposition or counter-point to another sect of the same belief system. That the Quranists think the Sunni and Shia are wrong--and vice-versa--is completely, screamingly obvious, and anyone wishing for more information or a specific breakdown of why can find that information by reading the contrasting article where they may draw their own conclusions: they do not need to be spoonfed. Besieged ^talk 20:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are interested can check these sites:

1. http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/main.php (Quranism)
2. http://sunnidawateislami.net/ (Sunni Islam)
3. http://www.shia.org/ (shia Islam)

This is a sample listing - many more oriented websites are there - please spare Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC).

move

• Withdrawn per below feedback Pass a Method talk 16:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Quranism → Quraniyoon – It would be in line with the arabic equivalent. Also a google search result of the new name gives more applicable results whereas the current name returns various questionable results. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE and WP:AT. Specifically, article titles "should be recognizable to readers." I wasn't familiar with this concept before, but "Quran-ism" is clearly an ideology relating to the Quran. "Quraniyoon" is... well, I would've guessed a proper name. A geographic name, perhaps. The redirect from the Arabic romanization is sufficient; the English form is more useful as a title for the English Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather clear instances of (possibly unintentional) POV pushing

Down in the history section, I found the following two instances of crystal clear POV pushing:

"Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive."

"Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims."

The second isn't as problematic as it does use the phrase "is regarded." The problem is that it doesn't continue by adding "by X, Y and Z." Look, nobody is going to argue that the majority of mainstream scholarship, whether Muslim or Western, regards Umar ibn Khattab as having made such claims. In order to neutralize this, it needs to be specified who regards him in this way, which is certainly possible with reliable sources.

The first is certainly more problematic. It's quite clear that the majority of scholarship - again, both Muslim and Western - do not attest to this claim. That doesn't mean the line needs to be deleted; it simply needs to be cited with Quranist sources and edited to say: "X, Y and Z claim that such beliefs were...etc." Again, nobody in their right mind will argue that this is the majority view. That doesn't make it right or wrong; it's not our jobs as editors to make those judgment calls. And that's the point. As it is, the line very clearly is trying to make a judgment call by asserting that the Qur'anist view is historically accurate; the job of editors is to present the different stated views, not weigh them. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the two examples you gave are an example of POV pushing. I think this particular section, and the article in general is well-balanced. For example, the sentences:

"Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive."

and,

"Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims."

is followed by:

"However, despite claims that Umar banned narrations of the Prophets traditions and hadiths, it can also be stated that the meaning of the Prophetic traditions, embodied in actions, was still being transmitted orally and by inherited practice.[46] Thus, for Sunni Muslims, the claim that Umar banned Prophetic narrations in order to make a statement that the Qur'an would suffice for Muslims bears little weight as the "Sunnah", which would later be codified in text (i.e. books of hadith), was known to be in practice - the best example of which includes the times for prayer and the method by which prayer is performed."

Contrastingly, the Ahle Hadith article says:

"The followers of the Ahl al-Hadith movement claim their beliefs and practices to be the same as those of early Muslims and, in particular, the Rashidun (rightly guided caliphs). The movement rose to prominence in the 9th century AD during the Abbasid era to counter the beliefs of Mutazilities.[14]"

This assertion is not immediately followed by an opposing viewpoint. The Quranism article has a section (when I first stumbled upon this article a few months ago, it was the largest section) devoted entirely to criticism of Quranism. There is no such section in the Ahle Hadith and Sunni Islam articles. If there's a problem with the history section, it's that both assertions (for and against Umar espousing Quranist views) are unsourced. This is something I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out. MezzoMezzo wrote:

"That doesn't make it right or wrong; it's not our jobs as editors to make those judgment calls. And that's the point. As it is, the line very clearly is trying to make a judgment call by asserting that the Qur'anist view is historically accurate; the job of editors is to present the different stated views, not weigh them."

I agree. And I think the article does just that. . . present the different stated views. Sunnis (who see themselves as "orthodox" and "mainstream" and others as "heterodox" and "fringe") see Quranism as a twentieth century bid'ah with no antecedents in Islamic history. This view is reflected in the history section, as I already pointed out. This view is reflected in the references. The 2nd reference, "The Qur’aniyūn of the twentieth century," says:

"Until very recently, the concept of the sunna, and it's legal authority, was never questioned. However, the twentieth century witnessed a number of individuals and groups, who under the guise of 'returning to the Qur'an' have rejected in totality, the legal authority of the sunna"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18027174/The-Quraniyoon-of-the-Twentieth-Century

The 53rd reference, "A Look at Hadith Rejecters' Claims," says:

"For the past fourteen centuries Qur'an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims."

[. . .]

"Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some 'scholars' arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example -- Hadith -- was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target."

http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/response_rejecters.shtml

This view was also expressed in your edit summaries. You wrote:

"add tags - this is the result of modern day quranist views only, not mainstream scholarship"

and,

"to say this is ridiculous is the understatement of the year - it is not possible to bring a single reliable source to support this, and the entirety of scholarship in the middle east and the western world indicates otherwise as wel"

On the other hand, some Muslim and non-Muslim scholars dispute the historicity of this Sunni assertion and contend that Quranist sentiments date back to the early days of Islam. This view is reflected in the history section, as I already pointed out. It's also reflected in the references. In the 43rd reference, Prof. Aisha Musa wrote:

"This doctrine also has its roots in the early years of Islam. Although the term 'Qur'an alone' is not used in the early opposition to the authority of the hadith, the idea of the Qur'an as the only legetimate source of law and guidence is readily apparent, especially in reports about the second Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 22/643). Ignaz Goldziher, Nabia Abbott, and John Burton have acknowledged the significance of this idea in early Islam; however, it has largely been ignored or dismissed by most Muslim and non-Muslim scholars perhaps because the doctrine of duality of divine revelation eventually came override this concern and secured scriptural authority for the hadith alongside the Qur'an."

Aisha Y. Musa, "Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on The Authority Of Prophetic Traditions in Islam," Palgrave, 2008, pg. 9

Musa goes into more detail about Umar's rejection of hadith in other parts of the book (see pp. 22-29, for example). For a non-Quranist treatment of Umar and other prominent sahabas' rejection of hadith (and Sunni attempts to explain it), see Dr. Ali Nasir's textbook "An Introduction to Hadith: History and Sources," MIU PRESS, 2013, pp. 83-98.

Having said that, I agree with you that the article can be improved by citing references in the place that you mentioned. Melwood19 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, either you're missing my point or I'm missing yours (the second is very possible). Here is what I'm saying. Look at this line:

Historically, such beliefs were expressed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad while he was still alive.

This is disputed. You have shown me references claiming this. I'm sure you're also aware that I can bring many references disputing it. The point isn't for us to have a debate here on the talk page to see which view is right and then reflect that in the article. If that's not what you meant than I apologize for misunderstanding but that's what your comment seemed to imply.

Take a look at the other claim:

Umar ibn Khattab, one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs, is regarded as the first person to make such claims.

You have brought a source which supposedly supports this claim. I can also find sources which dispute it. Thus for me and you do compare sources here - again I am very, very sorry if that's not what you meant - is pointless. Per WP:NOTFORUM, the point isn't for us or anyone else to decide which sources are right and which are wrong.

On the other hand, I'm also not saying the sources which contradict these views be included anywhere other than the criticism section; they absolutely belong there and only in there. So I'm not trying to say the dispute should be stated in the body of the article; I'm only stating that we need to be clear that both claims are not universal views, but the views stated in specific sources. WP:IMPARTIAL evokes what I'm getting at here, in case my own explanation didn't make any sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore my snarky comments. I was in a bad moon and distracted by something off-Wiki while writing that. Let's just focus on the wording/tone under discussion here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "On the other hand, I'm also not saying the sources which contradict these views be included anywhere other than the criticism section; they absolutely belong there and only in there. So I'm not trying to say the dispute should be stated in the body of the article; I'm only stating that we need to be clear that both claims are not universal views, but the views stated in specific sources."

I disagree. Both the view that Umar objected to hadith and the view that he didn't are included, and should be included, in the history section. WP:UNDUE says:

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

And WP:RNPOV says:

"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: 'Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Friseetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else.'"

I think you identified the main problem with this part of the history section in your previous comment. The sentences supporting both viewpoints need to be sourced. Melwood19 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at your version now and to be honest, it is better actually. The language is more neutral which was my main point. I suppose the counter point, from a historical perspective, doesn't hurt either. I think we can call this case closed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made an additional modification to one of the paragraphs to make the transition smoother. Melwood19 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"quranist"

Again the quranist sect is replacing Quran alone, with quranist, and twisting words. Nobody uses this phrase except their sect. And Ahle Quran, means people of the Quran, not "quranist". Nobody is a Quranist, any more than they are a Biblist. Please. (Or indeed recitationist, Quran means The Recitation). "Quran-alone" follower though, is something many use, and seems to capture the most linguistically correct version, of this (more rational) interpretation.

Also to associate it with a liberal movement is wrong. The Quran has conservative values, no-promiscuity, no-intoxicants, no-homophilia, no-criminality (transgression), and teaches good behaviour, and conservative clothing. And ofcourse monotheism and godconsciousness. "God has no partners".

Peace Be With You.

Salaam, Ove Karlsen. You wrote:

"Again the quranist sect is replacing Quran alone, with quranist, and twisting words. Nobody uses this phrase except their sect. And Ahle Quran, means people of the Quran, not "quranist". Nobody is a Quranist, any more than they are a Biblist. Please. (Or indeed recitationist, Quran means The Recitation)."

You're right that only a small group (those associated with Farouk A. Peru) refer to themselves as "Quranists". Many who follow the Quran alone refer to themselves as just Muslim. However, others refer to all those who follow the Quran alone as "Quranists" (including those who don't refer to themselves as such).

You wrote:

"Quran-alone" follower though, is something many use, and seems to capture the most linguistically correct version, of this (more rational) interpretation."

I've never seen/heard the name "Quran-alone follower" used. It's a bit too wordy. You can understand why someone might prefer to use "Quranists" instead. If you do a wikipedia search for "Quran alone," "Quranism," "Quraniyoon," "Ahl al-Quran," etc., it goes to this article. If you do a Google search for those terms, this article is among the top results. And the article itself explains that not all those who follow the Quran alone refer to themselves as "Quranists":

"Quranists may be referred to in various ways, for example Qurʾāniyūn (Arabic: قرآنيون‎ Qurʾāniyyūn) and ʾAhl al-Qurʾān (أهل القرآن) / Ahle Qur'an, both translating to "Quranites" (which is also used in English), Submitters, and usually by their opponents munkirū al-ḥadīṯ (منكروا الحديث) (i.e. "negators of Hadith" / "hadith rejectors"), or Quranism, or Quran aloners, as well as other terms.

[. . . .]

"Quranists generally consider themselves to simply be "Muslims", a term directly from the Quran. Some adherents refer to themselves as Quranists or Ahle Quran."

You wrote:

"Also to associate it with a liberal movement is wrong. The Quran has conservative values, no-promiscuity, no-intoxicants, no-homophilia, no-criminality (transgression), and teaches good behaviour, and conservative clothing. And ofcourse monotheism and godconsciousness. "God has no partners"."

There are some prominent followers of the Quran alone who are politically conservative (Richard Steven Voss comes to mind). Other followers of the Quran alone are politically progressive. There is no political litmus test for inclusion. Salaam.

Michael Elwood Melwood19 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Difference between Quranism and 'just a muslim'

Assalamualaykum

So here's another big error's been made in this article is assuming 'just a muslim' as a Quranism. One of the example is Indonesian Muslim, it is written that about 56% of "just a muslim" is a quranism. Notably, most of Muslims in Indonesia don't really know the sects in Islam, such as Sunni Salafi, Sunni Shafii, Sunni Maliki, Shia, Ahmadiyya, etc. Because of this, when you do a polling by asking samples to Indonesian Muslim of which sect they are in, they don't really know about that, consecuently, most of them just declare as 'just a Muslim", whether Indonesian Muslim are dominated by Sunni Muslim (the majority are Shafii scholar), and I bet, another Muslim countries with a huge number of "quranism" are probably in the same case as Indonesian Muslims.

Well, that's what on my view since I'm an Indonesian Muslim.

Thank you, and would be great if someone would notice this.

Wassalamualaykum.

Miftahul Faridl (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "So here's another big error's been made in this article is assuming 'just a muslim' as a Quranism."

The article doesn't assume all those who self-identify as "just Muslim" are "Quranists". The article says:

"It's not known what percentage of Muslims who don't identify with a sect also espouse Quranists beliefs. As many Quranists have a very individualistic interpretation of the Qur'an, rejecting sectarianism and organised religion as a general rule, it is difficult to gather an accurate estimate of the number of Quranists in the world today by doing a study of the Quranist organisations that exist."

It's possible that some who self-identify as "just Muslim" espouse beliefs similar to Sunnis or Shias. Conversely, it's also possible that some who identify as Sunni or Shia espouse beliefs that are similar to "Quranists". The 5th reference, titled the "Sectometer," points out that:

"The Sunni or Shiite test-takers found themselves in quagmire of contradiction with their own sectarian teachings. They learned that they were thirty, forty or even more than fifty percent infidels or heretics. Some of those who marked Sunni as their sectarian affiliation contradicted the Sunni teachings on most of the issues."

You wrote: "One of the example is Indonesian Muslim, it is written that about 56% of "just a muslim" is a quranism."

Again, the article doesn't say that all those who self-identify as "just Muslim" are "Quranist" (see above).

You wrote: "Notably, most of Muslims in Indonesia don't really know the sects in Islam, such as Sunni Salafi, Sunni Shafii, Sunni Maliki, Shia, Ahmadiyya, etc."

The 6th reference points out that some Indonesians were unfamiliar with some of the smaller sects that originate in Indonesia:

"Islam Liberal is a movement in Indonesia that prioritizes ethics over textual literalism. Only 16% of Indonesian Muslims think the movement is part of the Islamic faith, compared with 58% who do not. About a quarter (26%) are either unfamiliar with the group or do not know.

"Doubts also surround Aliran Kepercayaan, a mystical movement centered in Indonesia that combines elements of Islam with other religious traditions. In Indonesia, relatively few Muslims (5%) say the group is part of the Islamic faith, while fully 80% disagree. In Malaysia, just 9% say Aliran Kepercayaan falls within the bounds of Islam, compared with nearly two-thirds (66%) who have never heard of the group or do not know and 26% who think members of the movement are not Muslims."

You wrote: "Because of this, when you do a polling by asking samples to Indonesian Muslim of which sect they are in, they don't really know about that, consecuently, most of them just declare as 'just a Muslim", whether Indonesian Muslim are dominated by Sunni Muslim (the majority are Shafii scholar), and I bet, another Muslim countries with a huge number of "quranism" are probably in the same case as Indonesian Muslims."

Whereas some Indonesians didn't know about some of the smaller sects, I don't think it's believable that they don't know about the Sunni or Shia sects. It's more likely that they self-identify as "just Muslim" because they don't agree with Sunni or Shia beliefs (or sectarianism in general), not because they don't know about Sunni or Shia beliefs. I suspect that this is also true for those outside of Indonesia who self-identify as "just Muslim". Salaam. Melwood19 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to confirm that the original poster was right. Most Indonesians don't know/understand about the Sunni/Shia. Being an Indonesian, I remember when I was in high school in the US and a Arab Muslim teacher asked me whether I was Sunni or Shia, but I just stared at him confused and a bit embarassed because I didn't know which one I was... For many Indonesians, Sunni and Shia thing is still only a conflict in the news from far away in the Middle East.KaluQ84 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just Muslims is a stray from topic

this article is collapsing two things. ppl who do not bother with sectarian names with ppl who do not follow hadith. totally different items.--Inayity (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too and just checked here to see if it was being discussed. What I am seeing is a major violation of WP:SYNTHESIS; the section attempts to compare Non-denominational Muslims and Quranists. Three of the sources given are from Quranist sources which is an obvious issue of WP:QUESTIONABLE as well as Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

I used to be a Quranist and one thing I know is that for such a miniscule group, it's in their best interest to attach themselves to a much larger group (non-sectarian Muslims) whose beliefs are mild enough that they could really be attached to anything due to the ambiguity of what they (non-sectarian Muslims) actually believe.

This is on top of the fact that much of the information here is simply unrelated to the topic. The sentence about liberal movements within Islam in the last paragraph is sourced, but it has nothing to do with Quranism; likewise, the Pew Research poll toward the beginning is quoted and occupies much of the section space yet the bottom line is that the source given has absolutely nothing to do with Quranism. This just seems like an attempt to draw conclusions by the editor who wrote the section, which is a great, big Wikipedia:No original research violation with whip cream on the top.

I suggest deleting the unrelated sentences along with their sources in their entirety; those remaing tidbits which are relevant to the subject could be moved to the doctrine section in a blurb at the end about comparisons with other movements (such as the Mutazila comparison, I haven't checked the source but it seems legit). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree delete, but we can use the info (if not already mentioned) on non-denominational Muslim page.--Inayity (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I indented your above comment by one extra space if you don't mind. Anyway, I didn't even realize that the information should also be moved to the actual relevant page. Good call as there's no need for relevant sources to be lost totally; they just need to be put where they belong.

Shall we wait for another week or so to see if there is any further input? There might be more ideas like this, and I know that both User:Pass a Method and User:Melwood19 have contributed to this page in the past. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we have to wait, it is as you say SYNTH. But you can leave a message on User:Pass a Method page asking him to weight in. --Inayity (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you. melwood added most of those, so its best to contact him. Pass a Method talk 13:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: I used to be a Quranist and one thing I know is that for such a miniscule group, it's in their best interest to attach themselves to a much larger group (non-sectarian Muslims) whose beliefs are mild enough that they could really be attached to anything due to the ambiguity of what they (non-sectarian Muslims) actually believe.

There's no incentive for Quranists to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are. However, there is an incentive for Sunnis to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are, and make others appear less numerous than they actually are. I used to be a Sunni, and one thing I know is that they attach a lot of importance to the belief that they're a majority. In their mind, being in the majority validates their beliefs, and conversely, being in the minority invalidates other people's beliefs. In the article on Sunni Islam, their majority status is mentioned in the very first paragraph. There's even a bogus claim that Sunnis are not only the largest Islamic sect, but also "the world's largest religious body" (even though Catholics are more numerous than Sunnis and the source cited makes no such claim).

Quranists tend not to believe that the validity of a belief is predicated on how many people believe in it because they believe that this constitutes an ad populum fallacy, and because they believe that Quran 6:116 says that following the crowd leads people astray.

MezzoMezzo wrote: This is on top of the fact that much of the information here is simply unrelated to the topic.

I disagree. It's relevant because many Quranists refer to themselves as just Muslims, and not Quranists. In fact, there was a controversy a few years ago when a Quranist wrote an article suggesting that they should call themselves Quranists and not Muslims. But his argument didn't seem to persuade many of them to do so. Some of them use the word Quranist in an adjectival sense to refer to their beliefs. But many of them don't use the word in a nounal sense to refer to themselves.

MezzoMezzo wrote: likewise, the Pew Research poll toward the beginning is quoted and occupies much of the section space yet the bottom line is that the source given has absolutely nothing to do with Quranism.

I think it should be removed, but not because it's irrelevant. Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same. I'm also going to remove the "non sectarian" heading and the tag and merge it with the "terminology" section. Melwood19 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no incentive for Quranists to make themselves appear more numerous than they actually are. That's so silly that it almost betrays a stunning lack of objectivity. Quranists want to portray larger numbers just like other religious groups; they aren't some other-wordly beings who are disinterested in numbers. Try to be realistic about religious groups, especially when assessing articles like this one for bias.

It's relevant because many Quranists refer to themselves as just Muslims, and not Quranists. The opposite isn't the case, though, and that's the issue. Somebody saying they are "just Muslim" doesn't imply the exact specific details of their beliefs, and it's a stretch to assume that they share beliefs with such a small group. It makes as much sense as claiming that someone who says they're "just Muslim" must be Ahmadis, Druze, or any other minority sect, or to assume that someone who says they're "just Christian" is automatically a Presbyterian or Methodist, etc.

Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same. I kind of don't get it given your comments above, but the current version you did is a huge improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Very obvious intellectual dishonesty in the notable individuals section

Alright, I just searched through the individuals listed as Quranists who actually have Wikipedia articles. The red links are another issue for another time. Anyway, quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous. In a few cases, I checked the sources cited for proof that some individuals were Quranists and found that said sources didn't assert that at all. It seems as though an editor was trying to bolster the list of famous Quranists, throwing in random sources and hoping that nobody would double check.
All of my removals are in line with WP:NPOV and my rationale was provided in the given edit summaries. The individuals should stay out of the list until reliable sources can be brought here. Due to the obvious POV pushing that's occurred at this article, the sources should be discussed first and individuals can be added later; this is obviously a controversial topic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: Anyway, quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous.

"Modernist" and "Quranist" are not mutually exclusive terms. Like "just Muslim" and "Quranist," they sometimes overlap. You have a point about ambiguity, though.There are some that I'm on the fence about too like Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, Ma QiXi, and Maurice Bucaille. A good case can be made both for and against their inclusion. Pass a Method also questioned the inclusion of Alexander Russell Webb, and I questioned the inclusion of TaHa Hussein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Webb

MezzoMezzo wrote: All of my removals are in line with WP:NPOV and my rationale was provided in the given edit summaries. The individuals should stay out of the list until reliable sources can be brought here.

You didn't say what your criteria was for inclusion, but I can infer what it is from what you wrote here, your edits, and edit summaries. I inferred from them that your criteria for inclusion is a reliable source that calls them Quranist. But some of your edits don't follow your own implicit criteria. You removed some which, based on your own criteria, shouldn't have been removed. For example, you removed Shafie Ayar and Ma Qixi. You wrote in your edit summary that there's no mention of them being Quranists. But if your "rationale" for removing Ayar and Qixi was that there's no mention of them being Quranists, why did you also remove Asarulislam Syed and Tawfik Hamid? Syed's wikipedia article clearly mentions him being a Quranist:

. . . chief executive officer of Jannat Pakistan, a Quranist religious educational movement propagating Islam as Deen . . .

and,

As a Quran Scholar, Asarulislam won strong appreciation from other Quranist Scholars including the celebrated Dr. Shabbir Ahmed (writer) who acknowledging his scholarship named him "Cannon of the Quran".

And one of the references for the article says the same:

http://quaideazam.com/asarulislam/

The source which you removed for Hamid mentions his association with Quranists:

Former Jemaah Islamiya member Tawfik Hamid told me that it was Quranists who gave him the space to develop critical thinking and so helped wean him away from jihadism.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/827vslni.asp

Though you don't think Hamid should be called a Quranist, you called him a modernist in your edit summary. Where's the "reliable source" for that? Why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists if you're just going to remove it regardless? And why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists when, as the wikipedia article on Quranism points out, many of them don't call themselves Quranists but just Muslims? Isn't a more reasonable criteria for inclusion what they believe, and not what they're called? For example, Yasar Nuri Ozturk's wikipedia article says:

His magnum opus, “The Islam of the Qur’an,” is considered one of the pioneering works of the “Back to the Qur’an” movement. Öztürk’s role in and contributions to this movement, along with the world of his thought, have been the subject of a large number of theses in Turkish, German, English and French at various international universities.

And the source, which you removed, said Ozturk's view of hadith was similar to Yuksel's view of hadith. But neither Ozturk nor Yuksel call themselves Quranists.

You removed Abdur Rab. You wrote in your edit summary, ""Abdur Rab" is just a redirect article and none of the Bangladeshi people listed there are Quranists". He wrote an article titled Fifteen Reasons Why Quran-only Islam (http://www.19.org/4863/fifteen-reason/) and a book titled Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from a Quranic Perspective. But, if I'm not mistaken, he doesn't call himself a Quranist either.

Peace be upon you. This understanding about Abdur Rab that he is not (does not call himself) a Quranist is blatantly mistaken. That he, a Harvard Ph.D., is a Quranist is well-proven by his latest book Rediscovering Genuine Islam: The Case for a Quran-Only Understanding, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014 (http://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-Genuine-Islam-Quran-Only-Understanding/dp/1495287173) - the latest of three successive editions of his book on Islam, written solely in the light of the Quran, two chapters of which each are devoted to a detailed, searching critique of the Hadith. The earlier editions of his book are titled Exploring Islam in a New Light: A View from the Quranic Perspective, and Exploring Islam in a New Light: An Understanding from the Quranic Perspective (See website http://explorequran.org/). These are acclaimed by eminent scholars, such as Reza Aslan, Edip Yuksel, Riffat Hassan, Jeffrey Lang, and Khaleel Mohammed - the second edition also by Khaled Abou El Fadl. Jeffrey Lang's remarks in particular clearly point to Abdur Rab's sole Quranic stance: “Abdur Rab offers a comprehensive vision of Islam using the Quran as his sole religious textual source. He intentionally avoids the Hadith literature, which he believes, and argues, has done much damage to the message of the Quran. His work provides many very thought-provoking insights and should be a significant contribution to the ‘Quran only’ movement in modern Islam.” (See http://explorequran.org/endorse.html) Also worth noting are two reviews, one from Khaleel Mohammed and another from Edip Yuksel, which also reaffirm Abdur Rab's Quran-Only approach (See: http://explorequran.org/reviews.html). Abdur Rab's new, additional website is http://quranonly.com/. He has written many articles that use no Hadith references in support of his views (See his articles here: http://quranonly.com/my-articles/), one of which is presented to the 42nd NAAIMS Conference, organized by and held at Princeton University on Sep. 28, 2013 (available at https://naaims.org/uploads/Abdur_Rab_-_42FP.pdf). Three of his articles clearly justify rejecting the Hadith altogether - "The Story of How I Turned into an Advocate of Quran-Only Islam," (available at https://www.academia.edu/6926867/The_Story_of_How_I_Turned_into_an_Advocate_of_the_Quran-Only_Islam), "Fifteen Great Reasons We Should Embrace and Follow the Quran-only Islam," (available at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fifteen-Great-Reasons-We-S-by-Abdur-Rab-081202-982.html and also at http://19.org/blog/category/authors/abdurrab/), and "Does the Hadith have a Solid Historical Basis?". (available at http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis). Dr. Rab is a retired public policy analyst, who held important public positions including some with or for organizations, such as the World Bank, UNIDO, UNDP, and the Asian Development Bank. He has reviewed Aisha Y. Musa's book Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of the Prophetic Traditions in Islam, (available at https://www.academia.edu/3172436/Review_Article_Aisha_Musas_Hadith_as_Scripture_Discussions_on_the_Authority_of_the_Prophetic_Traditions_in_Islam_2008 and also at her Amazon book site). This information should amply justify reinstatement of Abdur Rab's name in the list of prominent Quranists.--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed Shabbir Ahmed, who was mentioned in Asarulislam Syed's wikipedia article. He doesn't call himself a Quranist either. You theatrically wrote in your edit summary, "for crying out loud, the guy has abook listing hadith which he accepts as authentic; how on earth is he being declared a quranist here?"

But you're confusing the issue of authenticity and authority. Being a Quranist doesn't require rejecting all hadith as inauthentic. The wikipedia article for Quranism itself says:

The extent to which Quranists reject the authenticity of the Sunnah varies. . .

The literature produced by Quranists discusses this issue. For example, in an article titled Identifying Assumptions in the Hadith/Sunnah Debate, Richard Voss wrote:

The assumptions that underlie the respective positions of proponents and opponents of hadith and sunnah generally revolve around what is meant by “discarding” them. The opponents of hadith and sunnah are concerned only with the question of sanctity [of upholding God’s word], their proponents, on the other hand, are concerned with the prescriptive vacuum that they fear would be created if all the world's Muslims suddenly do away with their volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the transcribers of the oral traditions of the early Islamic era. In a given debate, therefore, the Submitter [the advocate of following the Quran alone] may think that “discarding” hadith and sunnah means merely resisting the belief that they could serve as a source of divine guidance, while the advocate of hadith and sunnah may think it means doing away with information valuable for providing insight into certain aspects of early Islamic history. In such a debate, the debaters could reach a consensus if each realizes what the other assumes is understood from the outset.

and,

As for the other point, Submitters do not deny the historical validity of much of hadith.

http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/sp/1996/apr/page1.html

Prof. Aisha Musa discussed this issue in her book Hadith as Scripture (pp. 4-5, under the subheading "Authenticity versus Authority"). And I also discussed this issue with another editor on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Quranism_talk_page

And you also removed Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, neither of whom called themselves Quranists. You theatrically wrote in your edit summary: "wow....straight up blatant lying here! the tribune article doesn't mention anybody rejecting hadith in their entirety, not Khan and not Ali, and the other source is just the main page of a muslim proselytizing website"

Again, being a Quranist doesn't require rejecting hadith in its entirety. And the Tribune article associates both Khan and Ali with the Ahl al-Quran movement:

A bright young scholar with a PhD from Heidelberg and currently involved in postdoctoral work at the University of London, Ali Usman Qasmi, has given us a brilliant book: Questioning the Authority of the Past: The Ahl al-Quran Movement in the Punjab (OUP 2011) on a very significant movement in the understanding of the Holy Quran.

Presided over by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s ‘rational’ exegesis of the Quran, the ulema who sought to reinterpret the scripture thus included Aslam Jairajpuri, Maulana Ahmaduddin, Maulvi Chiragh Ali and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez — a work on Hadith of the last-named being banned in the more literalist-Hanbalite Gulf and likely in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/233531/a-matter-of-interpretation/

If you define a Quranist strictly as one who rejects the authority and authenticity of the Hadith in its entirety, Abdur Rab well qualifies as a Quranist and the removal of his name from the list of prominent Quranists is clearly unjustified (Refer to additional reference on Abdur Rab above).--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The other source isn't just the main page of a Muslim proselytizing website as you claim. It's a paper written by Abu Ruqayyah Farasat Latif. On page 6, he also associates Khan and Ali with the Ahl al-Quran movement:

Dr as-Saleh as- Saleh states that in addition to Parwez’s Tulu’l Islam movement,three other Qur’aniyūn groups operate in Pakistan. They are: Umāt Muslimūn ahl thikr wa’l Qur’ān, Umāt Muslimūn, and Tahrīq Tahmīr Insān. The ideological impetus for all four groups can be traced back to the works of Sayyid Ahmed Khan (1817 -98), known as the founder of the modernist movement in the Subcontinent. He subjected the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth to ‘rational science’, resulting in a metaphorical interpretation of the many of the tenants of the Muslim belief. Khan held that it was not obligatory to follow a legal ruling from the ḥadīth. Chiragh ‘Alī2 further developed the view of his teacher Khan, holding that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic (Ahmad, 1967: 59-60).

http://www.academia.edu/3452285/The_Quraniyun_Of_The_Twentieth_Century

Ironically, Latif is a Sunni who stated that his aim for writing the paper is:

By examining the arguments of the Qur’aniyūn, the research will show that their views on the concept, status, and history of ḥadīth are seriously flawed, and contradict both the Qur’an and historical fact

Is he part of the conspiracy to "bolster the list of famous Quranists" too?

MezzoMezzo wrote: Due to the obvious POV pushing that's occurred at this article, the sources should be discussed first and individuals can be added later; this is obviously a controversial topic.

Some POV pushing has definately occured at this article. . . but not of the kind that you're suggesting. Although WP:CRIT suggests that religion articles should have a "criticism" section, the Quranism article is one of the few Islam-related articles that has one (the main article on Islam, and the articles for Yazdânism and the Nation of Islam being the other ones). When I first came accross this article, it was the largest section ("Besieged" discussed this in one of the sections above).

This is the second time you've accused me of POV pushing. And this is the second time I've had to disabuse you of that notion. I certainly hope you don't make a habit of this and I won't find myself here several months from now writing another lenghty defense of my edits. After all, some of your edits on this article could also be perceived as POV pushing. For example, removing "famous" people from the list and drawing a hard line between overlapping terms like Quranist, modernist, non-denominational, and liberal Muslim, has the effect of reinforcing your opinion (and the broader Sunni opinion) of the movement as "fringe" and a "minuscule minority". Nevertheless, I assumed your edits were made in good faith and didn't hurl accusations of "POV pushing," "intellectual dishonesty," and "straight up blatant lying" your way. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd extend the same courtesy to me. Melwood19 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I inferred from them that your criteria for inclusion is a reliable source that calls them Quranist. But some of your edits don't follow your own implicit criteria. That isn't my criteria, those are the criteria used on religion articles for Wikipedia. This was reached after long discussions on the talk page for Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri led to a check on various Wikipedia discussion boards. If you like, I can trudge through the discussions and provide the wikilinks, given some time. As for me not always following it, then that's a matter of gross error on my part in which case I obviously should be reverted.

Syed's wikipedia article clearly mentions him being a Quranist. Absolutely correct; it makes that clear early on. I was opening many pages and searching for the term, and somehow I must have mixed that page with another or something along those lines. I'm not sure how I missed it.

The source which you removed for Hamid mentions his association with Quranists. The President of the Comoros studied Islam in Iran and thus has an association with Shi'ism, but he isn't a Shi'ite. The point I am making is that an association in which one person learns positively from another group doesn't make them a member of said group; Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group.

Though you don't think Hamid should be called a Quranist, you called him a modernist in your edit summary. Where's the "reliable source" for that? I don't need one because I didn't add that to his article.

And why demand a reliable source calling them Quranists when, as the wikipedia article on Quranism points out, many of them don't call themselves Quranists but just Muslims? Again, the rules for ascription to this religious group aren't different from the rules to ascription to any other group. If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period.

Isn't a more reasonable criteria for inclusion what they believe, and not what they're called? That's absolutely not reasonable because what a person believes is up to interpretation. Either reliable sources designate a person as belonging to a certain religious group, or they don't. It's not up to us editors to engage in our own original research and decide how to categorize people.

And the source, which you removed, said Ozturk's view of hadith was similar to Yuksel's view of hadith. But neither Ozturk nor Yuksel call themselves Quranists. Yuksel is widely acknowledged as a Quranist and reliable sources cannot be found to that effect. I did not find any reliable source positively describing Ozturk with that term.

You removed Abdur Rab. It's a disambiguation page. It shall remain removed.

Please see the new objections to the removal of Abdur Rab noted above. The removal of his name does not stand justified in light of the new information about him inserted above.--Rab.Abdur (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.Abdur (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed Shabbir Ahmed, who was mentioned in Asarulislam Syed's wikipedia article. He doesn't call himself a Quranist either. And so he will not be listed here, for reasons explained above.

And you also removed Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, neither of whom called themselves Quranists. This only supports their removal.

Is he (Latif) part of the conspiracy to "bolster the list of famous Quranists" too? No, he isn't a Wikipedia editor.

WP:CRIT suggests that religion articles should have a "criticism" section... Unrelated to our discussion.

This is the second time you've accused me of POV pushing. No it isn't. I didn't accuse anybody in particular of POV pushing here, I just said that somebody is doing it. In the absence of any explanation from you or anyone else (I didn't check the article history because I didn't need to, I know POV pushing when I see it and speaking generally is less confrontational), there really aren't any other conclusions to be drawn.

For example, removing "famous" people from the list and drawing a hard line between overlapping terms like Quranist, modernist, non-denominational, and liberal Muslim, has the effect of reinforcing your opinion (and the broader Sunni opinion) of the movement as "fringe" and a "minuscule minority". If you really want to argue that anybody who is modernist, non-deniminational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, start a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. You're going to lose such a discussion, by the way, but if this upsets you then don't complain to me as I can't change the policies of the encyclopedia.

I'm going to actually review that part of the article now and remove anyone else who is not explicitly noted as a part of this religious group - taking care, of course, to look a lot harder this time and avoid other blatant errors such as the issue with Asarulislam Syed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: That isn't my criteria, those are the criteria used on religion articles for Wikipedia. This was reached after long discussions on the talk page for Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri led to a check on various Wikipedia discussion boards. If you like, I can trudge through the discussions and provide the wikilinks, given some time. As for me not always following it, then that's a matter of gross error on my part in which case I obviously should be reverted.

It is indeed your own idiosyncratic criteria and not the criteria used for religion articles on Wikipedia. And the discussion that occurred on the Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri talk page has no bearing on the discussion happening on this talk page. It certainly doesn't have the force of a Wikipedia guideline to be applied to all other religion articles.

MezzoMezzo wrote: Absolutely correct; it makes that clear early on. I was opening many pages and searching for the term, and somehow I must have mixed that page with another or something along those lines. I'm not sure how I missed it.

It's besides the point whether Asarulislam Syed is called a Quranist or not. This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.

MezzoMezzo wrote: The President of the Comoros studied Islam in Iran and thus has an association with Shi'ism, but he isn't a Shi'ite. The point I am making is that an association in which one person learns positively from another group doesn't make them a member of said group; Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group.

I wasn't using the word association in the loose sense that you're using it. I meant Tawfik Hamid is associated with Quranism in the same sense that Ahmed Subhy Mansour is associated with Quranism, and Colonel Sanders is associated with fried chicken. Hamid's articles even appear on the Ahl al-Quran website:

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/profile.php?main_id=4197

MezzoMezzo wrote: Again, the rules for ascription to this religious group aren't different from the rules to ascription to any other group. If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period.

I don't know why you think that every editor who disagrees with you must not be aware of Wikipedia guidelines. I know what the guidelines are and they're not what you say they are. And I'm not ascribing beliefs to people who don't openly proclaim them.

MezzoMezzo wrote: That's absolutely not reasonable because what a person believes is up to interpretation. Either reliable sources designate a person as belonging to a certain religious group, or they don't. It's not up to us editors to engage in our own original research and decide how to categorize people.

Again, you seem to think I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are. WP:EDITDISC says:

Editors should exercise their discretion to make sure that relevant sources and claims are reflected fairly.

[. . .]

It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia. We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules, we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. This task requires the application of judgement and discretion in order to create a neutral and readable encyclopedia.

The policy on original research is sometimes misconstrued as a blanket prohibition on any application of judgement or critical thinking by editors. The intent of that policy was never to turn editing into an unthinking task, and our articles into mere compilations of published data.

And WP:COMMONSENSE says:

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.

This is not an article about Quranists, but Quranism. And the notion that someone who espouses beliefs in line with Quranism, as defined in reliable sources, doesn't warrant inclusion in an article about Quranism just because they don't call themselves Quranist is patently absurd. It's even more absurd when you consider that reliable sources say that many of them don't use the word Quranist as a self-appellation.

MezzoMezzo wrote: Yuksel is widely acknowledged as a Quranist and reliable sources cannot be found to that effect. I did not find any reliable source positively describing Ozturk with that term.

Widely acknowledged by who? Only several paragraphs earlier you wrote: "Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group." As I pointed out in a previous comment, Yuksel doesn't call himself a Quranist. But you'd still include him in an article about Quranism because he's "widely acknowledged" as a Quranist? I think Yuksel and the others should be included in the article not because they or someone else calls them a Quranist, but because the ideas they advocate comes under the scope of the ideas covered in the article on Quranism.

MezzoMezzo wrote: And so he will not be listed here, for reasons explained above.

So now the criteria for including Shabbir Ahmed is back to him calling himself a Quranists? What happened to being "widely acknowledged" as Quranist? Shabbir Ahmed should be included in an article on Quranism because his ideas come under the scope of such an article. And so he will be listed here, for reasons explained above.

MezzoMezzo wrote: This only supports their removal.

No, it doesn't support Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Chiragh Ali's removal. Despite not calling themselves Quranists, their ideas come under the scope of the article on Quranism. And numerous reliable sources attest to their association with Quranism:

. . .sections of the Muslim intelligensia rejected hadith literature as de facto legitimations of social-religious and political practices. Chiragh Ali, for instance, refused to accept the hadith as authentic sources of Islam, asserting that all sorts of political systems could be and have been defended by an appeal to them. The Quran, he argued, was the only authentic source to which Muslims could look back, hence, any social-political formulation had to be based solely on a proper interpretation of the Quran.

Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pg. 54

There are, however, some modernist schools in Islam which reject the authenticity of hadith, and reject it in toto. The Indian Muslim, Chiragh Ali (d. 1894), a colleague of the modernist Sir Sayyid Ahmad, attacked hadith literature even more sharply than Ignaz Goldziher did at the same time in Europe. His attitude is likely to have strengthened the aversion of the traditionalists and especially the Ahl-i hadith (a fundamentalist movement) against Sir Sayyid's reformist tendencies.

Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, State University of New York Press, 1992, pg. 54

Islamic modernists' most influential work came in critiquing the corpus of Hadiths. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, some Muslim intellectuals concluded that the Hadith tradition was not at all a reliable representation of Muhammad's message. A few of these thinkers went so far as to reject altogether the authoritativeness of the prophet's precedent.

One of the most influential intellectual movements in the Muslim world in the twentieth century was the Ahl-e Quran, the "People of the Quran," also known as the "Quran-only" movement, which emerged and flourished in South Asia. This approach to Hadiths and the Quran built on the work of Chiragh Ali (d. 1895), an Indian who worked in the civil service of the local ruler of Hyderabad. Ali rejected all sources of Islamic law and dogma except the Quran and called for a reinterpretation of Islamic law based on the ideals of humanism (such as rationalism, science and non-religiously-based ethics). If the Quran did not provide any comprehensive vision of law or dogma, that was no problem; Ali claimed that Muslims had always been supposed to revise their law in accordance with the needs of the times. As part of his radical reforms, Ali rejected consensus as a type of proof.

Jonathan A.C. Brown in Islam in the Modern World, Routledge, 2013, pg. 20

Similarly, in the the field of historical criticism, the question of Hadith comes under discussion. On this point, again, Muhammad 'Abduh maintains that one does not incur infidelity to Islam if one doubts any given Hadith, but Hadith must be accepted on principle and in general. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, most probably aided by his colleague, Maulavi Chiragh ' Ali, rejects all Hadith. One may say that the method adopted by Sayyid Ahmad Khan was more thorough-going and consistent, and its conclusions are more radical than those of Muhammad 'Abduh.

Peter Malcolm Holt, ‎Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam:, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 645-646

MezzoMezzo wrote: Unrelated to our discussion.

It's more related to our discussion than that discussion about Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri. You claimed that "obvious POV pushing" had occurred at this article. Yet the article, though not perfect, is relatively well balanced and is one of the only Islam-related articles with a criticism section (something which WP:CRIT suggests religion articles have).

MezzoMezzo wrote: No it isn't. I didn't accuse anybody in particular of POV pushing here, I just said that somebody is doing it. In the absence of any explanation from you or anyone else (I didn't check the article history because I didn't need to, I know POV pushing when I see it and speaking generally is less confrontational), there really aren't any other conclusions to be drawn.

WP:GF doesn't require that you specifically name the editor(s) you assume are editing in bad faith. Besides, people can put 2 and 2 together. And if you know POV pushing when you see it, why are you so oblivious to your own?

MezzoMezzo wrote: If you really want to argue that anybody who is modernist, non-deniminational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, start a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. You're going to lose such a discussion, by the way, but if this upsets you then don't complain to me as I can't change the policies of the encyclopedia.

And If you really want to make the Straw man argument that I said that anybody who is modernist, non-denominational or liberal Muslim is also associated with Quranism by default, go ahead. But you're going to lose that argument because I specifically said in two previous comments that:

It's possible that some who self-identify as "just Muslim" espouse beliefs similar to Sunnis or Shias. Conversely, it's also possible that some who identify as Sunni or Shia espouse beliefs that are similar to "Quranists".

and,

I think it should be removed, but not because it's irrelevant. Although there's some overlap between "Quranist" and "just Muslims," the Pew poll can give the false impression that they're one in the same.

Moreover, I've provided six reliable sources on this talk page that movements like Quranism, modernism, etc., sometimes overlap. You've provided zero reliable sources that said movements are mutually exclusive. Melwood19 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The inconsistencies, personal attacks and POV pushing is now obvious enough to call you out on it and I really am disappointed that you're choosing to go this route. Let's cut to the chase about our disagreement here:

Does a person sharing some ideas with a religious group warrant asciption to said religious group by Wikipedia editors?

Does the overlapping of ideas among several religious groups mean that a person ascribed to one can also be categorized under the other? You've claimed that you do and don't hold this idea above, but your rant ends with the implication that overlapping does mean we can cross-categorize, so I will assume that's the position you hold.

If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?

My position is that your edits constitute a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, whether you claim the issue is of one of POV or not. Thus I feel strongly that this issue must be taken to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. There is also the more general Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is mainly a place where the communtiy points editors in the right direction or a good starting point. Take your pick, I'm comfortable with either one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: The inconsistencies, personal attacks and POV pushing is now obvious enough to call you out on it and I really am disappointed that you're choosing to go this route.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, you didn't remove Edip Yuksel from the list because he's "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. But you removed Chiragh Ali from the list (who, like Yuksel, is also "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist) because he didn't call himself a Quranist. But I'm the one who's being inconsistent?

You accused other editors here of everything from "intellectual dishonesty" to "straight up blatant lying," but you're the one who's being personally attacked?

And you've been editing the article in such a way to make the group fit your perception of it as "fringe," but I'm the one who's POV pushing? Okay, got it!

MezzoMezzo wrote: Let's cut to the chase about our disagreement here

We cut to the chase a long time ago. Now you're just repeating the same piffle over and over again

MezzoMezzo wrote: Does a person sharing some ideas with a religious group warrant asciption to said religious group by Wikipedia editors?

We're not talking about just "some ideas," but the main idea of the group in question. An idea which only the group in question advocates.

MezzoMezzo wrote: Does the overlapping of ideas among several religious groups mean that a person ascribed to one can also be categorized under the other?

This is a textbook example of the Either-or fallacy. Yes, sometimes they can be categorized under more than one group (and we're not talking about different religious groups, but movements within the same religion). That's why some of the people on the list of Evangelicals like Johnny Hunt are also on the list of Baptists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southern_Baptist_Convention_affiliated_people#Living

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_Christians#Pastors_and_preachers

And that's why some of the people on the list of Quranists like Ghulam Ahmed Pervez and Syed Ahmed Khan are also on the list of modernist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Modernism#A_list_of_alleged_Islamic_Modernists

But all the people on the list of Evangelicals aren't on the list of Baptists and vice versa. And all the people on the list of Quranists aren't on the list of modernists and vice versa. I don't know why this is such a difficult thing for you to grasp.

MezzoMezzo wrote: You've claimed that you do and don't hold this idea above, but your rant ends with the implication that overlapping does mean we can cross-categorize, so I will assume that's the position you hold.

I hold the position that they sometimes overlap, not that they always overlap (that's a straw man of your own making).

MezzoMezzo wrote: If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?

No, they cannot be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors. But we're not talking about undercover Quranists here. We're talking about people who are "widely acknowledged" as being Quranists, and whose association with Quranism is attested to in reliable sources (like Chiragh Ali, for example).

MezzoMezzo wrote: My position is that your edits constitute a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, whether you claim the issue is of one of POV or not.

And my position is that your edits constitute a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE.

MezzoMezzo wrote: Thus I feel strongly that this issue must be taken to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. There is also the more general Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is mainly a place where the communtiy points editors in the right direction or a good starting point. Take your pick, I'm comfortable with either one.

I was going to say that dispute resolution may not be necessary because I could have accepted Inayity's last edit (and because I don't have as much time to be able to participate in a dispute resolution noticeboard during the week as I would during the weekend). But after seeing your last edit claiming that Chiragh Ali's association with Quranism is "in dispute" when almost every scholarly work includes him among the intellectuals who espoused Quranist beliefs, I think we should seek dispute resolution too. I'm going to do a RFC since it seems to require less of a time investment than a DR/N. Melwood19 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sad more straw men, intellectual dishonesty and personal attacks. I am happy to see that you've backed down on this edit for the most part, as that was essentially what caused this dispute. You're also accurate in pinpointing that the current dispute revolves around Chiragh Ali, whom you reinserted here.

There are a number of sources given to support the statement "His (Khan's) student, Chiragh Ali, went further, suggesting that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic." I'm already seeing a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, as the 70th source for the article - A matter of interpretation - most assuredly does NOT support that statement. The sole mention of Ali says:

"Presided over by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s ‘rational’ exegesis of the Quran, the ulema who sought to reinterpret the scripture thus included Aslam Jairajpuri, Maulana Ahmaduddin, Maulvi Chiragh Ali and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez — a work on Hadith of the last-named being banned in the more literalist-Hanbalite Gulf and likely in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa."

There's nothing there about him suggesting anything at all, it just drops his name. Of the other sources given, one is a link to academia.edu - generally not considered a reliable source - and others which do appear to be reliable as they are from respected publishing houses.

Here's the problem though, Melwood: you're a proven POV pusher and we can see here a clear violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and I already found multiple other violations of that policy in previous versions of this article. I can no longer assume good faith, and I would like to see the full quotes in question from each and every one of these quoted sources. I don't trust that they say what you're claiming they say because you have not demonstrated a strong understanding of the relevant policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I started a noticification for the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#RfC_on_inclusion_in_lists. Does anybody like the idea of choosing someone at random from Wikipedia:Feedback request service as well? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: I am happy to see that you've backed down on this edit for the most part, as that was essentially what caused this dispute.

I didn't back down on the edit. I removed them to conform with a clearer, narrower criteria of inclusion per the Manual of Style:

. . .the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming

MezzoMezzo wrote: You're also accurate in pinpointing that the current dispute revolves around Chiragh Ali, whom you reinserted here.There are a number of sources given to support the statement "His (Khan's) student, Chiragh Ali, went further, suggesting that almost the entire body of ḥadīth was inauthentic.". . . . Of the other sources given, one is a link to academia.edu - generally not considered a reliable source - and others which do appear to be reliable as they are from respected publishing houses. Here's the problem though, Melwood: you're a proven POV pusher and we can see here a clear violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and I already found multiple other violations of that policy in previous versions of this article. I can no longer assume good faith, and I would like to see the full quotes in question from each and every one of these quoted sources. I don't trust that they say what you're claiming they say because you have not demonstrated a strong understanding of the relevant policy.

There you go again with the personal attacks. And stop acting like you're only now not assuming good faith, when you didn't assume good faith from the very beginning. I already quoted the sources in my previous comment. Here they are again:

. . .sections of the Muslim intelligentsia rejected hadith literature as de facto legitimations of social-religious and political practices. Chiragh Ali, for instance, refused to accept the hadith as authentic sources of Islam, asserting that all sorts of political systems could be and have been defended by an appeal to them. The Quran, he argued, was the only authentic source to which Muslims could look back, hence, any social-political formulation had to be based solely on a proper interpretation of the Quran.

Iqbal Singh Sevea, The Political Philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal: Islam and Nationalism in Late Colonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pg. 54

There are, however, some modernist schools in Islam which reject the authenticity of hadith, and reject it in toto. The Indian Muslim, Chiragh Ali (d. 1894), a colleague of the modernist Sir Sayyid Ahmad, attacked hadith literature even more sharply than Ignaz Goldziher did at the same time in Europe. His attitude is likely to have strengthened the aversion of the traditionalists and especially the Ahl-i hadith (a fundamentalist movement) against Sir Sayyid's reformist tendencies.

Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, State University of New York Press, 1992, pg. 54

Islamic modernists' most influential work came in critiquing the corpus of Hadiths. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, some Muslim intellectuals concluded that the Hadith tradition was not at all a reliable representation of Muhammad's message. A few of these thinkers went so far as to reject altogether the authoritativeness of the prophet's precedent.

One of the most influential intellectual movements in the Muslim world in the twentieth century was the Ahl-e Quran, the "People of the Quran," also known as the "Quran-only" movement, which emerged and flourished in South Asia. This approach to Hadiths and the Quran built on the work of Chiragh Ali (d. 1895), an Indian who worked in the civil service of the local ruler of Hyderabad. Ali rejected all sources of Islamic law and dogma except the Quran and called for a reinterpretation of Islamic law based on the ideals of humanism (such as rationalism, science and non-religiously-based ethics). If the Quran did not provide any comprehensive vision of law or dogma, that was no problem; Ali claimed that Muslims had always been supposed to revise their law in accordance with the needs of the times. As part of his radical reforms, Ali rejected consensus as a type of proof.

Jonathan A.C. Brown in Islam in the Modern World, Routledge, 2013, pg. 20

Similarly, in the the field of historical criticism, the question of Hadith comes under discussion. On this point, again, Muhammad 'Abduh maintains that one does not incur infidelity to Islam if one doubts any given Hadith, but Hadith must be accepted on principle and in general. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, most probably aided by his colleague, Maulavi Chiragh ' Ali, rejects all Hadith. One may say that the method adopted by Sayyid Ahmad Khan was more thorough-going and consistent, and its conclusions are more radical than those of Muhammad 'Abduh.

Peter Malcolm Holt, ‎Ann K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, The Cambridge History of Islam:, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 645-646

Melwood19 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't back down on the edit. I removed them to conform with...

You were the one who re-inserted them here, and then User:Inayity - NOT you - removed them here. You're not remembering things properly and instances like this will cause problems in communication.

I already quoted the sources in my previous comment...

You are correct and I am mistaken; the high volume of your insults, personal attacks and total inability to admit when you're wrong caused me to reply with this brief comment, however even when personally attacked it was still my responsibility to complete reading your comments in full. That being the case, the issue with Chiragh Ali seems to be resolved now which is an improvement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: You are correct and I am mistaken; the high volume of your insults, personal attacks and total inability to admit when you're wrong caused me to reply with this brief comment, however even when personally attacked it was still my responsibility to complete reading your comments in full.

So even when you make a mistake, it's still my fault? Stop trying to assess blame. We've been arguing for a whole week. And I don't want to be here arguing for another week.

MezzoMezzo wrote: That being the case, the issue with Chiragh Ali seems to be resolved now which is an improvement.

I agree. Let's move on. Melwood19 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And what is this thing you inserted which Inayity had to remove? have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism? I thought you said we as editors were no longer assessing via original research who is a Quranist and who isn't? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: And what is this thing you inserted which Inayity had to remove? have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism?

It's called a section lead (in it's entirety it read, "The following is an incomplete list of people who have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism"). As I pointed out in a previous comment, the Manual of Style suggests that lists have a brief section lead to clarify the criteria for inclusion:

the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming

MezzoMezzo wrote: I thought you said we as editors were no longer assessing via original research who is a Quranist and who isn't?

That's what I said, and that's what I continue to say. Melwood19 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the gross incivility on your part makes this discussion rather difficult. You said:

So even when you make a mistake, it's still my fault?

Yet I never assessed blame; in fact, I apologized and make clear that I committed an error. Your reaction here is difficult to understand. This is similarly confusing:

It's called a section lead...

I know what that is, but you appear to be playing games with your fellow editors now. As Inayity pointed out, you're switching the standards to people people who have advocated Quranist beliefs and contributed to the development of Quranism. Once again, this will cause us to fall into original research. It's about who is noted in reliable sources as being a Quranist, not merely contributing ideas. What you inserted flies in the face of much of the progress I and apparently Inayity thought was made here.

Regarding Ali and the I agree. Let's move on comment, you've done your part but I'm not ready to move on. Responding to your unfortunately rude comments took my (sadly limited) Wikipedia time yesterday and today, so I didn't actually read what you posted about Ali thoroughly yet. Give me a day or so to get back to you as I will have more free time then, I was just noting that you had made a positive contribution, I finally realized that and you deserve thanks for that. I'm not ready to review those comments in depth yet though to be honest I didn't make this point clear at all before. Just wait another day or so and we can move on then. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon proper review of the sources you have provided - something very belated on my part - I not only renew my opposition to the inclusion of Chiragh Ali in the list of notable Quranists but also to the inclusion of Syed Ahmad Khan. You provided four reliable sources, and not one of them refers to either individual as Quranists. They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research.

Now, if you want to mention both men in the history section as people who held similar ideas to the Quranist movement then I think you have a much stronger case there. The history section of articles on religious movements often mention individuals who held similar ideas to the movement. But the bottom line is that we have no basis for declaring either man to expressly be members of this religious movement. The matter really shouldn't require much more explanation at this point. We have this RfC open and the default duration should continue for another three weeks if I understand correctly, there really isn't much else to do except wait for further feedback from other editors and perhaps try to find proper, official means to publicize that RfC. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: "You provided four reliable sources, and not one of them refers to either individual as Quranists. They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research."

You initially claimed that you "doubt the sources claiming Chiragh Ali discounted all hadith literature". And you claimed that it was this that constituted OR. You said, "If a person holds a religious belief which they keep to themselves or don't openly proclaim, Wikipedia editors cannot ascribe it to that person proactively, period." I provided sources that the person in question held said beliefs and wrote: "The sources will tell the editors whether the person in question advocates Quranism, even if they don't call themselves Quranist (so there's no need for editors to engage in original research)."

Then you started claiming that what constitutes OR was him not calling himself or being called a Quranist. You said, "They do not self ascribe, reliable sources to not ascribe them, therefore we as editors cannot ascribe them to Quranism - that is a textbook example of original research."

But the article itself says, "Quranists are be referred to in various ways" and "Quranists generally refer to themselves simply as "Muslims"". So how can ascription or self ascription as Quranist be a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists? Your interpretation and application of the wikipedia OR policy defies commonsense.

MezzoMezzo wrote: "Now, if you want to mention both men in the history section as people who held similar ideas to the Quranist movement then I think you have a much stronger case there. The history section of articles on religious movements often mention individuals who held similar ideas to the movement."

You can do that if you wish, as a compromise between our two positions. I disagree with your interpretation and application of wikipedia policies, as I explained above. But I don't intend to argue this point further over my holiday vacation.

MezzoMezzo wrote: "But the bottom line is that we have no basis for declaring either man to expressly be members of this religious movement."

Yes, we do have a basis to declare them part of the Quranism movement. That's what the sources say. In fact, the same source that's used for Chiragh Ali (the 73rd source, pg. 20), is also used for Edip Yuksel (the 89th source, pg. 21). Neither is called a Quranists, but both are treated as part of the Quranist movement. The source says:

Islamic modernism and its Quran-only trend have thrived among Western Muslim scholars. Although they have not always held explicit Quran-only positions, many have ignored Hadiths in their discussions of Islamic Law and dogma, as is the case with American Amina Wadud's revaluation of the traditional Islamic view of gender. The Quran-only movement has continued among some Tukish intellectuals, such as Edip Yuksel and his collegues, who have published the Reformist Quran, an English translation and explanation of the holy book written without consulting hadiths.

MezzoMezzo wrote: "The matter really shouldn't require much more explanation at this point. We have this RfC open and the default duration should continue for another three weeks if I understand correctly, there really isn't much else to do except wait for further feedback from other editors and perhaps try to find proper, official means to publicize that RfC."

We've reached an impasse. I continue to insist on a commonsense application and interpretation of wikipedia policies, and you continue to insist on your interpretation of the policies. You can follow through on the aforementioned compromise if you wish, or you can wait for the RfC to run its course. Melwood19 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I still think you're misunderstanding a number of Wikipedia policies. When you ask:

But the article itself says, "Quranists are be referred to in various ways" and "Quranists generally refer to themselves simply as "Muslims"". So how can ascription or self ascription as Quranist be a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists?

Then the answer is simple: ascription or self ascription is a criteria for inclusion on a list of Quranists just as it is on a list of Ismailis, Bahais, Hanafis, Jehovahs Witnesses, Zen Buddhists and any other religious group. No religious group earns special treatment via Wikipedia policies. If a religious movement has many supposed followers who simply don't self ascribe or don't speak out and thus aren't ascribed to it by anyone else, then that religious group will simply have a shorter list. That's how Wikipedia works.

Your interpretation and application of the wikipedia OR policy defies commonsense.

Please explain.

Now, regarding the possibility of mentioning the two individuals in the history section you said:

You can do that if you wish, as a compromise between our two positions.

Well, I don't wish to do that. As I said, I just think you would have a stronger case. This article isn't a compromise between two individuals; we would need to wait for this RfC to run its course and then maybe, depending on the outcome of that, a discussion regarding my theoretical suggestion could take place but it takes deliberation. I've seen discussions on contested/controversial articles like this one drag on for months, that's just how it is if Wikipedia is to be improved.

Yes, we do have a basis to declare them part of the Quranism movement. That's what the sources say.

No, and I thought you had backed off from your earlier intellectual dishonesty on this one. I've finally checked the sources you gave above and have done so several times. The sources don't call Chiragh Ali or his teacher Syed Khan Quranists, period. I don't even know why you would bother saying this since your position seemed to have switched again - based on what you said above - to Quranists not requiring ascription in reliable sources to be considered Quranists.

By the way, the quote you provided only mentions Yuksel. I'm not sure how that is relevant here. You also made one other comment:

I continue to insist on a commonsense application and interpretation of wikipedia policies, and you continue to insist on your interpretation of the policies.

So your application is commonsense, and mine is not, but you haven't explained why...? That isn't very civil and you can make your point without framing the discussion in such a biased way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Shopping list

See WP:LISTPEOPLE For one, how long do you plan to make it? Should we include every single Quranist that has ever lived with a Wikipedia page. Also the tone of those entries violates Wikipedia with the peacock terms and fan styled writing. So 1. the list is too long and should not even exist in my opinion. 2. the inclusion criteria needs R.S. Right now some of those ref are weak and fail inclusion, as you need very strong sources per WP:BLP to say someone is this religion or that religion.3. The tone also seems to be like a POV agenda pusher, I am starting to see a pattern of advocacy. So I would say the list is long enough and we should now use the talk page before making it any longer. You can therfore pick the most notable people and leave it at that. --Inayity (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, and you reminded me of the following line at WP:LISTPEOPLE:

• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

From above, though, it seems like this issue is headed toward dispute resolution. User:Inayity, does that jive with you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the burden is really on the person pushing the stuff. But i feel the additions compromise the quality of wikipedia and we are here to make articles better. he now has all kinds of options including request for comments etc.--Inayity (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Inayity wrote: See WP:LISTPEOPLE For one, how long do you plan to make it?

A better question would be how short do you plan to make it?

Inayity wrote: Should we include every single Quranist that has ever lived with a Wikipedia page.

No. But since Quranists are such a "minuscule minority," if you were to include every single one that has ever lived, it would still be a very short list. At least that's what I've heard from a "neutral" Sunni editor.

Inayity wrote: Also the tone of those entries violates Wikipedia with the peacock terms and fan styled writing.

I noticed some peacock terms too. I'm going to edit that out.

Inayity wrote: So 1. the list is too long and should not even exist in my opinion.

The list isn't too long as it exists now. And it should exist because it helps readers find other relevant wikipedia articles. Although some editors seem to think it's "widely acknowledged" who's associated with Quranism, most readers don't know. Which is probably why they're reading the wikipedia article to begin with.

Inayity wrote: 2. the inclusion criteria needs R.S.

The section doesn't need more RS. How many reliable sources do you need to establish that Chiragh Ali advocated Quranist beliefs, for example? What it needs is a section lead that states and clarifies the criteria for inclusion:

. . .the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles. Instead, the lead makes clear whether the list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_naming

Inayity wrote: 3. The tone also seems to be like a POV agenda pusher, I am starting to see a pattern of advocacy.

I'm starting to see a pattern of POV pushing and advocacy too.

Inayity wrote: So I would say the list is long enough and we should now use the talk page before making it any longer. You can therfore pick the most notable people and leave it at that.

No one has actually made any additions to the list in nearly three months. The last addition was made by 192.249.47.175 on September 23rd. Most of the recent edits (including mine) have been subtractions and, ironically, I've made the most. I restored some sourced ones to the section that MezzoMezzo removed. My problem is that the subtractions he's making are arbitrary and based on his own idiosyncratic definition of Quranism and Quranist, rather than based on reliable sources. Melwood19 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources you provided to claim that Ali is a Qur'anist, one of them clearly does NOT support the claim, and I already saw such WP:V violations in that section before. I don't think you have a strong grasp of that policy given your mistaken belief that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can infer what religious denominations people belonged to, and I can not consent to his addition until each and every single one of those claimed quotes from the sources is shown here to prove that they fall in line with Wikipedia's verification policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: I don't think you have a strong grasp of that policy given your mistaken belief that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can infer what religious denominations people belonged to, and I can not consent to his addition until each and every single one of those claimed quotes from the sources is shown here to prove that they fall in line with Wikipedia's verification policy.

There you go again with the straw man arguments. In previous comment you asked: "If a person does not openly affiliate themselves with a group, or we cannot find reliable sources affiliating an individual with said group - kind of a straw man you threw out there to accuse me of not making the distinction but whatever - can they still be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors?"

And I answered: "No, they cannot be ascribed to that group by Wikipedia editors. But we're not talking about undercover Quranists here. We're talking about people who are "widely acknowledged" as being Quranists, and whose association with Quranism is attested to in reliable sources (like Chiragh Ali, for example)." Melwood19 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a strawman argument because you truthfully have not demonstrated a strong grasp of the relevant policy. You changed your position after our discussion, but this is a recent change from your exhaustive arguments that we should be able to determine what a subject's religious affiliation is based on our (editors) own judgments of their specific beliefs. We switched the discussion several times - your backing down from the above mentioned edit being one instance - and the signal this sends to others is that you're only now becoming aware of many of the relevant policies. Even the recent gaffe with the verifiability is one example.

It's a moot point by now as the issue seems solved for the most part, but keep in mind that myself and likely other editors will start watching this page due to the gross incivility you've displayed here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo wrote: It isn't a strawman argument because you truthfully have not demonstrated a strong grasp of the relevant policy.

It is a straw man argument because I never said that editors could determine who's a Quranist based on original research.

MezzoMezzo wrote: You changed your position after our discussion, but this is a recent change from your exhaustive arguments that we should be able to determine what a subject's religious affiliation is based on our (editors) own judgments of their specific beliefs. We switched the discussion several times - your backing down from the above mentioned edit being one instance - and the signal this sends to others is that you're only now becoming aware of many of the relevant policies. Even the recent gaffe with the verifiability is one example.

You said, "quite a few of those listed as Quranists were either modernists who were clearly not Quranists or simply Muslim scholars who are/were sectarian-ly ambiguous"

However, I pointed out that the words Quranist and modernist were not mutually exclusive, and occasionally overlap.

You said, "Wikipedia requires a positive attribution, preferably by the individual themself, to ascribe them to a religious group."

However, I pointed out that many people who are called Quranists, like Syed Ahmed Khan and Chiragh Ali, didn't call themselves Quranists. The word Quranist is analogous to the word Existentialist. The man who is considered the founder of Existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, didn't call himself an existentialist. Martin Heidegger, who contributed much to existentialism, also didn't call himself an existentialist. The word existentialist was applied to them by later scholars. And so both appear on the list of existentialists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_existentialists

Putting Kierkegaard and Heidegger on a list of existentialist, even though they didn't call themselves that, is not OR because scholars classify their thought as existentialist. And putting Khan and Ali on a list of Quranists, even though they didn't call themselves Quranists, is not OR because scholars classify their thought as Quranist. We've always been in agreement that editors can't attribute beliefs to a person based on their own research. Where we disagree is whether an editor can exercise any editorial discretion and common sense at all. Your insistence that they can't struck me as wikilawyering and Rationalized JDLI.

MezzoMezzo wrote: It's a moot point by now as the issue seems solved for the most part, but keep in mind that myself and likely other editors will start watching this page due to the gross incivility you've displayed here.

It is a moot point. We've resolved the main point. As for my supposed "gross incivility," I've always been civil with you. You even noted my civility to you on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melwood19#Quranism_talk_page

Melwood19 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just confusing. You claim: I never said that editors could determine who's a Quranist based on original research, yet earlier you said about Asarulislam Syed:

This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.

And then about others:

I meant Tawfik Hamid is associated with Quranism in the same sense that Ahmed Subhy Mansour is associated with Quranism, and Colonel Sanders is associated with fried chicken.

And your general claim: And the notion that someone who espouses beliefs in line with Quranism, as defined in reliable sources, doesn't warrant inclusion in an article about Quranism just because they don't call themselves Quranist is patently absurd.

It would make more sense for you to simply distance yourself from those comments. When you deny making such comments - and those are absolutely calls for OR - it just makes you look like someone in the mood to argue, which in turn causes other editors to scrutinize your edits more.

You also say that: I pointed out that the words Quranist and modernist were not mutually exclusive, and occasionally overlap, yet this again leans toward OR. If someone is a modernist then they are a modernist; that doesn't allow us to list them as a Quranist, Sunni, Shia, Rastafarian or anything else. As for your Martin Heidegger, who contributed much to existentialism, also didn't call himself an existentialist comment, then please review Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I made reference to the Qadri discussion due to the policies and guidelines which were brought up, not because it exists. Your comments seem to lean toward the latter here.

Regarding your last comment of You even noted my civility to you on my talk page, then this is silly enough but it still warrants a reply. The comment you're showing me is from six months ago. My surprise as your rudeness and tendency toward insults is about this most recent discussion, with winners such as accusing me of believing in conspiracies for disagreeing with you on points of POV, stating to me that "every editor who disagrees with you must not be aware of Wikipedia guidelines," and the sarcastic rhetorical question: And you've been editing the article in such a way to make the group fit your perception of it as "fringe," but I'm the one who's POV pushing? Okay, got it! All of this in reaction to comments of mine which were not even directed at you in the first place.

I hope you will read my comments here and pause to give some thought. I had no problem admitting that I overreacted during our discussion six months ago. I wish we could see some honest reciprocation here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Asarulislam Syed is one of the few who advocates of Quranism who calls himself a Quranist rather than just a Muslim (so there's no original research involved in putting him on a list of Quranists). As for the overlap between Quranism and modernism, I'm not telling you something that you don't already know when I say that movements in Islam occasionally overlap (like salafism and modernism, for example). The sources will tell the editors whether the person in question advocates Quranism, even if they don't call themselves Quranist (so there's no need for editors to engage in original research). You pointed out that Edip Yuksel is "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. This doesn't constitute original research because he is indeed included in scholarly sources among those who advocate Quranism. Same with Chiragh Ali.

MezzoMezzo wrote: I hope you will read my comments here and pause to give some thought. I had no problem admitting that I overreacted during our discussion six months ago. I wish we could see some honest reciprocation here.

I'm not disregarding what you said. Like I said in my previous comment, I think we're in agreement. I hope we can bring this discussion to a end and not extend it over the weekend (and especially not over another week). Melwood19 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we have made some sort of progress here with your retraction of certain points, assuming I have not misunderstood. You say here:

Asarulislam Syed is one of the few who advocates of Quranism who calls himself a Quranist rather than just a Muslim (so there's no original research involved in putting him on a list of Quranists).

And this conflicts with your previous statements which I quoted above:

This is an article about Quranism, not Quranists. If his ideas fall under the scope of the ideas discussed in the article, then he'll be included.

The latter is a clear error in light of Wikipedia's policy on original research, but the former is spot on. I will assume that the former is now your official position, which will make sorting this article out a lot easier. I am still a bit confused by this, though:

As for the overlap between Quranism and modernism, I'm not telling you something that you don't already know when I say that movements in Islam occasionally overlap (like salafism and modernism, for example).

If a person calls himself a modernist or reliable sources call him a modernist, he is a modernist. If these two criteria are not met, then it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that he is a modernist based on our own judgment. The same goes for Quranism or any other religious movement. It shouldn't require this much discussion or dispute. Here's where you make a huge error, though:

You pointed out that Edip Yuksel is "widely acknowledged" as being a Quranist, even though he doesn't call himself a Quranist. This doesn't constitute original research because he is indeed included in scholarly sources among those who advocate Quranism. Same with Chiragh Ali.

And as I pointed out, the part I highlighted in bold here simply isn't true. Reliable sources mention Ali's beliefs but the ones you provided here do not state positively that he or Syed Ahmed Khan belonged to any sort of a movement. Unless there are more explicit sources that we aren't seeing here but the onus is on you to provide them at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Chiragh Ali be removed from the list of advocates of Quranism?

Non-Admin Closure: The obvious policy-backed consensus is to not include Chiragh Ali for lack of a WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Does Chiragh Ali warrant inclusion in the list of advocates of Quranism or should he be removed? Melwood19 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Doesn't warrant inclusion, one claimed source doesn't verify the claim, others are suspect as explained below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Does not merit inclusion There are too many problems to even begin fixing the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Does not merit inclusion--Inayity (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I doubt the sources claiming Chiragh Ali discounted all hadith literature because the editor who inserted those sources, Melwood, misunderstands site policies. Although he backed down from adding three other individuals for whom evidence of Quranism was scant, he still insists people can be included in the list of Quranists even if reliable sources don't claim that - he thinks that if somebody shares some beliefs with Quranists, editors can infer adherence. We have seen that one of the sources which Melwood claims supports Ali rejecting all hadith does NOT claim that. This violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, given with what editors view as Melwood's POV pushing, demonstrates a competence issue about understanding site policy due to bias. If Melwood can show that every one of the remaining sources truly do support the claim - per WP:CHALLENGE as his violation of verifiability have damaged the assumption of good faith - I can drop my opposition. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC seems to have completed

User:Chris troutman, User:Melwood19 and User:Inayity, a bot has formally removed the RfC template as the amount of time has run out. The three of us who responded were in favor of removing Chiragh Ali, I am assuming that Melwood is still in favor of keeping him.
Now, I'm reading at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and it references Wikipedia:Consensus (which is tricky because consensus boils down to quality of arguments rather than a vote count, and who judges quality?) and Wikipedia:Closing discussions (which puts us in the same quandary.
So, what is the consensus here, then? The RfC was open for a month, three saying the individual doesn't warrant inclusion with one detailed explanation (from me), one saying he does warrant inclusion. I wish the RfC had been more decisive but I think we must determine consensus on our own here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I had an issue like this once. Low voter turnout does make an RFC sticky. Some guidance states that one option is to non-admin close with no consensus. That might not only be unpopular but also not solve your problem. You can relist the RFC as many times as you need to and see if others chime in.

To my mind, the majority of the respondents were swayed by your arguments, and Melwood19 did not successfully refute it. Close this RFC and remove Chiragh Ali; let Melwood19 raise a complaint.

Perhaps a compromise would be to remove the entire list of supposed Quranists and integrate them into paragraphs about their contributions to Quranism or their criticisms of Hadith, rather than list them as an ascribed identity. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is actually how it should be done in class A articles. List, like pictures of famous people representing something always cause issues. In this case it is not helping the article. But Integration would.--Inayity (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have posted a closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure so that an uninvolved editor can assess the consensus (or lack of it) based on the arguments. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2014 (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.

Removing another figure

I will also remove Syed Ahmed Khan. For those with the patience to search through the discussions above, it was established that no reliable sources refer to Khan as a Quranist. Given that the removal of Chiragh Ali was based on the same reasoning, I think it's fair to remove Khan as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing reliable sources linking Aslam Jairajpuri to the movement, either. He shared some of their beliefs but he doesn't seem to be ascribed to the entire group. Do we have anything on this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

abrogation and Sunni View

What is Abrogated? According to some scholars the Qur'an abrogates only the Qur'an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101. According to them the Qur'an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur'an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi'i. [For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit., pp. 12345; for a brief summary of Ash-Shafi'i's views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi'is Risala, Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.] Others are of the opinion that the Qur'an may abrogate the Qur'an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53: 34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:  Qur'an abrogates Qur'an.  Qur'an abrogates sunna.  Sunna abrogates Qur'an.  Sunna abrogates sunna. [Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.]
This is a copy and paste but the sources can be checked.--Inayity (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I added a line break in your comment above if you don't mind. Anyway, is it a copy paste from the actual source cited right there or from some website? A high volume of copy paste jobs on Islamic articles on Wikipedia are from Muslim discussion forums or polemical sites which themselves are copy pasted from books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not verified it but it came from here Ummah.com and I think proves the point that AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH are not only via Quran, but can include other things.--Inayity (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Zakir Naik's interpretation is that revealed scripture does not contradict other scripture, though I guess you could call additional specificity of scripture to be abrogation. To that end, the Sunna is not revelation and could not abrogate the Qur'an.

This is another case where discussion of an attributable point of view is needed. There's a difference of opinion and I don't know enough about Islam to say what a Quranist would prefer. Naik is my personal favorite Islamic televangelist and he's (like most Quranists) very much a literalist as far as scripture is concerned although he supports the Hadith as a needed commentary on the scripture. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Naik because in my research he was the best person on this topic. But an ip editor deleted Nasikh could include Sunna/Hadith, but there is a difference of opinion, it is not 100% Qu'ran only. Some things in the Qu'ran are no longer practiced and applicable by Ijma (like slavery).--Inayity (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, attributable points of view are needed. Quranists disagree among themselves regarding naskh just as Sunnis do (not sure about the Shi'a). The biggest problem is finding enough reliable sources on this specific point though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision

The item on circumcision contrasts Sunni Muslims, who regard circumcision as obligatory, with Quranists. for whom it plays no role. But in the entry for Quranists, it is stated that both male or female circumcision play no role in Islam as they understand it. This could create the impression that Sunni Muslims in general find both forms of circumcision to be required or encouraged by their faith.

Although there are some Sunni Muslims who do practice the form of female genital mutilation called female circumcision, it is not practiced by most Sunni Muslims, including those who live in Sa'udi Arabia. Thus, where it is practiced among Sunnis, it is practiced because it had been present as a cultural practice prior to the advent of Islam in those areas.

Of course female circumcision, where present as a cultural practice, will be reinforced by the emphasis on female chastity in Islam, but that is more complicated and not clearly a difference between Quranists and others. Quadibloc (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Quadibloc: The portion on the Sunni view is unreferenced and we could use more specification on the topic. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice performed by Muslims, but not a strictly Islamic practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Islam

A very prominent Quran centric Muslim. I think he needs to be on the list as he has a very large "following". See his website http://quransmessage.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.22.41 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Muammar Gaddafi and Mohamed Talbi be added?

Muammar Gaddafi was a Quranist who rejected hadith although there's no much info about it but his wikipedia page states that. Also. Shouldn't he be on the list of prominent Quranists? Or it's just for branch's scholars rather than followers? Mohammed Talhi is also a Quranist, you can even find his lectures on Youtube about Quran-alone approach. 109.188.125.107 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes because he was threatened to take back that claim else he would be executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatrixAnthro (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Quranism Or Quran Only Is A Liberal Movement Within Islam?

There was a thread in a quranist forum I was a member of, asking whether the quranists in that forum would describe themselves as liberal or not. They (myself included) would describe themselves more as fundamental instead of liberal (particularly in how we read/interpret the sacred text). In my area, the quranists have their own community and the liberal Muslims have their own community and we're not really aware of the other community, but either way both are classified as tiny, deviant, heretical sects by the majority. Whereas mainstream Muslims might mistakenly group us, quranists together with liberal Muslims, I think we would consider mainstream Muslims and liberal Muslims to be closer to each other because both groups (mainstream Muslims and liberal Muslims) still follow the Sayings of the Prophet. On the other hand, liberal Muslims might consider Quranists to be closer to mainstream Muslims because both are fundamental. But this is all just 'my original research'. I just want to start a discussion to question this statement and if possible even to remove this statement and add a clarifying statement that 'Quranism is actually not a liberal movement within Islam'. What do you people think?KaluQ84 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lies

There is too much "Quranists consider XYZ a lie" in this article. This is a very POV wording. However, I think someone with familiarity on the subject should make these changes, not me. MosheEmes (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Some people have been vandalizing the page by adding beliefs that Quranists do not hold as truth. Example includes polygamy, domestic violence, jihad, tax on nonMuslims, etc. And when did alcohol become the most important thing in Islam? Why is it even in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatenes (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jizya

"Sunni scholars believe a tribute can be taken from non-Muslims living in Muslim lands."
"Can be taken" makes it sound optional, but as per Quran 9:29 it is obligatory, isn't it? MosheEmes (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Quranists do not see Jizya as tax on nonmuslims, but rebuilding compensation after war and that is also for limited time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatenes (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Toul-e-Islam is not "Quranist"

Regarding the dispute, I work with Toul-e-Islam Trust as a volunteer and I can confirm that it is not "Quranist". Toul-e-Islam is strictly non-denominational, it considers "Quranism" to be a sect. Also, TeL does not believe in a "separation of church and state", it is NOT secular. TeL also accepts hadith that do not contradict the Quran. It does not automatically reject every hadith or historical source without first analyzing its content. I can provide contact information for the director of Toul-e-Islam trust to verify this information. G.A. Parwez used to have debates with Ahl-e-Quran sect in Pakistan on this issue.

p.s. If I recall correctly, I was the one who originally posted Toul-e-Islam on the Quranism wiki page. This was before I began to work with them, and my knowledge of their organization was limited. I have no removed them from this wiki page. They are now listed in the "Nondenominational Muslim" wiki page instead of the Quranist wiki page. Code16 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quranists

Per WP:SPLIT, there is no need to split the article; the material in List of Quranists can be easily merged here. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge. The list was an unattributed copy-paste creation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Large reversion

ScrapIronIV has a point in that this article has become way too messy, requiring a reversal. I would suggest though to revert it all the way back to before the many edits by mainly Rahibsaleem (and his not-logged-in IP 24.193.87.244?) and نبيذ. They both have made mostly unsourced edits and even removed sourced content. I think that the latest version preceding them is this one from 14 June 2015, although I might have missed something. HyperGaruda (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some adjustments, and by some reason a poor version was restored by ScrapIronIV. Sources in lead sentences look good. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the wrong "latest" stable revision (from 14 June 2015) It still has the Toul-e-Islam organization listed as Quranist, which I removed after much resistance from some members, and explained my actions to an administrator. If you are going to revert it, use a date later then this, which does not contain TouleIslam and G.A.Parwez's inclusion on this page, thanks. Code16 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

scratch that, looks like it's been reverted to a correct stable version already, thank you Code16 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

G.A Parwez was not a "quranist", please stop inserting him in that list

Please stop inserting G.A. Parwez's name in the "notable quranists" section. I just removed him again, the cited article nowhere stated that he is a "quranist". Just because someone gives primacy to the Quran does not make them a "quranist". Parwez had debates against the "Ahl-e-Quran" while he was alive and he has clearly stated multiple times in his lectures that he is NOT a "quranist" sectarian. He considered this further division to be another sect and he was explicitly non-denominational. I work with Toul-e-Islam, if anyone wants confirmation on anything I've said, contact me personally and I will put you in touch with senior members of his organization and you can confirm this yourself. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, this was brought up before elsewhere, but let me state clearly here as well for future reference, I don't work "for" TeI, I work "with" them as a volunteer, non-affiliated, non-officially. There is no conflict of interest here anymore than I'm a fan of them and have email contacts for a couple of senior members of the organization. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tolu-e-Islam quranistic?

FreeatlastChitchat has re-added the sections on Tolu-e-Islam and its founder. I predict an edit war with Code16, so before that, I'd like to ask both of you to state in this section your evidence (sources/links etc) for why TeI is or is not quranistic. That way we can hopefully prevent any future lengthy discussion from happening again. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda Just click the page of its founder Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, the very first sentence is that he is a Quranist. RegardsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors have requested 3rd party sources as per Wiki guidelines regarding this issue before the title of "Quranist" can be disputed. So for now, as far as wiki is concerned, he is a "quranist". Although, as 3rd party sources are added in the future stating otherwise, that will change. Code16 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Phew, thought this would erupt in a catastrophe. Thanks to both of you that you (sort of) agree in a calm way. I suppose that the consensus for now can be summarized as: Tolu-e-Islam and its founder Ghulam Ahmed Pervez are quranistic, unless a reliable NPOV 3rd party source says otherwise. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll keep a look out for said sources and make the adjustment if I find the adequate citations. Thanks. Code16 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, so this issue was discussed in a detailed capacity on the talk page of the Parwez article recently (link provided, please take a look).[[2]] Consensus has now been established on this issue thanks to the experienced input of the user John Carter. Allow me to quote him in full below regarding the labeling of Parwez as a "Quranist". I would like to get the input of users active on this page on how to handle adjustments on the Quranism page, with regards to the listing of Parwez and TouleIslam. Would you prefer to remove Parwez from this page altogether, or keep him here but add clarifications in the content to the effect that he is labelled as a "quranist by x"? If needed, I can also provide primary sources where Parwez has rejected such a labeling and criticized Quranists. Let me know what you guys think and how you want to handle this.

The quoted text is below:

First,I guess I should say I am coming into this discussion from other discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Talk:Ahmadiyya, and a discussion on my user talk page. Anyone interested is free to look at them. I have to agree that, from what I see, it might be at best dubious for us to describe the subject as a "Quranist" without attribution, along the lines of "he has been called a Quranist by [x]". And I very much doubt that such a description is among the most obvious or important ways to describe him. He seems to have from what I have been able to see associated with questioning some hadith, but questioning some hadith is nowhere near the same as saying he is a Quranist. Also, if, as Code16 says above, the label has been applied to him primarily by journalists, presumably in material written by them, as opposed to in their quoting or paraphrasing academics or other experts, it would logically have a low priority for inclusion in the article, because journalists are not experts in what is and is not Quranist. I agree that it would however be a good idea to separate his thinking from his accomplishments or life.

In general, we tend to take as the best indicators of what to say and how much weight to give it other existing high-quality reference sources, particularly if they are so recent that it is unlikely that things would have changed substantially since their publication. From what little I have been able to see from such in a quick google search, I am not seeing anything which leads me to believe that he is thought of or described in the sources I have been able to find in a significant way as a "Quranist." I am assuming some other editors, particularly from the area, might have access to more such sources, and, if they do, it would be a good idea to look at what they say. If access is limited, one can always as at WP:RX for any information they might have, and, honestly, that is generally a good idea anyway. I do note that the article, as is, seems remarkably short regarding details of his biography per se, and in general that is one of the primary topics to be discussed in articles with titles like this one, which by the title indicates it is first and foremost of biographical article. It certainly is possible for a widely discussed thinker to have a separate page summarizing his thinking and positions, if there is sufficient established notability for such. And, as it is the primary reason he is known, it certainly should be discussed to some extent here. Expanding the coverage of his biographical content would certainly be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to ping other editors if their input/advice/suggestions are required. Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 13:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Code16. I'd like to involve my little Handbook on Islam. Personally I'm happy either way with regards to TeI (not) being quranistic. They are not mentioned in the Handbook under "Qur'anists", and the sole two sources used in the TeI section are either primary (TeI's website) or highly POV (some article "supported" by the calltoislam website; that article also lacks a conventional publisher, making it less reliable). So based on WP:N and WP:RS, I'd scrap the whole TeI section from this page.

On the other hand though, you do have to admit that at least the ideas of TeI are qur'anistic (i.e. less emphasis on other sources than the Qur'an), but without proper sources, stating this would be original research. By the way, please do not think that Qur'anism is a sect or movement, but more of a general view/ideology/interpretation (again, refer to the handbook, first paragraph).

Off-topic: the "od" template is used only to reposition a discussion thread that is becoming too much skewed to the right, due to the many colons used in each subsequent reply. I've taken the liberty to remove your use of {od}, save for one example. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda, Thank you for your valuable input. I don't mind the "Quranistic" label actually and agree that he definitely places primary importance on the Quran and has ferociously attacked many ahadith. Just to clarify, personally, I feel a much greater closeness and affinity with Quranists then I do with Sunnis/Shias etc (but that's just me personally.) In fact, I'm sure I've collaborated with Quranists in making some articles on wikipedia more neutral, for example the Hadith and Criticism of the Hadith articles. I hope we can collaborate on such issues in the future as well. And as for including/not-including Parwez on this page, I agree that there aren't enough sources and think that it will be better to remove him from this article. Also, because of the historical background and differences he had with the AhleQuran in Pakistan, and the differences regarding some beliefs and politics/economics, a distance grew between Parwez and Quranism, so it won't be very accurate to list him here, at least until there are some scholarly sources to cite. I think we have a consensus on this issue, and unless anyone has a valid objection, I'll make the adjustment. Thanks again. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

==Hanif Islam== section

• The guy introduced ==Hanif Islam== section says that Hanif Islam are the only Qur'an Aloners.
• On the other hand, a Quranist Yaşar Nuri Öztürk admits the validity of nearly 500 hadith.
  • Thus, it is not true that all the Quranists are Qur'an Aloners.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The movement is known as "Quran Alone", not "Quranist".

The movement is known as "Quran Alone", not "Quranist".

Quranist is a name used by certain people who identify as gay, and excuse away verses about its ban in The Quran. Just like "19´er" is a name used by certain people, who believe Rashad Khalifa discovered a 19 miracle, when it is so fallble, that people can claim their names are in The Quran, as they have done some places.

To see authentic research, without such illogical biases, please see my summary of my 16 years of research on Academia.edu. It is very relevant for connecting Islam to modern society and refuting regressive and disturbed sects. And indeed respresents the reformation that should be demanded of "Islam".

The movement is known as "Quran Alone", not "Quranist".

https://independent.academia.edu/OveKarlsen

The whole of Islam, and Quran Alone articles should really be rewritten according to this :) The other is not Islam as defined pr. The Quran, and the sound thinking Allah does indeed require. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Submitters

A lot of Quranists, or people of the Quran don't see "submitters" as Quranists because the "submitters" take a messenger after the messenger Muhammad, and also take out two sentences from the Quran... Could we perhaps include that somewhere? Jahelistbro (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jahelistbro: if you can cite reliable sources to back up such a statement, feel free to add it to the article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about truth. I doubt any editor who thinks they're here for truth.

To editor Islamic Truth: More than once you've removed a lot of sourced content. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss what you'd like to change. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

typo

Muslim=Submitter I have reverted you twice. Edit-warring is not allowed, so I again invite you to discuss your proposed changes. You must generate consensus here in order to make serious edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yan Tatsine is NOT Quranist

After the protection for the Quranism article expired, Quranism (talk • contribs) has begun his disruptive edits in earnest. The edits he has made after the article was protected are in the same vein as before it was protected. Specifically, his edits erroneously imply that Yan Tatsine is Quranist. I already pointed this out to him on the Kala Kato talk page, but it bears repeating on the Quranism talk page.

Yan Tatsine has not produced any materials (books, video and audio tapes, etc) on their beliefs, as has been noted by the scholar Allan Christelow:

"Because the group was intensely suspicious of outsiders, and because the disturbances gave rise to many wild rumors and apocryphal stories, little reliable knowledge exists of the movement or its leader."

So any source about what Yan Tatsine believes is inherently speculative. And because it's speculative, it cannot be reliable as per WP:RUMOUR, which states that, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content".

For example, in the current version of the Quranism article, the book that he cites as a source for Yan Tatsine's purported rejection of hadith (the 36th reference titled, "Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria," by Roman Loimeier) is actually discussing the beliefs of the Izala Society. It only mentions Yan Tatsine in passing. And, whereas the page's discussion about the beliefs of the Izala Society is well sourced (with references to its Constitution and a 1987 interview with one of its leaders, Isma'ila Idris), the brief mention of Yan Tatsine's purported belief in the rejection of hadith is unsourced.

Moreover, in the article that he cites as a source for one of Yan Tatsine's names, Sahaba (the 34th reference titled, "La vera storia di Boko Haram, dalla tentata purificazione dell’islam ai massacri quotidiani"), it says that they're also known as Ahlus Sunnah. It says this in the very SAME SENTENCE that it says that they're known as the Sahaba! Needless to say, the "Ahlus Sunnah" do not reject hadith and sunna. And this particular editor is being disingenuous in suggesting that they do. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:D131:B842:31A2:CAE3 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Article protected; content dispute

Do not disrupt a Wikipedia article by revert-warring if you have a content dispute. I have protected this article for 1 week while you guys work it out here on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Why just for one week? Perhaps this article should be protected indefinitely. I haven't been following this article for long, but in the short time that I have, this has been the second time that someone (the same person?) has made a clearly dubious edit. The edits are even similar in some ways. Groups like Yan Tatsine or the Khawarij, which don't espouse beliefs even remotely Quranist, are slipped into the text. Sources in a foreign language (in this instance, Arabic, in the previous instance, Italian) are attached to the text but don't actually support the claim. If history is any indication, the person(s) making these edits is not going to bother to discuss them on the talk page. Protection will eventually be removed, a little time will pass, and similar edits will be made again in the future. This person wants people to believe that "Ibadis are not the same as Khawarij," but even the Ibadi Wikipedia article says that "Modern historians trace back the origins of the denomination to a moderate current of the Khawarij movement". This person wants people to believe that the Khawarij are Quranist, even though the Ibadite hadith collection is largely based on an earlier Kharijite collection, and Kharijite scholars like Ikrimah were prolific hadith narrators. Previous versions of the Quranism article (here and here) even listed the Ibadi and the Rustamid dynasty, an Ibadi dynasty, in the "see also" section! The Rustamid addition was made by Quranism (talk • contribs). I have a feeling that after protection is removed we'll be here again, with this person making the same dubious edits, and with me talking to myself on the talk page. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:89F1:AB87:C968:F8EE (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This didn't look so much like a content dispute to me as a sockpuppet of Quranism, either. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

IP 194.61.223.68 is indeed a sockpuppet of Quranism (talk • contribs). This recent edit is almost identical to this older edit. Similar content, almost word-for-word, can be found in the Criticism of Hadith article. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:D5E3:C25C:6283:1554 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove the "recent news" edit by IP 194.61.223.68, although I probably should have per WP:NOTNEWS. Needless to say, the article can't mention every group of Quranists everywhere in the world without becoming too long. However, I did truncate it because inserting the opinion of a random Sunni imam about the beliefs and practices of Quranists is about as appropriate as inserting the opinion of a random NOI minster on the beliefs and practices of Jews. As for "vandalism," that's rich coming from a sockpuppet who is blocked indefinitely and shouldn't be editing this or any other Wikipedia article. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:414E:ED59:D6E:953B (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have been watching this article and seeing a lot of edits and reverts. However, this subject isn't even controversial or notable in the Muslim world. I think there is one or two editors making problems in here and using socks puppets accounts.-SharabSalam (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Islamic branches.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable Doctrinal Differences

This article really needs a section on what the actual implications for belief are. I started to write one but I don't have the knowledge. Someone esle needs to take over. I started thusly:

Drawing only on the Quran results in rejecting certain significant and well-known practices of mainstream orthodox Islam. Examples include:

• Punishment for Apostasy: The punishment for apostasy specified in the Quran is hell, rather than death.
• Punishment for Adultery: The punishment for adultery specified in the Quran is 100 lashes, not stoning to death.
• Daily Prayers: The number of daily prayers specifed by the Quran is three, not five.

LastDodo (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Beneficial info on how Quranists in Algeria pray, and where they live (cities given).

Undid previous revision. Gave no reason why he reduced the beneficial information as it gives information on some of the beliefs of the Quranists in Algeria. It explains how they pray and where they reside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.237.134 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to give minute details about Algerian Quranists, you can create a separate article like the ones for Kala Kato and Tolu-e Islam. And if you have the urge to mention the goings-on of every Quranist everywhere in the world, resist that temptation. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:F536:1A59:5E74:CF99 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper (for IP 194.61.223.68)

Another editor has already said this to you, but it bears repeating. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

In spite of the insistence of many Sunnis that Quranists are a small insignificant group, they are actually quite numerous and spread throughout the world. And because of this, not every individual or group warrants mention in a Wikipedia article on Quranism. If you were to include every individual or group, the article would be book-length. For example, A Quranist in Morocco named Rachid Aylal recently wrote a book criticizing hadiths:

https://raseef22.com/article/1071856-morocco-bans-book-critical-al-bukhari-threatens-spiritual-security

https://en.qantara.de/content/spotlight-on-sahih-al-bukhari-rocking-the-foundations-of-islam?nopaging=1

Should we devote a paragraph or two to his beliefs too? Something like this warrants a sentence at best if any mention at all. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:804A:D99D:99BE:D6CB (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Besides that, it is true. Cheers! CentralTime301 16:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: please note that "true" does not equal "encyclopedic". Per WP:BRD, contentious additions should not be repeatedly restored (especially not at the behest of blocked disruptive editors with a battleground attitude) until after a clear consensus has emerged. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Algerian Quranists

Re-added what was deleted regarding Algeria. There was no valid reason why it was deleted, and I’ve been watching these revisions and it is clear some people have some sort of agenda. Keep the good information.

You've been watching but you apparently haven't been paying attention. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS. The Quranism article is not a place for all the latest news about every Quranist everywhere in the world. And the Quranism article certainly is not the place for dubious information about the beliefs and practices of Quranists in Algeria per WP:QUESTIONABLE. A website that bases Information about Algerian Quranists on "coordination" between "the security services and the imams of mosques (like Abdelkarim Rakik)" is not a reliable source given the human rights situation in Algeria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria#Human_rights

Seek consensus with other editors for these edits and stop the sockpuppetry. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:58FC:9ACC:6017:F8BD (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed Good faith edits

I removed the good faith edits of Rilum. A previous version of this article used to have a section similar to the one that he added titled "Beliefs":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quranism&oldid=701745865

However, many editors thought that it was problematic because Quranists, although broadly similar in beliefs, differ on the details. And the section was becoming too long. So it was removed. Also, the sources that the current "Dogmatic differences regarding traditional Islam" section cites do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. 2601:241:8305:1220:8933:8D12:7DEA:8293 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, but deleting the whole thing is not a solution, I mean, in some cases I did mention indirectly, that there are differences for example in Salah(prayer) Rilum (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I can also change some things to make it fitting. Or you can change some things if you want. I think it would be helpful just too have at least a little bit of information on how Quranists understand certain aspects such as Salah(prayer), Zakat(alms-giving) etc.

Greetings Rilum (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's an entirely bad idea. In fact, LastDodo suggested something like that in the "Notable Doctrinal Differences" above. The problem is in the execution. The last time there was a section like that in the article, people kept adding random examples of how they personally interpreted this or that practice (without reference to the scholarly literature), and the section became too unwieldy. Perhaps a small paragraph in the "Doctrine" section would suffice? It would have to be based on sources that Wikipedia guidelines consider reliable, however. Aisha Musa mentioned some of these differences in her book "Hadith as Scripture (pg. 100)," for example. You mentioned Chakralawi's practice of salah in a previous edit. However, I couldn't find reference to it in the source that you cited, "Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought (pg. 39)". Maybe I have a different edition than yours? 2601:241:8305:1220:590B:3912:F7F0:8D5 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Page 39, Google Books Rilum (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, it wasn't specifically talking about Chakralawi. So, what do you think? Should the article mention these types of minute details or should interested readers just refer to the sources? I can see some upside to adding it, but I mostly see the downside for the reasons I gave above. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? 2601:241:8305:1220:698A:EDBE:DF8F:9ECA (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

reverting of edits by 2601:241:8580:4540:e593:1832:e3b5:1401

Wholesale reversion by :@2601:241:8580:4540:E593:1832:E3B5:1401: of edits by me (BoogaLouie)
here 18:31, 22 April 2020
Reason given: removed content per WP:TMI, discuss on talk page before making substantial edits and seek consensus

Among the edits were:

• A very basic explanation in the lede of a very basic tenet of the movement:
  • "Quranists believe that the Sunna of the Prophet was intended only for the first generation of Muslms and so are not binding on Muslim that came after" (comes from p.67 of the book Daniel Brown, ''Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought'', 1996)

• brief excerpts from verses used to argue the Quranist case, i.e. that the Quran is complete:
  • "... We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees) ... "6:38
  • "... He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ..." 6:114–115

(al-Kitab, translated in the verses above as "the Book" and "(this) scripture" respectively, refers to the Quran)

• a cleanup of the messed-up looking post of a verse (see [[3]] to agree if it doesn't look like a mess) with a brief explanation of why it was there in the first place
  • تِلْكَ ءَايَٰتُ ٱللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ ۖ فَبِأَىِّ حَدِيثٍۭ بَعْدَ ٱللَّهِ وَءَايَٰتِهِۦ يُؤْمِنُونَ ‎

"These are the verses of God which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement [Hadith] after (rejecting) God and His verses will they believe? 45:6

("statement" is the translation of the arabic hadith]")

• a list of reasons offered by influential Quranist, Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi, for calling the sunnah of Muhammad "temporary and provisional law" and offering several reasons why the sunna was "intended only for those who lived during the Prophet's era":
  • that the sunnah "was not written" down for safe keeping "during the time of the Prophet";
  • the Companions of Muhammad "made no arrangement for the preservation of the Sunnah "whether in a book or in their memories";
  • hadith were not transmitted from one generation to the next verbatim;
  • the sunnah was "not committed to memory" like the Quran so that "differences developed among different transmitters";
  • if the sunnah "had been meant for all people" this would not have happened and it "would have been carefully preserved and circulated as widely as possible";
  • much of the sunnah obviously only applies to "Arabs of Muhammad's time and is based on local customs and circumstances".

• Maybe most galling to me is the deletion of a sentence making up a short paragraph at the end of the Contemporary times section giving a rough estimate of the number of Quranists.
  
  • According to the Quranist website, Ahl al-Quran, Quranists make up a minority of Muslims, numbering only "a few thousand" as of 2008, compared to over a billion Muslims in total.
    

What more basic piece of information can someone coming to this article for information want than to get an idea of how big/influential the movement is??? On par with Sunni and Shia? a small cult? How big is it?

References

reply

Thanks for the explanation of your edits BoogaLouie. Allow me to give an explanation for why I reverted some of them. First of all, my edit was not a "wholesale reversion". Here's the last two versions of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quranism&oldid=952528045

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quranism&oldid=952507788

The initial explanatory paragraph that you put in the "Doctrine" section regarding the Sunna is still there. And the initial subsectioning that you put in the "History" section is also still there.

However, I removed the additional trivial, unsourced, bulleted, and parenthetical content that you added to the "Doctrine" section and the additional sectioning in the "History" section per WP:TMI and WP:OR. The content regarding Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi in the "Doctrine" section is redundant considering he was already mentioned in the "History" section. Trivial information about Abd Allāh Chakrālawī, the Ahle Hadith, and the Ahle Quran was also added to the "History" section. The sentences: "ʿAbd Allāh Chakrālawī (d.1930) started initiated Ahle Quran in Lahore. Khwāja Ahmad Din in Amritsar." were duplicated in both the "20th Century" and "Egypt" subsections. And a sentence was added to the end of the "Contemporary times" section claiming that the number of Quranists is a few thousand, when the number of Kazakh Quranists in the Izgi Amal alone is estimated to be between seventy to eighty thousand.

Is it really such a bad thing that a Wikipedia article be clear and concise instead of vague and wordy? 2601:241:8580:4540:E593:1832:E3B5:1401 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 

answer

I must express some confusion. You thank me for my explanation and ask reasonable sounding questions (“Is it really such a bad thing …”) but your edits don't match your claim -- that you are deleting "vague and wordy" edits.

the basic premise of mainstream Islam on the subject of hadith is that the quran says to obey the prophet Muhammad. what does Quranism have to say in reply to this? Why did you delete the answer?
what do Q.6:38–39 and 6:114–115 say that supports Quranism? (The answers you deleted are a few words, quite "clear and concise" )
why does a quranic quote (Surah Al-Jathiya, 45:6) -- broken into three lines -- start the Doctrine section? Why isn't it explained? If you are going to delete the brief excerpts from Q.6:38–39 and 6:114–115, why not delete 45:6 as well?
How many Quranists are there? (the "clear and concise" answer you deleted is neither trivial nor unsourced)
where is it written that wikipedia articles should be short? there are probably hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles longer than this one. why aren't you taking your deletionism to them?
What is "vague and wordy?" about Tawfiq Sidqi's (sourced) arguments in favor of quranism?
"The initial explanatory paragraph that you put in the "Doctrine" section regarding the Sunna is still there" (didn't put it in the article, it was already there).

Here is a Difference between revisions of before I started editing on april 18 and after you reverted april 22. not wholesale but the only thing of substance you left was one paragraph. (which incidently contains this: "For Sunni Muslims, ... the Quran has verses enjoining Muslims to obey the Prophet ..." but not the reason why Quranists think this does not apply to all Muslims). An earlier rvt you did (of my April 14 edits) was wholesale --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

BoogaLouie wrote: "the basic premise of mainstream Islam on the subject of hadith is that the quran says to obey the prophet Muhammad. what does Quranism have to say in reply to this? Why did you delete the answer? what do Q.6:38–39 and 6:114–115 say that supports Quranism?"

You could say that 6:38–39 and 6:114–115 supports Quranism, but it would be *you* saying it and that would constitute WP:OR. I could also say that 39:23 also supports Quranism:

"GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways (to Heaven and Hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for GOD's message. Such is GOD's guidance; He bestows it upon whoever wills (to be guided). As for those sent astray by GOD, nothing can guide them."

But it would be *me* saying it and that would also constitute WP:OR.

BoogaLouie wrote: "why does a quranic quote (Surah Al-Jathiya, 45:6) -- broken into three lines -- start the Doctrine section? Why isn't it explained?"

My guess is that it's an example of the kind of verses Quranists point to to support their beliefs. It is mentioned in Prof. Aisha Musa's book, along with other verses, as such (see pg 180).

BoogaLouie wrote: "If you are going to delete the brief excerpts from Q.6:38–39 and 6:114–115, why not delete 45:6 as well?"

That's a good question. It has been there since I first came across this article. My guess is that it represents a consensus edit, whereas 6:38–39 and 6:114–115 doesn't.

BoogaLouie wrote: "How many Quranists are there? (the "clear and concise" answer you deleted is neither trivial nor unsourced)"

No one knows how many Quranists there are. But the answer given on the website you cited is clearly dubious for the reason I gave in my previous comment. There are a lot more than a few thousand Quranist in the world.

BoogaLouie wrote: "where is it written that wikipedia articles should be short? there are probably hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles longer than this one. why aren't you taking your deletionism to them?"

I never said that Wikipedia articles have to be short. However, WP:TMI does suggest the Wikipedia articles are not meant to be exhaustive. The length of an article is usually the result of consensus between editors over time. For example, the history section of the article mentions the prominent classical scholar Ibrahim an-Nazzam as a Quranist. But he wasn't the only prominent early classical scholar who was a Quranist. Dirar ibn Amr, Abu Bakr al-Asamm, and others were also Quranists. I don't have this burning need to mention them in the article, however. Those who are interested in Quranist beliefs held by early Muslims can consult the sources mentioned in the article or those not mentioned in the article. They might also find such details in a separate Wikipedia article. In the future, an editor might suggest that the aforementioned prominent classical scholars should be mentioned in the Quranism article. But they should try to seek consensus with the other editors first.

BoogaLouie wrote: "What is 'vague and wordy?' about Tawfiq Sidqi's (sourced) arguments in favor of quranism?"

There was nothing vague about it. It was a bit wordy, however. Moreover, Wikipedia articles don't argue "in favor" of anything per WP:NPOV.

BoogaLouie wrote: "didn't put it in the article, it was already there"

Actually, I was referring to the one you mentioned in the following paragraph of your comment above. 2601:241:8580:4540:9C1C:C82:892F:F31C (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Before I made any edits the article already said: "And, citing Quranic verses like 6:38–39 and 6:114–115, they believe that the Quran is clear, complete, ..." (with a cite). (see here. What was NOT in the article was what the two verses said. I added excerpts from the two verses that mentioned "the Book" or "scripture" and completeness thereof see here.  "... We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees) ..." and "... He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ..."  ... HOW is this WP:Original Research???

If that was what the article said it might be understandable, but it does not. It says: "Then in what statement [Hadith] after (rejecting) God and His verses will they believe?" No citation given. No explanation about how this indicates to Quranists that hadith are at odds with the Quran. (MInd you, you might want to produce evidence that the use of word "hadith" in the verse is refering to the same thing as "hadith" as was used later -- passed down reports of what Muhammad said, did, approved of.

"Your guess"???? Then why isn't it WP:Original Research?  If there is no No, I wont see p.180 because I don't have the book. Nor do readers of the article. produce the evidence.

"Your guess"???? you only delete new material not what's been there a while? Is that a wikipedia policy?

It's hard to tell where your comments end and mine begin. Could you please separate your comments from mine, use the conventional indentation, and sign your posts?

BoogaLouie wrote: "Before I made any edits the article already said: 'And, citing Quranic verses like 6:38–39 and 6:114–115, they believe that the Quran is clear, complete, ...' (with a cite). (see here. What was NOT in the article was what the two verses said. I added excerpts from the two verses that mentioned 'the Book' or 'scripture' and completeness thereof see here. '... We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees) ...' and '... He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ...' ... HOW is this WP:Original Research???"

Okay, fair enough. I hadn't noticed the reference.

BoogaLouie wrote: "If that was what the article said it might be understandable, but it does not. It says: "Then in what statement [Hadith] after (rejecting) God and His verses will they believe?" No citation given. No explanation about how this indicates to Quranists that hadith are at odds with the Quran. (MInd you, you might want to produce evidence that the use of word "hadith" in the verse is refering to the same thing as "hadith" as was used later -- passed down reports of what Muhammad said, did, approved of."

I was just giving a hypothetical example. I'm not suggesting that the article replace 45:6 with 39:23. As for the usage of the word hadith, Sunnis are in a bit of a catch-22. If the word had the same meaning since the time of Muhammad, it's hard to avoid the negative implication of all the references to hadith in the Quran. On the other hand, if the word did not have the same meaning since the time of Muhammad, it's hard to see how Muhammad could have commanded Muslims to follow his hadiths.

BoogaLouie wrote: ""Your guess"???? Then why isn't it WP:Original Research? If there is no No, I wont see p.180 because I don't have the book. Nor do readers of the article. produce the evidence."

Yes, I guess. Like I said, it's been there since I first came across this article years ago. From what I can remember, it was formatted a little differently, and I think it used to have a source attached to it too (which is probably why the other editors didn't remove it). By the way, why do you expect everyone to have a copy of Daniel Brown's book lying around to reference, but can't be bothered to acquire Aisha Musa's book to reference? What exactly do you mean by "produce the evidence"? You just pointed out for me that Musa's book is the cited source for 6:38–39 and 6:114–115 in the article, remember? 

BoogaLouie wrote: ""Your guess"???? you only delete new material not what's been there a while? Is that a wikipedia policy?"

Yes, I guess. And, no, I don't just delete new material. 2601:241:8580:4540:9C1C:C82:892F:F31C (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sections of 'criticism' or 'prominent quranists' have no place here

Criticism: there is none because Gibril Haddad has no basis or citation Prominent Quranists is here: (own wiki article) List of Quranists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.87.244 (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly believe a section on criticisms is warranted, considering the Ash'ari article has one Faissaloo (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between Quranists and Mutazilites?

A recent edit by 2a04:4a43:4dff:f7f0:dcec:5439:551f:eae8 got me thinking about this question. I couldn't make much sense of his edit summary, however. He wrote:

"It doesn’t say he [Ibrahim an-Nazzam] relied on the Qur’an alone, he simply rejected Hadith."

That's a distinction without a difference if ever there was one!

He wrote: "Further an-Nazzam was a Mu’tazila and he accepted the authority of the previous revelations such as Torah and the Hebrew Bible."

All Muslims, in theory, accept the previous revelations. The Quran 29:46 says:

"And do not argue with the people of the Book except in that which is better; except for those who are wicked among them; and say: 'We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is the same; to Him we submit.'"

He wrote: "There is a difference between following the Qur’an alone and rejecting Hadith and rejecting Hadith and not following the Qur’an alone."

Again, that's a distinction without a difference.

He wrote: "Qur’anists should stop leeching on the Mu’tazila to gain some credibility."

You mad, bro? Angry editing, like angry tweeting, is not advised (just ask Trump). Editors shouldn't get emotionally involved in the articles they're editing. There's no "leeching" of the Mutazila by Quranists in order to "gain some credibility". The scholarly literature recognizes that there was some overlap between the two groups in the Ummayad and Abassid periods:

"Attempts by certain Muslim groups about the time of Shafi'i to impose a clear formal distinction between the Kur'an and the extra Kur'anic component of the Islamic Tradition are discernible, and it was chiefly to refute these efforts that Shafi'i composed his Risala. . . . A third, more rigorous opinion, rejected out of hand all sunnas on matters not explicitly mentioned in the Kur'an [laisa fihi nass kitab]. From this we see that Kur'an and Sunna were competing sources. The first group are recognisably 'ahl al-Hadith' while the last group might, with justice, be termed 'ahl al-Kur'an', vigilant against any attempt to introduce from whatever quarter additions to the provisions of the revealed Book of God." (see "The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation," by John Burton pp. 22-25)

Although there was some overlap, the two groups were not entirely identical. Only some Mutazilites like An-Nazzam, Ibn Amr, etc., might reasonably be said to be Quranists (although the word is anachronistic in this context). Other Mutazilites could not reasonably be said to be Quranist because they accepted hadiths. For example, some Mutazilites were Shafi'i like Abu al-Hasan Ali b. Sa'id al-Istakhri, Al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, and Abu al-Husayn al-Basri. They accepted only mutawatir hadiths in kalam but accepted ahad hadiths in fiqh. Some Mutazilites were Hanafi like Abu Sa'id Ismail b. Ali al-Samman and Abu al-Qasim Maḥmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari (who wrote the popular tafsir, Al-Kashshaaf). They accepted only mutawatir hadiths in both kalam and fiqh.

I thought about making an edit to clarify the distinction between the two groups but, as you can see, there's no concise way to explain such fine distinctions. Perhaps another editor can explain it more concisely than me and make the edit. 2601:241:8580:4540:C87:C7B7:8C3B:EDAD (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Ahl al qur'an.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Islamqa.info is not a reliable source

I removed the content that cited islamqa.info because it doesn't qualify as a reliable source per WP:QUESTIONABLE, which says:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

Islamqa.info is "widely acknowledged as extremist" by Muslims and somehow managed to get banned even in Saudi Arabia. And fatwas (which the website consists of) is literally the "personal opinions" of someone, or "nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law" (see Fatwa). It is not a reliable source per WP:RS. 2601:241:8580:4540:D036:C8EF:1A4E:1059 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed some of the good faith edits of Adigabrek

I removed some of the good faith edits of Adigabrek. Specifically, I removed the Quranic verses from the "Doctrine" section and removed Muhammad from the "Notable Quranists" section as it constitutes WP:OR (and alphabetized his other additions). And I removed the content that is more appropriate for the Criticism of hadith than for the Quranism article. 2601:241:8580:4540:64C1:2FC7:2C68:BF45 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@2601:241:8580:4540:64C1:2FC7:2C68: In other words, you reverted literally everything I have done. I can understand after some consideration why you removed Prophet Muhammad and clean up a little of things that may suit the other page (it wasn't a little cleanup, there ere things that could have stayed, but literally everything was reverted.). But why remove the verses? If you will, remove all verses, not just some, right now, one of them stands, and this may suggest you are doing this because you are biased towards Sunnism. Thank you. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ ^{(Псалъэ)} 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No, not all. I removed Muhammad from the "Notable Quranists" section. However, I didn't remove Ozturk or Islamoglu. I just put them in alphabetical order. I did remove most of the content related to the criticism of hadiths as I felt it was more relevant to the "Criticism of Hadith" article. As for the Quranic verses in the "Doctrine" section, this topic came up before on the talk page between BoogaLouie and I in the section above titled "reverting of edits by 2601:241:8580:4540:e593:1832:e3b5:1401". I keep removing verses that support Quranism because it constitutes WP:OR. The reason I didn't remove 45:6 is because it was originally sourced but its source was removed by someone's edit. But I don't object to removing 45:6, as you suggest, since the temptation to keep adding random verses seems so great. 2601:241:8580:4540:64C1:2FC7:2C68:BF45 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the verses in the "Doctrine" section. I found the editor who originally quoted verse 45:6 in the "Doctrine" section. I can understand why he did it and why you added more verses (e.g. to illustrate some of the verses used by Quranists to support Quranism). But the Quran is a primary source and this violates WP:OR. Additionally, because the translation that you quoted doesn't leave the word hadith untranslated like the editor's translation who originally quoted 45:6, many English speaking readers of the article won't know why they're being quoted in the first place.

I also removed Muhammad from the "Notable Quranists" section. It's anachronistic and akin to adding Moses to the List of Karaite Jews. Moreover, the Quran is a primary source and most of the other sources you cited did not give specific page numbers.

And I still think that most of the content that you put in the "History" section doesn't belong in the "Quranism" article. Instead of putting a copy template tag on the "History" section, why not just remove the content copied from the Criticism of Hadith article altogether? Can you think of a good reason to include the random opinions of non-Quranists like Ibn Ata, Ibn Anas, An-Nawawi, Ibn al-Saleh, Al-Ansari, and Ibn Abd al-Shakur in the "Early Islam" subsection, or Shah Waliullah, Iqbal, Brown, Goldziher, and Schacht in the "18th and 19th centuries" subsection, or Nomani, Rida, Maududi, al-Ghazali, Qaradawi, Hussein, Heikal, Esposito, Smith, Hoyland, Lewis and Wansbrough in the "20th century" subsection? The Inclusion of non-Quranists like Al-Shafi'i, Ibn Qutaybah, etc., is understandable because they wrote books trying to refute the arguments of the Quranists of their time. But why include the other non-Quranists? What is their relevance to the history of Quranism? It might be a good idea to go over the "History" section with a fine toothed editorial comb because you can't tell what it's a "history" of (Quranism and Quranists or mild hadith criticism and mild hadith critics). 2601:241:8580:4540:21F2:2221:2782:FBF9 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is better off without quoting from primary sources, and also I agree we shouldn't characterize the Prophet of Islam as a "Quranist", as that comes across as a flagrant NPOV violation unless scholarly sources also explicitly characterize him that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Both of you (2601 and Anachronist) are wrong in your analogy and logic. First of all Karaite Jews are an actual sect of Jews which see the Torah as being the sole source of their religion but who also have other practices, rituals, and protocols associated with the sect meanwhile "Quranism" is not a sect or a movement with specific practices or rituals associated with it but simply a viewpoint that Islam is defined only by the Qur'an with nothing else aside from it and this viewpoint has existed since the time of the prophet himself as evidenced by the Qur'an itself. The irony is that if someone were to say that they follow only the Qur'an most people would immediately call him a "Quranist" but then when the prophet himself says it in his own words as stated in the Qur'an, the standards change for some reason. According to the prophet's own words he is a Quranist and there's no other way about it, saying otherwise means you are concealing the truth. Lastly the Qur'an itself is the primary source when considering the topic at hand and any "scholarly source" would not be able to cite a more credible source other than the Qur'an itself since it is the least falsifiable and most preserved historical source on the matter. 70.48.124.176 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@70.48.124.176: That is, no matter how you try to look at it or try to twist it, pure facts. But you see, Wikipedia is not the "Free Encyclopedia", it relies on established groups on earth and their views. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ ^{(Псалъэ)} 07:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

IP 70.48.124.176 wrote: "Both of you (2601 and Anachronist) are wrong in your analogy and logic. First of all Karaite Jews are an actual sect of Jews which see the Torah as being the sole source of their religion but who also have other practices, rituals, and protocols associated with the sect meanwhile "Quranism" is not a sect or a movement with specific practices or rituals associated with it but simply a viewpoint that Islam is defined only by the Qur'an with nothing else aside from it and this viewpoint has existed since the time of the prophet himself as evidenced by the Qur'an itself."

The karaites don't have any specific "practices, rituals, and protocols," either. As their Wikipedia article says, they are simply a group that is "characterized by the recognition of the written Torah alone as its supreme authority in halakha (Jewish religious law) and theology". Hence, my analogy. Moses couldn't have recognized any sources outside of the Torah because none of those sources existed and the theology justifying their necessity didn't exist during his time. But it would still be anachronistic to include Moses in a list of Karaites. The word Karaim only has meaning in juxtaposition to Rabbanim. Muhammad also couldn't have recognized any sources outside the Quran because none of those sources existed and the theology justifying their necessity didn't exist. But it would still be anachronistic to include Muhammad in a list of Quranists. The word Quranist only has meaning in juxtaposition to Hadithist. This is not a problem of theology but of word usage and history. You may be right on the first account but you're wrong on the last two.

IP 70.48.124.176 wrote: "According to the prophet's own words he is a Quranist and there's no other way about it, saying otherwise means you are concealing the truth."

Muhammad never said "I'm a Quranist/Ana Qurany". And he couldn't have said that for the reason I gave above.

IP 70.48.124.176 wrote: "Lastly the Qur'an itself is the primary source when considering the topic at hand and any "scholarly source" would not be able to cite a more credible source other than the Qur'an itself since it is the least falsifiable and most preserved historical source on the matter."

You misunderstood what I was saying in my previous comment. I wasn't denying that the Quran is the "primary source" of Islam. That's true, but it's also besides the point, since this is "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". My point was that the Quran is a "primary source" per WP:PRIMARY. And Wikipedia guidelines say that content should cite reliable "secondary sources". Content that is not based on reliable secondary sources constitutes original research per WP:OR. 2601:241:8580:4540:586E:6ABF:7590:4914 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

IP 70.48.124.176: You are engaging in Wikipedia:Synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Unless you can propose reliable scholarly sources explicitly stating that Muhammad is Quranist (not your personal conclusions drawn from primary sources like Quran and Hadith, but analysis and writings by recognized scholars in the field), then Wikipedia cannot claim he is Quranist. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if there were sources found claiming that the Prophet Muhammad was a Quranist, this would still be a very controversial claim that the vast majority of Muslims would disagree with. This would at best be a very tiny minority viewpoint if anything. Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion by readers of the article as to why some people (like Wasil ibn Ata, whose inclusion I agree is puzzling) are mentioned in the history section. I think this is because too much content has been copied from the Criticism of Hadith article. So I have removed it per WP:IRI.

A person doesn't have to be a Quranist to be mentioned in the history section but they should be relevent to the history of Quranism. For example, Al-Shafi'i and his student Ibn Qutaybah were the most prominent and earliest Sunni critics of the Ahl al-Quran. So, it makes sense to include them in the history of Quranism even though they weren't Quranists. And it Makes sense for An-Nazzam to be mentioned in the history of Quranism because, after some of the Companions of the Muhammad, he was one of the most prominent and earliest proponent of the Ahl al-Quran. By the way, he didn't reject only the hadiths of Abu Hurayrah (that's not what the source says). 2601:241:8580:4540:7910:143E:D87:ED0F (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Adigabrek wrote: "If you want to make the changes you mentioned in the talk page, do it. But nobody is stupid here, you are injecting your opinions in the article, using non-neutral language and deleting other content that is unrelated."

How can I inject my opinions into the article when my edit only consisted of removing the irrelevant content that you copied from the Criticism of hadith article? Moreover, you don't know what my opinions are. This is evidenced by the fact that you reverted an edit by an editor that you mistakenly thought was me. However, this other editor's dynamic IP starts with "2A04". My dynamic IP always starts with "2601". This other editor removed An-Nazzam from the article based on his opinion that "the position of al-Nazzam has already been clearly mentioned, in that there is evidence that he rejected only the Hadiths of Abu hurayra". He added a similar claim into the An-Nazzam article itself. That's his opinion but that's not what the sources "clearly" say. And I invite him to quote here on the talk page where the sources "clearly" say that. What the sources do clearly say about An-Nazzam is, ". . . al-Nazzam emphasized on the Qur'an as the only source of theology and ethics. . ." (see "Islamic Thought: From Mohammed to September 11, 2001" by I. M. N. Al-Jubouri, pg 150).

My problem with some of your previous edits, Adigabrek, is that you copied a bunch of irrelevant content from the Criticism of hadith article. And all you said in your edit summary was "expanding article". I tried to flesh out on the talk page the relevance of the content that you copied. But you didn't bother. So I removed it per WP:IRI. You may think I'm nitpicking but you have to consider the people who have to read this article. It's unreasonable to make them wade through a bunch of extraneous content about hadith criticism when they're supposed to be reading an article about Quranism. If you think the minutiae of hadith criticism is so indispensable to Quranism, why not just link to it in the "See also" section? 2601:241:8580:4540:20E9:BD4:F021:5FB2 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from using edit summaries and edit warring to communicate, it may get you all blocked. Use the talk page! IP 2601 has a point: though related, Quranism is not exactly the same as criticism of hadiths; why else have two articles? So @Adigabrek:, please take care not to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK by copying stuff over from Criticism of hadith. As a sidenote: the {{Copied}} template belongs on an article's talk page, not within the article itself, and it is important to include the proper revision ID numbers (refer to the template's documentation on how to properly use it). --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist wrote: "you restored religious POV and you need to go through each section you feel needs removing separately"

I basically restored the history section to this version by C.FRED. I'm not sure what mean when you say it has a religious POV or why you didn't notice it before. Can you give a specific example(s)?

As for the specific section(s) I feel need removing (and that I removed in my previous edit), basically everything that was copied from the Criticism of hadith article. This includes this, this, this, this, this, this, and this one by Adigabrek. And this one by IP 2a04:4a43:4dff:30b8:e4b5:7237:8141:e6b0 (which wasn't copied from the other article, but is dubious for the reason I gave in my previous comment) 2601:241:8580:4540:20E9:BD4:F021:5FB2 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The page is being IP-Vandalised.

@Discospinster: Sorry for the ping, but you're the only person I can ask. The page is being IP-Vandalised. I don't want to engage in a pointless edit war with an IP editor removing parts of the article for no reason. Any help, please? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that there are sources for the statement, perhaps the IP editor will leave it alone. ... discospinster _talk 16:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor Correction Please

Under the section "Contemporary times": "The late Syrian intellectual, Muhammad Shahrur, claimed that hadiths do not have any religious value and that the Quran should be [the] Muslims['] exclusive source."

Thanks for considering. --Apisite (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have added the apostrophe after "Muslims", to note that it is used in possessive mode. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Ahl al qur'an.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)