Jump to content

Talk:Sunni Islam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

ARCHIVED 06.09.05

1

Don't the Sunnis also claim descent of religious authority through Fatima? I vaguely remember something like that. -- April

Yes traditional or barelvi Sunnis do, they follow pirs many of whom claim decent throught fatima. But thats simply claim of religious leadership through Ali, and not including political authority too, as the Shias would claim for their Imams - MSJ

Hi April, I think that you might be thinking of the Ismailis [2], though it looks as though not much has been written about them yet in this encyclopedia... Silver Maple 19:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is this link really pertinent? It seems like a website selling books. I am reluctant to remove it though. Anyone know better --MaxPower 15:38, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

It seems that the link simply links to the 'Books' page when it should really be linking to the home page, there actually appears to be semi-useful stuff there... 209.52.175.157 01:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sunnis and Shiites

What is the difference between the two?? Have I got it mixed up?? Sunnis think that the caliph should be elected right?!?! 

                                  Please Help!
                                    -Stephanie


Please refer to The Difference Between Shiah's & Sunni's

The difference between Sunnis and Shiites is that Sunnis believe that the caliph should be elected and Shiites believe it should be someone from the family of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). With that being said, this has led to many political issues and differences, which led to spiritual issues and differences.


If the sunnis believed thatyou should vote...why did the first khalifa (Abu Bakr) NAME the person he wanted after himself? I have seen many sunnis convert to shi'a but no shi'a to sunni. Reasearch more...or even email this person:
shiadefender@yahoo.com
that person knows a lot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetlittlebrat98 (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between naming and nominating. --AladdinSE 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE is that only a general comment or you are implying that Abu Bakr nominated his successor? As the Khalifa was the highest authority in Islam don’t you think any nomination or recommendation would interfere with the democratic process of election? Does the Pope recommend or nominate his successor? Imagine the result if he did! Kiumars

If you are implying that Abu Bakr, `Umar or `Uthmaan Rady Allaahu `Anhum were not legitimate succesors of the Prophet Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam, could you please tell us then - Why did `Alee Rady Allaahu `Anhu not protest and fight for what was 'rightfully' his? The Khalifa may be established in a number of ways, be by the choice of the majlis ash-Shura, by selection of the previous Khalifa, by claiming it when it is not in existence or by vote of the people.--Mecca Cola 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunni in Iraq

Anonymous user 67.68.232.172 changed [3] the percentage of Sunni in Iraq from 35% to 22%. Someone who is knowledgeable about this should probably confirm this change. I noticed that the CIA factbook[4] says 32-37%. Al guy 05:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling it's one of the many, many people who just hears the incompetent journalists say "twenty percent sunni", who doesn't realize that the Kurds are all Sunni muslims, too. Between the two of them, the total is near 40%.Kaz 18:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

Having just visited the Shi'a page and put a POV tag on it, I visited the Sunni page to see if it was any better. It is less stridently proselytizing, but there are still many passages to which a Shi'a would object.

If Wikipedia is be truly NPOV, then the Shi'a article should be acceptable to Sunnis, and the Sunni article acceptable to Shi'a. That is, the articles should not take sides on any matter in serious dispute, but simply outline the points of disagreement.

I hope it will be taken as an effort to maintain NPOV if I put a POV tag on the Sunni article as well <g>. If the editors active in each article could visit the OTHER article and kindly, respectfully, thoughtfully try to make it NPOV, Wikipedia would be the better for it. Of course, this may be an utterly quixotic notion, and I may simply be inciting a series of revert wars that will be famous in the history of Wikipedia. I hope not. Please try to live up to the best of Wikipedia and not the worst. Zora 22:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, I should perhaps add that any over-enthusiastic editors should consider that their actions in support of their cause REFLECT on their cause. Zora 22:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the Tag. Of course many Shias would object to many Sunni doctrinal explanations, and vice versa. The standard is not what Shias or Sunnis object to (that would result in a completely unmanageable mess), but what neutral readers and editors find to be unsupported POV. If you wish to return the Tag then by all means do so but please justify this by starting your NPOV edits and related specific Talk discussions. --AladdinSE 03:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. It is possible to write an article in such a way that warring factions can agree that it's accurate. It is done all the time on Wikipedia. By saying that it only needs to be accurate from the POV of a neutral observer, you only defer the problem, which now becomes: WHO is a neutral observer? You feel you're neutral, I feel I'm neutral, and yet we disagree! How amazing! Better to just describe your POV (if you represent a common POV, and you aren't just a raving loon) and mine as well (assuming I'm not a raving loon, which I sometimes fear you would not concede). Zora 05:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand... the same principle would go for every sect of Islam. How can you reconcile Mu'tazilism (non-eternity of book) with Sunni (eternity of book). Even more difficult how do you make the Muslim article acceptable to Christians and vice-versa. One way you deny a savior... the other you break the unity of God. Maybe I'm not understanding Zora... but I don't see how that can be. Sunnis define themselves and Shias define themselves... if their definitions conflict we have to report that. gren 06:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You report differences of opinion, you don't state the opinions as fact. If you say that "current Sunni mainstream thinking holds that the Qur'an is eternal, existing even before it was revealed to Muhammad" and "Mu'talizites believe that this doctrine conflicts with the doctrine of God's oneness, or Tawhid, and say that the Qur'an was created in the process of revelation", you've been truthful, I think, but you haven't agreed with either side. Both sides should be able to read those statements and agree with them.
The problem is with people who object strongly to even the statement of a position with which they disagree. Zora 06:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well of course we should do that. I don't see how that will make it more acceptable... I figured it was already implied that wikipedia would cite sources for assertions made within its articles. I'm not sure that make things more acceptable to each other... but if that's what you mean then that is perfectly sensible. gren 06:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you go through an article worrying about what a particular group won't like, you'll never get anywhere. No one is saying that someone else is more neutral that you are, just that for a POV tag, it's not much to ask for specific edits to correct what you think is POV or to start a specific Talk discussion. --AladdinSE 07:34, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understand that. I had worked hard on an article, some guy arrived, slapped a 'substandard' tag on it, and left, without even saying what he thought was substandard. Frustrating. In this case, I just haven't had TIME. Give me some time. I'm trying to get my house clean and look for work ... Zora 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some anonymous user just added the POV flag again, and rewrote the article rather badly.--Vercalos 05:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Major revision

OK, I rewrote the article and -- I hope -- excised all the Sunni triumphalism. I also added a fair bit of material re theological schools, hadith, and the like. There is still a great deal to be done. I want to add sections re holidays, schools like El-Azhar, write up current trends, and prune and organize the links at the bottom. I trust that the other editors will correct any of my errors of fact -- there are bound to be a few! Zora 05:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is Sunni? Do liberals with hadith doubts count? hmmm * Hanafi (founded by Abu Hanifa) ... was it founded by him? not sure ... based on his teaching moreso... what past groups are considered Sunni? gren 06:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "liberals with hadith doubts" would come in the section that isn't written, about current trends. Paras for each, linking to the Wikipedia articles on the Islam template. But perhaps I need to modify all the other sections to make them less "all Sunnis believe that ...". You want to do it? <g>

As for the past groups -- oy, that would be a large task. The "denominations" section only touches the surface. Sounds to me like another article's worth, and then all the denominational articles could be linked to it.

As to Abu Hanifa -- that's what I found online. Islamic theology is not something in which I am really competent; I was cutting and pasting and rewriting to avoid copyvio. If you believe that Abu Hanifa inspired rather than founded, then make the change. I won't be upset.

Thanks for the feedback. Having spent an entire afternoon struggling with this #$%@#$% article, it's nice that someone has read it. Zora 07:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hanafi fiqh was not even designed by Abu Hanifa!!! He wrote a book called al Fiqh al Akbar..and it is more on theology. LAter jurists, folliwng his GENERAL line of thought, formulated the "hanafi madhab." Similar to all other schools." That is what a professor from San Diego State University stated to me. Also, since I don't really see any works attributed to hanafi or any real codification of law it makes sense. I believe we can include any group that follows the sunna as Sunni? except, this brings up problems. When we think of sunna we think of hadith collections. Some modern groups reject that many hadith are accurate... yet would claim to follow the example of Muhammad... are they Sunni? I think many like that also try to only calls themselves Muslim since there is a command to not break into sects... Also... it was actually a movie of some college lecture. The professor talked about how the concept of Sunnism didn't exist in the beginning... that it was a look back after a long while. This makes sense seeing that Umar and Uthman would have been opposed to Ali... I definitely think you are going in the right direction but I should start pooling my information and adding material and citing the sources. One other thing... you removed "They do not constitute a sect of Islam. On the contrary, their first and foremost self-identification label is that of mainstream or orthodox Islam." I agree that is horribly POV but... but even though it seems that people will call themselves Sunni... I don't think its self-identification is as a sect... even if for all intents and purposes they are. Also I need advice on phrasing... because, surely they are the four traditional Sunni schools... but, we can't say they are the only if we are going to put in liberal and salafi as Sunnis... they are the traditionally accepted ones... and many don't accept others besides them... but, since Islam has no real way of saying "this is right and this isn't" many can identify themselves in different ways. gren 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"As for those who divide their way of life and break up into sects, you have no part of them at all. Their affair is with Allah. He will tell them the truth of what they did in the end." (Qur`an 6:159). That is what I was saying above about sects and how I don't believe it was traditionally a term of self-identification... soo, groups might not call themselves Sunni, but they can be classified as Sunni if they follow the Sunna? But, Shia follow their own interpretation of Sunna through their own hadith collections. Craziness gren 08:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good observations, Gren. I don't think I can face rewriting today, but perhaps tomorrow ... You're right that the descriptions as they currently stand leave out the liberal Muslims AND the Salafi, who reject the whole structure of hadith and incredibly elaborated Islamic law. (At least I think Salafis do -- all of a sudden I'm not so sure of myself ... ) So perhaps we should divide between traditional Sunni, and modern reformist Sunni, which comes in at least two varieties. The descriptions re theology, hadith, and madhab apply to traditional Sunni. As to what makes someone Sunni -- that's a really really vexing question. The Salafi/Ihkwan (sp?) would say that anyone NOT THEM is an infidel. But the mainstream folks would probably say that the Salafis are Sunni, just misguided. Maybe it all comes down to being able to share a mosque with folks. Shi'a don't go to Sunni mosques, right? And vice-versa? But different varieties of Sunni will go to any Sunni mosque in a pinch, even if they don't agree with the imam or the Friday sermon? Oh, we need a Muslim editor here ... Zora 09:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is rather confusing to me as well. I find it a tendency to be "Are you a Shia?" - "No." - "Oh, you're a Sunni." I am not sure that is the reality of it though. If there is a reality to this organization. Maybe by this point in time only those who accept the four madhhabs are Sunni so the sects are Sunni, Shia and Other... even though the other movements came from within Sunni Islam many times. Although, I would tend to be more inclusive with what we put as being a part of Sunnism until we find out otherwise. gren 12:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor re hadith

An anon editor removed part of the section on hadith, leaving the para in a confusing state. I'm guessing that anon objected to the description of hadith differing (even though Muslim scholars would tell you that they do). I restored enough of what was deleted to restore the para to coherence, and rewrote around the perceived problem. This is probably not the right place to argue about the utter perfection of hadith <g>. Zora 00:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the link to this page wasn't working and have corrected the link.

However, there is a discrepancy between the title of the cited page and the citation on this page. This page spells it "Shi'ah Islam", while the page that I've linked to it spells it "Shi'a Islam". These should be edited to conform. I'll leave it to you experts.

--Bill Jefferys 19:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I took the numbers off the links (no point hinting that one link is more important than another), removed two commercial links, and sorted the links into forums, instruction, and radio. I'm fairly confident about all that. However, I'm less sure about how to describe the links. I felt that some of the "ad copy" that had been submitted with the links was misleading and I didn't want to leave it -- but I also wasn't sure that it was a good idea to affix my own descriptions. For one thing, I'm not a Sunni Muslim <g>. In the end, I removed all descriptions. Readers can click on the links and make their own judgements. If anyone objects, let's discuss it.

I also doubt that we've got the best Sunni links. I have a suspicion that a number of the sites nominated themselves. Any Sunnis reading this should add any links that seem useful (large, informative sites). Zora 11:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hanbali slant to Kalam section

I'm not quite sure when it happened, and I don't have time right now to delve into the history, but someone has rewritten the kalam section to praise the Hanbali school to the skies, using very Salafi terminology. It's POV as heck and needs to be fixed. I will do it when I can, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Zora 20:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, taken care of. Turned out that the chunk of Salafi material could be excised completely, leaving the original text. I have removed the POV tag, since I put it there. Zora 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

People of...

You can't have an article about Sunni Muslims without discussing - Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah, Ahl Sunnah wal Jamah, Ahl As-Sunnah Wal-Jama'ah, or Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaaah. All the same thing just transliterated differently. --JuanMuslim 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ali and 'Ali

This article mentions Ali 8 times and 'Ali 7 times. Were they the same person? I know Arabic uses a different alphabet, but if 'Ali was the same man as Ali, then it would be easier to understand if all the Ali's were respelled as 'Ali or vice versa. Or if 'Ali was a different person, then it would be clearer if it said "Ali (not to be confused with 'Ali)". Art LaPella 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Should all be Ali. I'll fix it when I get a round tuit, unless someone else does first. Zora 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Um...

Why isn't there an introductory sentence or two to explain what Sunni Islam is for people who don't know ("Sunni Islam is one of the two major branches of Islam..." or something). It's very confusing and strange to go directly to the "historical split" without any introductory sentences at all. (See, for example, how it's done, effectively, in Shia). This article is embarrassingly sparse and unclear for the article on the largest branch of the world's second-largest religion, and needs a lot of work. Moncrief 19:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the introduction, it's common for Wikipedia articles to miss the obvious. For instance, before my edits Joan of Arc didn't mention the fire until after she was dead, and timeline of cosmology didn't mention Newton's laws. Art LaPella 22:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, will fix it when I have a round tuit, but someone else can too. Zora 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

What does this mean?

Assalamu alaikum
The majority of the Sunnis follow the path of Tasawwuf. The two terms are not contradictory just as one can be a Shiah and an Usuli and a Jafari in Madhhab etc.
In Sunnism, there are three main branches: the outer physical actions (Islam/A'mal), the beliefs (Imam/Aqeedah) and spirituality (Ihsan/Tasawwuf/Tazkiyah/Sufism etc.). All of these are derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah if explicit texts are found, but where there are uncertainties the 4 Madhahib are followed in actions, the Ashari and Maturidi Aqeedah in Aqeedah and the many Sufi Tareeqahs in Tasawwuf.
Tawassul is permissible in Sunni Islam. [5]

--Striver 09:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this is some deluded whacko. Tasawwuf is another name for Sufism, which exists in many forms, but still amounts to less than 5% of 'Sunnis' not that I would count them in the grouping. Everything written is complete rubbish being pushed by a deviant minority sect which has NO basis in Islam from its original sources.Mecca Cola 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's not start the "Sufism is an innovation" debate again. I spent almost a month on it on the Sufism page (refer the talk archives) and we reached a conclusion. I'm not reiterating any points I made over there but if you're interested, you can have a look. Also, if you want to add your assertions about how "Sufis" indulged in Kalam while "orthodox" muslims stayed away from it, Please provide a source. I've reverted it for now. --Nkv 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunni view of God.

There are a couple of problems here.

  • Firstly, these are unsubstantiated from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I personally have a rather authoritative book by Imam Haddad entitled The lives of man that discusses the Islamic view of afterlife and it's got nothing to do hell being stirred till no more people can fit in etc.
  • There's quite a bit of Anthropomorphism in there which Sunni muslims don't subscribe to (eg. God's hands, legs, etc.)
  • The tone and the language of the whole section is of rather low quality making it look like an act of vandalism rather than a proper entry.

I'm removing the section since it's not only factually incorrect (please provide sources if I'm mistaken) but also because it's really badly written and because it doesn't add anything to the article. --Nkv 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting edits by MMansoor

M, I'm sorry to have to revert, but your edits were argumentative. You were trying to use that section to show that the Sunni were RIGHT. The section merely indicates that there is a controversy and points people to the main article, Succession to Muhammad. I think that if you look at that article, you'll find that all your arguments are already laid out there. Zora 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Subsects within Sunni Islam

This section needs some changes. Here are the problems.

  • The section contradicts an earlier which lists Shafii, Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki as schools of Fiqh. In this section, they're listed as sects.
  • Wahabism and Salafism are the same. The former was the original name given to the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab. The latter is modern name for the same group.
  • The Jama'at Islami is a political party. It's not a sect and it's not accurate to list it here.
  • The Mutazil entry here is already listed above under the Kalam section. It belongs there and not here.
  • The Barelvi/Deobandi divide is prominent only in India and the subcontinent. Outside here, they really don't have much significance. To put them as prominent "sects" in the main article on Sunni islam is a little misleading.
  • Some of the ones mentioned here (eg. Salafism) are sects because they regard themselves as the only correct group and consider many others as disbelievers. Some others like the Barelvis have disagreements with the other groups on many matters but don't see them as disbelievers. They're not considered a sect but a school of thought.

Please post any additional comments here. I'll clean up the section in a day or two after I accumulate sufficient data. Thank you. --Nkv 06:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings and thank you for the comments. I've inlined my own. I agree with you on all the points and also think that the reasons you've mentioned here should go into the main article (or as sub articles with links from the main one). As it stands, the section we're discussing is still ambiguous. If a reader who doesn't have as much background as you have on the matter reads this section, it simply sounds like the Sunnis are fractured into 4 subsects which are further broken down as the list shows. This is not true and although the original section text doesn't imply so, it's not clear enough. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this section is OK, because Hanafi, Maleki Shafei and Hanbali are not considered as sects here, but are listed here to show which fiqh school is followed by the different subsects such as barelvi and deobandi.
Agreed. Although I think it would be a good idea to mention that as a note before starting off with the list. It's a little misleading now as it is. Don't you agree?--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At present Salafis are identified with the Ahl-i-Hadith (hadith only group), and not the Wahabbis (not talking about the past). Its true that the Ahl-i-Hadith is a form of Wahabbism.
  • The Jama't Islami is both a political party and a subsect, as concluded by most Sunni ulema in the indian subcontinent. Since they have distinctive beliefs from traditional sunnis. Please try google a bit.
Yup. I think we should expand the entry for Jama't Islami to mention this.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Mutazil are not even a Kalam of Sunnis, and the mutazila themselves don't consider themselves to be Sunnis. I don't know where you got your idea. They are a different sect like the Kharijites. But since it is already put in the Sunni Kalams section (I don't know why, they are a sect not only a theological school), atleast it should also be put in the subsects section to differentiate it from the orthodox, since in Orthodox Sunnism only Ashariyyah and Maturidiyyah are accepted kalams.
The Mutazil are not part of the Orthodox Sunni group and shouldn't be in the Kalam section actually. You're right. Maybe it would make sense to just remove the Mutazil sections from this article completely? There are other wikipedia articles on them anyway and they're not really part of the orthodox Sunnis.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The words Barelvi/Deobandi are used in India, true, but these two "forms" of Hanafi Sunnism, identified by other names (sometimes not even identified) are the only two major conflicting divisions in world Hanafi Sunnism. There are two forms of Hanafi Sunnism in the world today, the "traditional", which in India are called Barelvis (outside India they are just identified by the term traditional sunnis), and Deobandi (this sect is only in india though, conflicting with the traditionalist). I think this article lists all possible difference in beliefs among Sunnism that lead to non accpetance of each other or sectarianism, of which two exists among Hanafis, the "traditional Hanafis" of the world, called barelvi in India, most sunnis of the world embrace this form, and the deobandis, the only revolting sect and exists only in India. These groups call each other Batil (misguided). Barelvis don't only exist in India. If you just understand the term, the indians use this word for traditional Sunnis. There are these traditional Sunnis having the same belief in other parts of the world, (and they are the majority Sunnis, in that case most muslims of the world are barelvis if you speak hindi and live in India), but are not generally termed barelvis, since its an Indian word. And by barelvi, I think this article is denoting all traditionalists, even outside India. The barelvis in India and traditionalists in other parts of the world are one unified group known by different names in different places, but many people use the word "barelvi" nowadays for all of them, since this word has gained populairty and common use through apologetics of famous Indian ulema. That is why Al-Ajhar has also accepted this word as its unofficial standard. I think this is also the case with this article. But even then the term "Barelvi" is not correct. Instead the word Traditional Sunni, or Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah is better used. But the term Barelvi may be used to identify all traditional Sunnis for convenience and easy identification (this is done so by many people).
I think you should add this explanation to the entry. Something on the lines of "Barelvi is a term originally used in the Indian subcontinent but now is used to mean people following traditional Hanafi sunnism". That would make it more accurate.--Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wahabbis and Salafis don't consider themselves non-sunni, they consider themselves Sunnis. Rather they call the traditional Sunnis to be illiterate and not following the proper Sunni path. (One thing to be noted is that they do not consider traditional Sunnis to be seperate sects, rather that they are illiterate and unorganized Sunnis). From the secular point of view, thus, Salafis and Wahabbis are Sunni claimants. Thus they are not categorized as sects, but subsects of Sunnism, please try google in details. On the other hand barelvi and deobandi are not schools of thought. Schools of thought are the kalams (theological) and fiqh (legal). Barelvi and Deobandis are subsects of Sunnism that call each other to be Batil (Misguided) or even Kafir (Disbeliever). Please read the Taqwiyatul Iman of the deobandis, and the Takfeer of Imam Reza Khan.
Putting Wahabism, Salafism, Deobandis and Barelvis all under one sections entitled "subsects of Islam" without any further details (unlike here in the talk section where you've very succintly listed the differences) is misleading. That was my concern. I'm sure that if you edit all the comments here and put them into the article, my concerns would be addressed. There's also some internal inconsistency eg. the "Current trends" section lists Barelvi but not Deobandi, the four schools of Fiqh are listed under the section "subsects" (although this is just for categorising subsects) which is all misleading. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Last of all, there are many views of Shi'sm and sectarianism in Islam. Many encylopedias give their own points of view, which should not be so with wikipedia. Some people even call Jafari Shias to be Sunnis (notice a recent fatwa by Al-Ajhar Dean). The categorization used in this article has been accepted as the standard categorization by Al Ajhar university, which has just been copied here with slight emphasis added, I think. So whoever the writer of this article is, I think he got it largely right and authentic as far as i know, and most Muslims will agree to it. So I think this article should be confirmed permanently. (I just noticed this discussion as i was passing by. The right one to delve into I thought). Please study some more before reaching any conclusion.
Well, such matters can be mentioned as "facts" rather than opinions. eg. The dean of Azhar said such and such in this fatwa and a link to the source. That would be okay. Thank you for the comments. Will you have the time to make the additions to the section or shall I edit and merge in your comments? I didn't see your signature so I thought I'd ask here itself. --Nkv 11:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get the details into the main article so that the article becomes more clear, as soon as I get the chance. Thank you very much for your interest and pointing out the inconsistencies.

Paradoxic's edits

Paradoxic, this is NOT the place to launch an assault on Sunnis. I don't think that the historical account given is unfair; I'm neither a Sunni nor a Shi'a, and I did my best to be even-handed. You are adding text that accuses Sunni of being innovators, wrong, etc., AND including unproven accusations such as the claim that Muawiyah poisoned Hasan ibn Ali. There is no evidence for this; it's of a piece with Twelver Shi'a claims that every one of the imams was a martyr, killed by the evil Sunnis.

I think we can erase most of the history in that summary, which was written before the Succession to Muhammad was developed, and just refer readers to the Succession article. Perhaps you'll accept that, since the Succession article gives a great deal of space to Shi'a claims. Zora 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I would suggest that the introduction to this article could do with some considerable improvement:

  1. I don't think "Sunni Islam" is generally regarded in the English language as being "short for" اهل السنة والجماعة , which should also be translated;
  2. If by contrast it is "short for" it, then one of the articles should redirect to the other instead of there being two separate articles;
  3. Considerably more info about what Sunni Islam is could go into the intro. Palmiro | Talk 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I propose this article be merged with Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah. That article only includes some ahadith, some verses from the Quran, and why Shi'as think the Sunnis are wrong. Pepsidrinka 00:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Zora 02:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the Sunni and Shi'a disagree over other things besides the phrase "Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah", although my entire paragraph here needs to be confirmed by someone who has studied Sunni/Shi'a debate more than I have. If we merged the lengthening debate at Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah into Sunni Islam, then could this article be getting too sidetracked? That would be a major debate on a single side issue, when there are other aspects of Sunni/Shi'a debate or general Sunnism we could describe. An alternative would be to copy most or all of the Ahl al-Sunna article to a spin-off page with a name like "Debate on the phrase Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah", which would still allow Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah to redirect to Sunni Islam. Art LaPella 18:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the 2 should be merged. Sunni is nothing but the short form for "Ahl usSunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah." But they are the same thing. Perhaps another article can be written (in a shia related link) on why shias disagree with this term, so as not to sidetrack. After all if they disagree with Ahl usSunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah, then by definition, they disagree with the term "sunni" (which is just a shortened form of the former term).
Yes, that is consistent with what I meant. Art LaPella 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I completed the merge and added a redirect there. There really wasn't anything there that I felt needed to be saved, except for the Arabic text and the origins of the name. Everything else over there seemed useless. It was filled with quotes from Qur'an and hadith. If anyone feels it was salvageable, fell free to add it. Pepsidrinka 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved historic background

I have moved the "Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split" to its own article. I also think that this article needs a major clean up. It isn't as good as the Shi'a Islam article, which has more information. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunnis! Wake Up - Mainstream Sunnis vs. Habashies / Al-Ahbash / AICP

Habashies / Al-Ahbash / Ahbash / AICP / TIES / ACL

The Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habashies, officially known as the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP), or Jam'iyyat al-Mashari' al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya which also operates under Jammat Ahl Sunnah in the US and other parts of the world, is one of the most controversial Muslim sect among all the Muslim sects / groups.

On their official web-site, www.aicp.org, they claim to be "The Resounding Voice of Moderation," a claim which is propogated by anti-Islam writers like Daniel Pipes and Jeff Jacoby (See Zionist Connection) on their behalf. However, their critics, a group of Islamic Researchers which includes researchers and scholars like Dr. Muzzamil Siddiqui and Dr. Ahmad Sakr .etc, point out that "They hold strange deviant views that have never been expressed by any Muslim sect, group or movement. They declared that intermingling between men and women is permissible without any restrictions, and that Muslim leaders are not true believers and that it is permissible to cooperate with non-believers."

They further point out that "several Muslim authorities warned against such a sect including: the Islamic Research Academy at Al-Azhar, the General Authority for Research, Fatwas and the Islamic call and guidance in Saudi Arabia, the Higher Council for Fatwas in Northern America" despite claims made by some of the followers of Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habashies group that they are supported by Al-Azhar.

All over the world, they use the signboards / slogans of Ahl As Sunnah wal Jamaat on their centers and materials of propaganda. They call themselves "authentic" Sunnis and they call authentic mainstream Sunnis "Kaafirs."

Further, to misguide the mainstream Sunni Muslims, new Muslims and Muslim youth, they are creating web-sites all over the world wide web, running their web-sites as "authentic" mainstream Sunni Muslims and linking on all the Free Forums / Encyclopedias like WikiPedia by using Islamic sounding domain names like:

(Please, read this article,Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context - http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf - to find out how Habashies / Al-Ahbash / AICP are using the web to hide their agenda and promote their beliefs by posing as "authentic" mainstream Sunnis.)

Since they are not part of Islamic Jurisprudence council, they have formed their own "high" council to issue Fatwas in Australia:

"At the surface, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP seems to adhere to the Shafi`i School of Jurisprudence, and to Imam Al-Ash`ari’s School in terms of creed. However, at the deep level, their main agenda is to corrupt and misquide the Muslim creed and incite sedition amongst the Muslims by marketing, preaching and disseminating their own twisted beliefs."

Habashies / Al-Ahbash / AICP have divided the word of Allah into two categories: First, word which is not sound or letter. Second, which is the pronounced and written word, which says the word of Allah, but it is in reality composed by Gabrael. And that Allah - the Exalted speaks in everlasting words which have no beginning or end, and are not composed of continuing letters or annunciations which are separated or combined. They believe it to be a self discussion in which God talked within Himself, because in their opinion the words of God are not a language, a letter, or a sound. Moreover:

a). Concerning creed, they follow the condemned school of Irja'. It is well known that the Islamic creed held by the Prophet’s Companions and their successors states that faith is a matter of declaring in words, believing in the heart and all this must be reflected in action for belief without practice and submission to Shari`ah has no place in Islam. However, according to them it is not necessary that faith be reflected in action and hence a person remains a believer even if he neglects all the pillars of Islam,

b). Such a sect consider it permissible to seek the help of the dead besides instead of that of Allah and this is clearly considered in the Qur'an and Sunnah as ascribing partners to Allah. They urge people to do so claiming that the dead get out from their graves to fulfill the requests of those who call upon them and then get back to the graves. Allah Almighty says: “They worship beside Allah that which neither hurteth them nor profiteth them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah.” (Yunus: 18), c). They consider that the Qur'an is not the words of Allah but that of Gabriel,

d). They claim to follow the Shafi`i School in respect to fiqh and belief. However, they are, in fact, very far from the principles of the School of Imam ash-Shafi`i,

e). They claim that Allah has created the universe and sent the Messengers to humans for no purpose or wisdom and whoever attributes any of Allah's actions to the Divine Wisdom is a mushrik.

According to one Fatwa (Religious Decree) issued by Islamonline.net, "they usually do not express their true views and intentions in the books or any of the publications that they issue. Even the books issued by their leader is quite ordinary and do not contain any of their aberrant views which is, in fact, part of their plan to deceive people and attract more followers. However, many of their followers repent and revert to the true path when they learn the truth about such sect."

Consequently, they conclude with the following points:

1- The Ahbash group is a stray group that is not considered among main stream Muslims and they have to revert to the true path of the Companions and their successors, both in belief and in action.

2- It is not permissible to follow the fatwas of such sect.

3- They are not trustworthy and people must be warned against their dangerous corrupt views. Moreover, Muslims should advise the followers of such sect to revert to the true path." (Source: "Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs" - IslamOnLine.net - June 07, 2003)


ZIONISTS CONNECTION


- Faces of American Islam[:Muslim Immigration]

by Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán

Policy Review

August/September 2002


- American Muslims vs. American Jews

by Daniel Pipes

Commentary

May 1999


- Needed: Muslims against Terror[ - and Not Salam Al-Marayati]

by Daniel Pipes

Forward

July 16, 1999


- Hear The Voices of Muslim Moderation

Boston Globe | January 6, 2000

by Jeff Jacoby


- Anti-Defamation League (ADL)

features Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP)


- Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)

Islam perverted: The Islamists have got it wrong

by Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi


AL-AHBASH / HABASHIES' HISTORY AND BELIEFS


"The Habashies Weighted On The Scales the Sharee'ah"

"Al-Ahbash - Their History and Beliefs"

"Die al-Habash - gewaltfreie Islamisten?" (German)


Al-AHBASH / HABASHIES' DEVIATIONS


"Habashis and the Issue of the Qiblah"

- Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs

by Z. Alzamil


- Al-Ahbash's Friends and their enemies

by Z. Alzamil

  • allaahuakbar.net/habashis/alhabashis_friends_and_ enemies.htm


- Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context


- A SUFI RESPONSE TO POLITICAL ISLAMISM: AL-AHBASH OF LEBANON

by A. Nizar Hamzeh and R. Hrair Dekmejian

International Journal of Middle East Studies 28 (1996), 217-229


PERTINENT FATWAS (RELIGIOUS DECREES) ABOUT Al-AHBASH / HABASHIES / AICP


"Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs"

"Casting Aspersions on Erudite Scholars"

"Differences among the Companions: Islamic Approach"


AL-AHBASH / HABASHIES' SOURCE OF FUNDING


- The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP) in North America and Europe

- Islamic Charity Projects Association (ICPA) in Australia

- Italian Muslim Assembly (AMI) in Italy


AL-AHBASH / AICP / HABASHIES' SCHOOLS + CENTERS


Schools (International)

The Islamic Education School (T.I.E.S.)- Anaheim, California, USA

The Islamic Education School (T.I.E.S.)- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

The Islamic Education School (T.I.E.S.)- Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

Al-Furqan Islamic Foundation - Bellevue, Washington, USA

An-Nur Islamic School - Revere, Massachusetts, USA

Al Amanah College, Bankstown & Liverpool Campuses, AUSTRALIA

Al-Hidayah School, New Westminster, British Columbia, CANADA

Cultural Academy of Laval - Academie Culturelle de Laval (ACL), Montreal, Quebec, CANADA


AL-AHBASH / AICP / HABASHIES' FREE "ISLAMIC" CLASSES


- Anaheim, California, USA

- Houston, Texas, USA

- Memphis, Tennessee, USA

- Miami, Florida, USA

- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

- Philadelphia, PA, USA

- Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

http://www.aicp.org/About/Table%20of%20Events.htm#AnaheimCaliforniaUSA


AL-AHBASH / AICP / HABASHIES' CHATROOMS


'THE CALL OF KNOWLEDGE' (Paltalk - Arabic Chatroom)

'THE LIGHT OF ISLAM' (Paltalk - English Chatroom)


Al-AHBASH / HABASHIES' OWNED WEB-SITES


Suntan?

I can't imagine you really wanted to replace the introductory paragraph about the meaning of Sunni Islam with a paragraph about tanning, but two different people have put it back in. If you're serious, the proper English form of that sentence would be: "Sunni Muslims enjoy tanning very much. Part of their daily salat is an obligatory visit to a sunbed." Art LaPella 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The Wahaby Sect

Muhammad Ibn ^Abdul-Wahhab (Founder of Wahaby Sect) started as a student of knowledge in the city of the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam: al-Madinah al-Munawwarah. Ibn ^Abdul-Wahhab’s father was a good, pious man among the people of knowledge as was his brother, Shaykh Sulayman. His father, his brother, and his shaykhs (teachers of religion) had the foresight Ibn ^Abdul-Wahhab would innovate a great deal of deviation and misguidance, because of their observance of his sayings, actions, and inclinations concerning many issues. They used to reprimand him and warn people against him.


Muslims: Be warned

Warning against the deviant and straying people is an obligatory matter. In fact, if warning against the person who cheats the Muslims in articles of trade is obligatory, then it is more so to warn against the person who intrigues and perverts the Religion and belies Allah and the Messenger. Allah, ta^ala, said in Surat Al-^Imran, Ayah 104: which means: [Let there be among you a nation that invite to the good, command the lawful, and forbid the unlawful.]

Abu ^Aliyy ad-Daqqaq said: "The one who withholds the truth is a mute devil."


The History Of The Fighting With The Wahhabiyyah

At the time Ibn ^Abdul-Wahhab and his assistants initiated their treacherous ideology by which they called the Muslims blasphemers, they were gaining control of eastern Arabia one tribe after another. This expansion eventually encompassed al-Yaman, Makkah, al-Madinah, and the tribes of al-Hijaz all the way to ash-Sham.

for more info about wahhabism :

Even the NON-Muslim ACADEMICS say that Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are waging a blatant and hegemonic smear campaign against the mainstream Muslims and they have proven it over and over again...

Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context

by THOMAS PIERRET (The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM)

The Lebanon-based al-Ahbash movement advocates a radical neo-traditionalist version of Sunni Islam. Although numerically modest, it has established branches in several Western countries, where it continues the campaign it started in the Middle East against the Salafi trend. The movement uses the Internet innovatively and demonstrates that the strategic use of web-based interactive communication tools does not necessarily lead to the reinforcement of a culture of dialogue; on the contrary they can also serve as a means to achieve virtual ideological hegemony.

The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (AICP) was founded in Beirut in 1982 by a group of Sunni ulama who, together with their followers, were nicknamed “al-Ahbash” (The Ethiopians) after their Ethiopian-born spiritual leader, the scholar and Sufi Shaykh Abdallah al-Harari al-Habashi. Since its inception, the AICP has been backed by the Syrian regime, which considers its strong commitment to traditional non-political Sunni principles and its insistently anti-Salafi stance as a means to counter the rise of political Islam in Lebanon. However, this radical neotraditionalist ideology and the paranoid worldview it implies are not exclusively linked to the particular context of Lebanon but constitute a vehicle for an organization that has become transnational by establishing branches in France, Germany, the United States, Australia, and even the Ukraine.

As a global but numerically marginal network made up of small groups, often facing hostility of other Sunni communities, the Ahbash have been quick to take advantage of the Internet. The English speaking—i.e. global-oriented—official website of the AICP (www.aicp.org) is dedicated to conventional uses but is rather innovative from a technological point of view. Since the web makes religious material available worldwide at very low cost, the AICP’s website provides a wide range of exoteric and esoteric contents through written as well as audio resources, among which is a radio station broadcasting from the Beirut headquarters of the movement and daily interactive religious lessons. A look at the website’s Guest Book shows that visitors using this material to improve their Islamic knowledge are not necessarily members of the AICP and sometimes live in regions where the association is not formally present (South Asia, Turkey, Nigeria, and Mindanao). Therefore, one may conclude that the website leads to an extension of the AICP’s ideological sphere of influence. However, we need to be somewhat more cautious than Olivier Roy who asserts that, thanks to the Internet, “one directly joins the Sufi neo-brotherhood [among which is al-Ahbash]” and “one can learn the thought of the Shaykh through its discourse and no longer [have to be] in [direct] contact with him.” [1] As far as Sufism informs the content of thissie, we would suggest that this kind of electronic material is basically more of a showcase for the brotherhood or an aid for the ritual-mystical practices of geographically isolated members. Indeed, visiting a website does not replace the master-disciple relationship, which remains an essential part of Sufism, including that of the Ahbash. Strikingly, Shaykh Abdallah is only surreptitiously referred to on the AICP’s websites since, to use Michael Gilsenan’s words,2 the management of the physical absence of the founding saint—who is more than 80 years old and can only travel abroad occasionally to meet his disciples—is still carried out orally by his deputies.

The second function of the Internet for the Ahbash is to improve the global cohesion of the movement by weaving links between grass roots members of the different branches worldwide, all the more so since these branches are established in highly “connected” countries. Of course, such links are not really useful with regard to close and sizeable communities as in Lebanon or France, but they are of invaluable help for isolated individuals living in Australia or North America. It is certainly not a coincidence that the Ahbash’s website was the first in the Islamic cyberspace to provide 24-hour voice chat groups in different languages.

Ideological spider webs

At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors.

Notes

  • [1]. Olivier Roy, L’Islam mondialisé (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2002), 127.
  • [2]. Michael Gilsenan, Saint and Sufi in Modern Egypt: an Essay in the Sociology of Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).


Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf


----------------


IF Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP are in fact mainstream Sunnis and they don't have any MAJOR conflict with mainsteam Sunnis then why on the earth they need to invest, market and disseminate their favorite scholar's teaching in the name of Islam by using "Islamic" sounded web-sites like:

  • Why can't they simply corroborate with already established mainstream Sunni web-sites like IslamOnline.net .etc?
  • Why do they need to build their own centers in the West and around the globe?
  • Why do they need to innovate, market and disseminate their favorite scholar's "teachings" in the name of Islam using such hedious methods and tactics? After all, don't Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP claim to be Sunni Muslims? IF THEY TRULY ARE THEN WHY DON'T MAINSTREAM SUNNI MUSLIMS ACCEPT THEM AS THEIR OWN?
  • Why would mainstream Sunni Muslim Scholars issue several Islamic Decrees (FATWAs) to warn people against them?
  • Why don't Habashies / Al-Ahbash / AICP pray in the same direction as the mainstream Sunnis in North America? Is it about truly scientific reasons or to promote SEDITION?

and so on and so forth......

(Hint: You may always use major search engines like Google and Yahoo for research. You might be amazed to find out that there are SO MANY web-sites and material out there which have REFUTED all the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies CLAIMS and BELIEFS .etc by quoting and using AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own material. This page, for which you are waging your "Jihad" at - to sanitize and rescue Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies, is just, as they say, a drop in the ocean.

McKhan

65.92.130.151 / Cronodevir / Crono / Muslim Sunni BELONGS to a CULT called Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies... He is NOT a mainstream Sunni....

65.92.130.151 / Muslim Sunni / Cronodevir / Crono is the web-master of Qiblah.us and Sunna.info and other AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' related websites. He is using WikiPedia to promote his AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies POVs + incorporate hidden links to seek legitimacy, recruitment and more traffic to his group's web-sites. Please, be vigilant. Thanks McKhan

I will comment only on Wikipedia policy, not on Muslim theology. McKhan and Muslim sunni have each accused the other of "vandalism", but that isn't how the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy uses that word. Click here to see a silly edit which is an example of what Wikipedia means by vandalism. Wikipedia has other policies regulating disputes like this one, but the vandalism policy isn't one of them. Art LaPella 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. However, question of the day is: Why would WikiPedia allow someone using different IP addresses and IDs to edit the pages and link-back to his webmastered web-sites? In this case, Cronodevir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is NOT only using Muslim_sunni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (He is NOT a mainstream Sunni but follower of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP group and maintain at least 11 web-sites which includes Sunna.info and Qibla.us) id but also two different IP addresses: 67.68.246.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 65.92.130.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - And yet he is allowed to to roam / lurk around WikiPedia Islam-related pages to insert hidden links to his web-sites, to pursue his agenda and direct traffic to his web-sites / group. And he is so "smart" that each time he inserts the hidden link, he makes sure that that link is going to be listed on the TOP. If this is NOT Complex and Delibrate Vandalism then at least it must constitute to a blatant abuse of WikiPedia content's integrity and credibility. McKhan
If everything McKhan has written is correct, then his adversary should be called a link spammer (not a vandal). See Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. A persistent link spammer can be banned by a an administrator (I'm not an administrator), but Wikipedia hasn't yet invented a good way to fight a banned user coming back with another ID. However, making him start over with a new ID would temporarily deny him some privileges like starting new pages. Art LaPella 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed my mind. "Spam" meaning this kind of link spam is mentioned at Wikipedia:Vandalism after all. Oh well. Art LaPella 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mckhan is a Wahhabi , his only goal in wikipedia is to delete sunni's link and to keep wahabies links on , he claim that i'm cronodev or what ever , i don't even know who is this guy . he say that i'm the webmaster of the links i post , each link that i post he claim that i own it and my goal is to promote my web and get more visitors .
The islamic link i posted do not meet Mckhan belief since he is a wahhabi and wahhabies believe that they are the only people on the correct path .
Wahhabies link should be deleted from all wikipedia since they promote violence , and hatred .
We shoudlnt also forget that Wahhabism is the responsable of the 9/11 TRADE CENTER ATTACK .
They are terrorists ! --Muslim sunni 22:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You cannot silence me by using your "politically-correct" language. I CHALLENGE you, like I have challenged you in the past, to PROVE that I am a Wahabi OR I am a "Terrorist." I belong to a mainstream Sunni family which is Sunni for CENTURIES. I personally ABHOR any sort of Terrorism. So, you better stop this campaing of DEFEMATION and trapping people with your "politically-correct" language. You are the web-master of Sunna.info and Qibla.us and at least 11 other web-sites which are there to pursue the agenda of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' group and to seek legitimacy and recruitment. Any reader of this message can track down your foot-prints by paying attention to "date-and-time-stamp," "target-pages," "IDs" and "IP addresses" and using a little bit of common sense that: You and your fellow co-cultists of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' lurk around WikiPedia Islam-related pages and insert hidden links to pursue your agenda. Here are the IDs: Cronodevir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) + Muslim_sunni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) + 67.68.246.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) + 65.92.130.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You and your co-cultists are simply mad and furious that I am exposing you everywhere. If anybody wants to learn about the reality and tactics of Al-Ahbash / Habashies, please feel welcome to read this research report by The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM)which concludes: At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors. (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf) McKhan

This is getting ridiculous

I say block 'em all. How can one sort through the vitriol and venom? -- Scientizzle 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who is having "venom." I am simply trying to maintain the integrity and credibility of WikiPedia Islam-related pages by DIFFERANTIATING between the mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash / Habashies' agents who are inserting their hidden links to pursue their agenda. McKhan
I say sort carefully before blocking anyone. One of them might be right. The above reference to "Zionism" might give a clue what's really going on. Art LaPella 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Art LaPella, Please, elaborate what sort of clue, reference to "Zionism," offers. I am eager to read your input. McKhan
I'm less eager than you are to enter a discussion of someone else's religious beliefs, but of course the word Zionism is used primarily by enemies of Judaism - although I am neither Muslim nor Jewish. Art LaPella 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have nothing against Jews. With all due respect, If you are so careful, politically-correct and non-religious then why would you be commenting on WikiPedia Islam-related pages? It doesn't make any sense. Does it? McKhan
Oh, it's interesting. But ordinarily I do things the people here haven't done for themselves. I correct their English since it's my native language, I add some wikilinks, and in your case I commented on Wikipedia policy. And I do believe in ethics that are traditional to most any culture, more so than most other Americans do. If you look at my Wikipedia contributions, you'll see most of them have nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. Art LaPella 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me be quite blunt here, first, you tried to get me banned by using your "reference" to "Zionism" without even looking into the source of the entry in question and now you are trying to prove your "usefulness" to WikiPedia by claiming that you are "correcting" others' English. Let me remind you, being a "native" speaker of English doesn't give anybody an open license to "correct" others' English. After all, people are not writing their editorials while expressing themselves on these TALK pages or contributing to WikiPedia pages which are always being "improved." Furthermore, "native" English speakers should be thankful to "non-native" English speakers that at least they speak "their" language though they may not be able to speak others' language (s). And last but not the least, I have already looked into your contributions. All I have to say that I don't contribute / comment to those things / pages to which I know nothing or almost nothing about. McKhan
Talking about English is less likely to get me into trouble than talking about Zionism on a Muslim page. Your English is better than most Americans. If the above paragraph appeared in a main article page, the only thing I would change is the capital P in Wikipedia. Some other contributors on this page are from other countries, and need someone to help them with English. I am happy to agree I would be completely helpless on Arabic Wikipedia, and the only other Wikipedia I have worked on is German Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs foreigners to explain the rest of the world, and they need us to tell them how to say it. Wikipedians routinely correct each other's English, and ordinarily nobody complains. Each of us does what we know how to do best, and my contributions are seldom reverted. Art LaPella 04:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Mckhan it's clear that your only goal in wikipedia is to delete link that dont follow your reflection and beliefs , You claim that i'm the webmaster of 11 or more websites ... , you claim also that Ahbash are not sunni follower , why ? just because they dont have your belief , so you are saying they are not sunnis and this article is about sunna so you delete the link ... ok i need people to visit this page : [The Daily Star of Lebanon http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=15517] Official news paper in Lebanon They say in this article "Basiri supports the Ahbash group, a fundamental Sunni group.... " Do you see the Word Sunni ?? you were also deleting a research in the Article [Qiblah] [Qiblah in North America http://www.qiblah.us] , stop making false claims and just go one , in this world to be able to live you will have to consider other people's point of view.--Muslim sunni 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know ENOUGH about you. I know very well where you live and what are you upto nowadays. That said, the same "The Daily Star" which you are using to prove yourself to be part of mainstream Sunnis, also reported this as well as the Newsweek about the Habashies / Al-Ahbash's alledged involvement in Rafik Hariri's assassination. As far as that research paper is concerned, I NEVER deleted that research paper as that was written by the Author to whom I knew very well. And I know he didn't write that research report to be used by a stray sect like Al-Ahbash / Habashies to seek legitimacy or recruitment. If you are PROUD believer of Jamat Al-Ahbash then START acting like one by leaving the mainstream Sunnis as well as Wikipedia's and other similar project's Islam-related pages alone and CATEGORICALLY declare that you are PROUD member of Jamat Al-Ahbash - NOT - Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna / mainstream Sunnis. For readers, there is plenty of information available over the internet to FIND OUT the FUNDAMENTAL difference (s) between Jamat Al-Ahbash and Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna. McKhan
The Word Ahbash just mean That They are follower of Sheikh Abdullah al Harari al Habashi who is a Sunni Sheikh , and he didnt came with a new way for sunnis he only followed the other imams , Shaykh ^Abdullah al-Harariyy, whose lineage is from the same honorable Arab tribe as the Prophet, the tribe of Quraysh. With diligence and great devotion, peacefully and in sincerity, Shaykh ^Abdullah spreads the correct knowledge from Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet’s companions, and the generations of Muslims after them.I will never allow you to claim that Ahbash are not from SUNNA , i know that i can fix your brain but i will not allow you to spread defamation about more than 300,000 muslims in more than 60 countries in wikipedia , AND STOP CHANGING TOPIC , you are saying that you know me and you know where i'm from and ... who care ? do you think it's hard to trace someone ? grow up .--Muslim sunni 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I CHALLENGE you to back-up all of your claims by bringing forth the INDEPENDENT sources. Even IF Al-Ahbash / Habashies' population have reached the mark of 300,000 (which is highly exaggerated figure as there are NO idependent sources available to prove), democratically speaking, mainstream Sunnis CATEGORICALLY outnumber the Al-Ahbash / Habashies and consequently cannot be "preached" or "taught" by the Al-Ahbash / Habashies' Shaikh. Specially, when Al-Ahbash / Habashies excommunicate every Muslim who dare to disagree with them by calling him / her a Kaafir (Infidel / Non-Muslim) or Wahabi .etc.
The truth of the matter is that it is NOT the mainstream Sunnis who are running a defemation campaign against the Al-Ahbash / Habashies but to the contrary, Al-Ahbash / Habashies' are the ones who are having an on-going HEGEMONIC, DELIBRATE and BLATANT campaign of DEFEMATION against the mainstream Sunnis - to seek legitimacy and recruitment by camoflaudging their agenda and true beliefs under the guise of mainstream Sunnis.
Indeed, an INDEPENDENT research report rightly highlights the HEGEMONIC element and strategy of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' group by saying: Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors. (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf).
And before "fixing" my brian, you are more than welcome to "fix" the brains of all these mainstream Sunni scholars to whom Al-Ahbash / Habashies schizophrenically, xenophobiaclly and cultishly call Wahabis or Kaafir .etc. Most of the mainstream Sunnis consider ISNA or ICNA as mainstream Sunnis' organizations - except - the Al-Ahbash / Habashies. Here is a sample of what the WEB has to offer about Habashies / Al-Ahbash.
- Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context
- Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis)
- Al-Ahbash: Evolution and Beliefs
- The Habashies Weighted On The Scales of the Sharee'ah (Jurisprudence)
- A Sufi response to political islamism: Al-ahbash of Lebanon
- Al-Ahbash: Their History and Their Beliefs
- Habashies / Al-Ahbash / Ahbash / AICP
And last but not the least, let me thank you, once again, for proving the FUNDAMENTAL difference between the mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash / Habashies.
McKhan
This is the only thing you can do copy past .... scroll up and you will find the same post by Mckhan , do you think by posting some links that Attack habashis will prove something ? anyone can make a website and start publishing what ever he want .
Did Al-Ahbash / Habashies ever change their tactics or strategies? I am NOT the one who claim to follow X group and its "Shaikh" so passionately and then camoflaudge myself behind Y group because of its weight around the globe to pursue my agenda, propogate my beliefs to seek legitimacy and recruitment. Nor I use politically-correct lingo in which I claim to "defend the West" and preach "Islam is the relgion of Peace." Thats what exactly Al-Ahbash / Habashies are doing all over the world. This is called "Taqqiyya" (That Al-Ahbash / Habashies pretend to be mainstream Sunnis than what they actually are, in order to entice others into believing that they are your allies.) McKhan
Again you keep changing topics , Habashis have been attacked a lot mainly because they warn against Wahhabies (World Trade Center responsible Terrorist Group , related with BIN LADEN) , They Warn Against (so-called) Hizbul Ikhwan (Responsible of thousand of Human killings : Algeria , Egypt , Lebanon ...), They warn against people who say that a revolution should be made and that everyone that don't follow the so-called IMAM that they will place should be killed .
I NEVER changed ANY topic. The topic is: "Jamat Al-Ahbash is NOT Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah." Al-Ahbash / Habashies don't "defend" the West per se by excommunicating EVERY Muslim who disagree with them. To the contrary, Al-Ahbash / Habashies uses it for their own propaganda purposes and to practice "Taqqiyya." McKhan
That why Habashis have been attacked .....because they Belive ISLAM is a religion of peace and that they are only a part of Muslims ... Al Ahbash clearly in there lessons says that we are only a part of the Islamic Community and not like you said "any one who dont follow them is mushrik ..."
Using "politically correct" language and beating your chest before the Westerners on WikiPedia to prove how faithful or peaceful you are in order to pursue your agenda is not going to help as Wikipedia is a non-religious platform. I am just wondering that if Al-Ahbash / Habashies are so peaceful and pro-West then why they are alledgedly involved in the assassination of Rafik Hariri? McKhan
There are plenty of mainstream Sunni scholars' FATWAs and material which refutes the claim of Al-Ahbash / Habashies being part of mainstream Sunnis. Of course, Al-Ahbash / Habashies castigate those scholars as Wahabis, Kaafir, Non-Muslims, Muslim Brotherhood .etc McKhan
Back to The Main topic :
You claimed that They are not Sunnis because they dont have the same belief as you do .... Al-Ahbash say that they are Sunni's , and you coming here saying that they are not will not change anything ,all facts show that they are Sunnis , They got 20% of all Sunnis vote in Lebanon few month ago 06' , they got in 94' a deputy in the Lebanese parliament for the Sunni's .--Muslim sunni 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Al-Ahbash / Habashies are NOT mainstream Sunnis. You have proven it by yourself time and time again. Since WikiPedia is NOT a religious platform therefore I am NOT going to indulge myself into any religious "debate." It is suffice to say there are plenty of mainstreams Scholars' declaring the Habashies / Al-Ahbash, a stray sect which should be avoided and NOT to be followed. Winning seats in Lebanese elections and then claiming that Al-Ahbash / Habashies is NOT a political party proves the fact that they are good at using their vilest tactic of "Taqqiyya" (That Al-Ahbash / Habashies pretend to be mainstream Sunnis than what they actually are, in order to entice others into believing that they are your allies). Al-Ahbash / Habashies have been exposed all the way from Australia to North America and will continue to be exposed. And last but NOT the least, I am NOT the one who has been inserting HIDDEN LINKS to my favorite group on WikiPedia Islam-realted pages. It is the agents of Al-Ahbash / Habashies. Indeed, It is a blatant attempt to damage the integrity and credibility of WikiPedia Islam-realted pages which needs to be addressed. McKhan

It is Ammoral to divide Religion

God did not make divisions, but the ignorance of men has made division. I suggest to all Muslims to simply refer to themselves as beleivers of God and Muslims not be the terms Shia and Sunni. The differences that exist are on opinion that has been turned to dogma this does not warrent seperate categories to the extend that is being done today. Does it really matter who succeded the Prophet Mohammed? No, not now! Not in our time. So peoples definition of religion is based on who they should follow that is not appointed by God? No. This is totally wrong by all parties. 69.196.139.250 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of Madhabs

Please don't add Salafis as a Madhab. They are not one. Please refer the Madhab article for more information. They are a Hanbali offshoot. If you have reasons and points to prove otherwise, please mention them here and we can come to a conclusion. --Nkv 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Year of Jama'a

Source for the word: [6]

--Striver 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous - 2

Mckhan speaking with you is just a waste of time , you are always running from the main topic , We Ahbash are Sunnis and you will not change that fact .

You say "Habashis have been exposed from USA to Australia" .... all facts show that they are growing each day , Just In They United states They have more than 20 mosques and Schools , In Australia The Government gave them An Islamic Radio Station (The Muslim Community Radio), Canada (they have several mosques + Schools) , In The Middle east : (In Lebanon they have more than 10 Schools , more than 25 Mosques and Mousalla's (prayer place ) , Islamic Radio Station ,They even Own a University (you can add that link to your list if you want : http://www.gu.edu.lb), in Jordan they have several School and Mosque , even in Palestine , same goes to Europe (France , Germany ... )  ! They only thing they are doing is growing day by day And you will not change that fact :)

About The political issue ... do you think if they didn't have a deputy they could get all licences for the Muslim Community ? (you have to live in Lebanon to know how stuff work there ...)

AL-Ahbash Are Sunni's , Ahbach word came from Habesha , habesha is a place in Ethiopia , Since The Sheikh (Abdullah Al Harari) teach the People The Sunnis Path to his Student , Sheikh Abdullah Students were Called "Habashis" , They are known to be Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama'a , on Imam Shafie School .

Al-Ahbash are a MAJOR SUNNI GROUP so keep your lies for your self and stop your defamation campaign . --Muslim sunni 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the answers from Australia to highlight the REALITY, practice of "Taqqiyya" and the culture of Al-Ahbash / Habashies

ICPA-AFIC connection: Pathetically Flawed

by Dawood Yusuf

The MCR alleged that the Liverpool-based Muslim organisation, the ‘Australian Islamic House’, has ‘affiliation with some people, with some ideas, terrorist linkage’; and the Bangladesh Islamic Centre had ‘ties with Libya’.

In what could only be seen as a sinister move, the national Muslim organisation in Australia went to great lengths to recognise and legitimise a fringe group that, in the past fewyears, had been a source of divisionand confusion in the Muslim community of New South Wales.

In its October issue of the Muslim News newspaper, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils(AFIC) ran two articles, titled New South Wales Muslims Form New State Council and Children’s Carnival 2000. On the surface, they seemed unconnected. But at a closerlook, these two articles revealed thatthey were crafted to demonstratewhat were the official tactical lines ofAFIC.

In the article titled Children’s Carnival 2000, nothing seemed unusual. AFIC was simply promoting an organisation, the Islamic Charity Projects Association (ICPA), which represented the ‘Sydney Arabic com-munity’ in an annual carnival. But was it? The Muslim News is the official mouthpiece of AFIC. In the last two years AFIC had been struggling to impose itself as the leader of the Australian Muslim community. The repeated sackings of its members such as Bilal Cleland and Zakariah Mathews (to name just a few), sus-pension of a state member council (Islamic Council of NSW) and alle-gations by its former Treasurer (Mr Iqbal Tahir) of misappropriation of funds and mismanagement were blunders of AFIC presented asachievements.

AFIC got away with all them. In a letter, the former Treasurer Mr Iqbal Tahir outlined this reasons for resigning from AFIC saying that in his 20 years of involvement withAFIC, he had never come across such contemptuous treatment of the AFIC Constitution and its Federal Council. The business of the AFIC hadn’tbeen that good!.

It would be sheer naiveté to think that, as an organisation with the only Muslim newspaper, the AFIC was unaware of the nature of this particular local organisation. AFIC just as many others knew very well the nature of the ICPA.

The issue that obviously had triggered AFIC and the Muslim News to promote the ICPA was the dispute between a handful of officials of AFIC and the chairman of the Islamic Council of New South Wales. As it has been suggested, the dispute should not have led the AFIC and the Muslim News to promote such a deviant group as the ICPA and to publish an article about their activ-ities.

The Muslim leaders could have sought a retraction. But whether the AFIC would allow it to be published in the next issue the Muslim News is just another matter. The point that needs to be made is about the disruptive and dangerous ICPA-AFIC connection.

The ICPA is a group that is also known as the Ahbash, or Habashies who are a deviant misguided sect much similar to the Qadianis. It is part of a wider circuit, with bases in various parts of the world. For an indepth look at the group, their teachings and their beliefs, readers may refer to an article written in the 5th issue of the Nida’ul Islam magazine (October-November 1994).

The Australian-based ICPA came out of oblivion, following the allocation of temporary or Special Event radio licences by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Through their Muslim Community Radio (MCR), the ICPA began to broadcast in English and Arabic their twisted religious messages and political agenda.

The group had successfully made a case of representing Muslims in NSW to the ABA until in 1996 when the Islamic Council of NSW (ICNSW) representing twenty Muslim organisations and mosques, decided to apply for these temporary or Special Event licences. Since then,the ABA had been thrown into somekind of uncertainty or confusion as to which organisation — the ICPA or the ICNSW —to allocate the licences. And on the other hand, the two organisations had been locked in a bitter struggle to secure temporary or Special Event licences, especially during Ramadan season.

The struggle came to a head in recent months when the ABA decided to allocate three permanent Sydney-wide Community Broadcasting Licences. Under the ABA guidelines, aspirant groups would make a written submission, followed by a hearing whereby applicants would be given the opportunity to make their case orally to an ABA panel.

Both the ICNSW and the ICPA made their submissions for a permanent licence and both claimed to representthe same target groups — the Muslimc ommunities of NSW. It was at this point that the ICPA who had applied for its MCR service went on a severe attack against the Muslims of NSW. From the transcripts of the hearings, it was clear that the MCR was targeting the very communities it claimed torepresent, especially those who are affiliated with the ICNSW. The MCR alleged that the Liverpool-based Muslim organisation, the ‘Australian Islamic House’, has ‘affiliation with some people, with some ideas, terrorist linkage’; and the Bangladesh Islamic Centre had ‘ties with Libya’.

In addition, the ICPA claimed in their MCR application that they had the support of various mosques and communities including Turkish and Shi’ites. The six major Turkish communities in NSW subsequently had denied that there was any connection, let alone support, to the MCR application. At a meeting on 2 September 2000, these Turkish societies resolved to ‘reconfirm’ their support to the application of the ICNSW. Some smaller and less established societies have also written directly to the ABA, outlining how they were ‘misled’ by the MCR. It was doubtful before, as it is now, whether the ICPA and their MCR service —targeting primarily the Arabic community of Lebanese descent — had the support of the wider Muslim community. The MCR’s spokesperson Mr Mehioeven boasted at the hearings that one of the members of the Islamic Egyptian Society had ‘supplied’ them with the minutes of the ICNSW, which was attached to a bulk of other damning documents to oppose the application of the ICNSW. The same Islamic Egyptian Society is now AFIC’s leading organisation — together with the Islamic Society of Manly-Warringah — of the newly formed ‘Supreme Islamic Council of New South Wales’.

In the same October issue of the Muslim News, AFIC reported how a new state council had been formed (supposedly) following ‘the damning judgement of the Supreme Court of NSW in January 2000’. Almost every Muslim in NSW, obviously, viewed the whole recent court issue of ICNSW/AFIC as an embarrassment and a waste of financial resources. Based on AFIC’s own admission, it would seem some of the leading opponents of ICNSW had actually acted on what a Supreme Court Judgehad said and went on to create the so-called ‘Supreme Islamic Council of NSW’. It’s more likely that it was just another pathetic attempt of AFIC — particularly after it had failed in its takeover attempt of the ICNSW — at justifying its creation of a rival state council.

The ‘Supreme Islamic Council of NSW’ had since contacted the ABA with a lengthy submission — predictably damning to the radio licence application of the ICNSW — stating that it would now represent the Muslims of NSW and would seek recognition of AFIC as the local statecouncil. The submission also arguedthat the ICNSW had refused membership to fifteen Muslim organisations.

On 07 December 2000, the ICNSW wrote to the ABA rejecting the claim. It argued that it had yet to see any evidence to substantiate the ICNSW’s denial of membership to fifteen Muslim organisations.

The letter also stated that all the Imams (clergy) of all established Mosques and Mussalas in NSW (except for the Islamic Charity Projects Association) have given their official support to the Council’s application for a permanent licence and that the Imams have also spoken strongly against fragmenting the Muslim community by creating a rival state council.

“At a meeting of the Federal Councils of the Australian Federation of Islamic Council (AFIC) on Sunday 19 November 2000, the so-called Supreme Islamic Council of NSW has been rejected unanimously by all other state Islamic Councils”, said the letter.

The AFIC’s strategy to promote the ICPA through the Muslim News was to deliberately bring to naught any prospects for the ICNSW to secure apermanent licence. AFIC was promoting the activities of the ICPA, representing the Sydney Arabic community, to cause maximum damageand to bring humiliation to the Muslim Arabic leaders.

The ICPA-AFIC connection had only worsened the state of uncertainty or confusion of the ABA on the issue of representation of Muslims in NSW, not to mention how effective this connection had been to disrupt and divide the NSW Muslim community. The AFIC’s strategy to create a rival state council and to promote the ICPA is pathetically flawed.

The only conclusion that the ABA, or anyone for that matter, could reach from the ICPA-AFIC connection is that the organisation of the Muslim community in NSW is in shambles and that it is immature — politically. In this respect, the ABA would have no choice but to exclude the possibility of allocating a permanent licence to either one of the two applicants that were targeting the Muslim community audience. It would probably take a long time before such an opportunity to come.

Through the October issue of the Muslim News, AFIC had two articles, seemingly unconnected, inflicting serious damage to the very people whom they claimed to represent. They had cost the Muslim community dearly. Only time will tell as to what extent the ICPA-AFIC connection will impact on the community. A monitoring mechanism and an action plan must be developed to ensure that this dangerous and disruptive connection is put to an end. The easiest way to this is to remove those responsible for it and make them accountable.

Source: ICPA-AFIC connection: Pathetically Flawed - by Dawood Yusuf - NIDA'UL ISLAM - ISSUE 2, VOLUME 7, DECEMBER/JANUARY 2000/2001

Lebanese Group 'should Be Investigated'

by Ean Higgins

November 02, 2005

(Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17110866-2,00.html)

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly / file Cleric ... Sheik al-Hilaly calls for an investigation / file

THE nation's most senior Islamic cleric has called for an urgent investigation into the Australian operations of a Lebanese-based organisation allegedly linked to the assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly made the call after a UN inquiry implicated al-Ahbash, a Beirut-based Islamic sect and pro-Syrian political organisation, in the bombing murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

The Australian has learned that Mahmoud Abdel-Al, one of the members of al-Ahbash arrested and charged last week following the UN report, has been to Australia and visited al-Ahbash leaders in this country.

Sheik al-Hilaly also accused al-Ahbash, whose official name is the Islamic Charity Projects Association, of obtaining a community radio licence with the aid of forged letters. But the president of al-Ahbash in Australia, Ghayath Al-Shelh, and the president of Muslim Community Radio, Mohammed Mehio, denied the allegations.

Related story ASIO fears terror cells among us

They said Sheik al-Hilaly, who is Mufti of Australia, was jealous of the success of al-Ahbash in attracting Muslims in this country, and accused him of links to the Wahabi sect, which is associated with al-Qaeda.

Lebanese security forces last week arrested and charged two key members of al-Ahbash, Mahmoud Abdel-Al and his brother, Sheik Ahmed Abdel-Al.

The UN report said the pair had telephoned Syrian and Lebanese spy chiefs, and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, in the minutes before and after the February 14 bombing of Hariri's motorcade in Beirut.

The UN report concluded there was "converging evidence" of the involvement of Syrian and pro-Syrian Lebanese figures in Hariri's assassination.

Related story State premiers fall into line

The Australian understands Mahmoud Abdel-Al has visited this country on more than one occasion, spending time at the home of Dr Al-Shelh and also visiting Mr Mehio, who described him as highly respectable.

Sheik al-Hilaly said: "In light of the UN report, which links a prominent sheik of al-Ahbash to the assassination, it is imperative the Australian Government conduct a thorough investigation of al-Ahbash.

"The investigation should also extend to members of the al-Ahbash organisation in Australia to ascertain whether any have a military background."

Sheik al-Hilaly showed The Australian a dossier he had compiled on al-Ahbash, which he said he would be happy to hand over to Australian investigators.

"If any link is found between al-Ahbash in Lebanon and al-Ahbash in Australia, their doors should be closed as they pose a danger to Australian society."

One al-Ahbash community, which numbers in the hundreds, is based around Bankstown in Sydney's west, where it has a compound including a school and mosque. Muslim Community Radio is a few blocks away.

Mr Mehio, who migrated from Lebanon and is a former president of al-Ahbash in Australia, said he used his own money, earned as a businessman, to set up the al-Ahbash compound.

Dr Al-Shelh, who migrated from Syria, was vice-president of Muslim Community Radio when it made its successful bid for a licence in 2001, despite opposition from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

Federation head Amjad Ali Mehboob wrote to the Australian Broadcasting Authority saying the applicants did not represent mainstream Islam, but rather a "small and marginalised group".

The Australian has correspondence from Muslim organisations and imams that claim letters sent to the ABA purportedly supporting Muslim Community Radio were either forged or solicited under misrepresentation.

Mr Mehio denied any forgery, but said some organisations had withdrawn their support for his bid after being told by Sheik al-Hilaly and his followers that Muslim Community Radio was "Zionist and pro-American", claims he described as untrue.

The al-Ahbash group are followers of an Ethiopian cleric who settled in Beirut, Abdullah Ben Muhammad Ben Shabib al-Harari, who is known as "the Habashi", or African.

In Lebanon, al-Ahbash has been linked to a number of killings, including that of a mufti. Leaders of al-Ahbash have denied the allegations.

(Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17110866-2,00.html)

Further, 36 Muslims organizations issued their statement in Australia which reads: ([http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1516600.htm Representatives of 36 Muslim organisations have signed a decree which rejects al-Ahbash, also known as the Islamic Charitable Projects Association. The decree describes al-Ahbash of holding "deviant and perverse views" and taking part in "extremist and fanatical" behaviour. The statement is signed by key Islamic leaders, including Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ameer Ali and the imam (leader) of Sydney's Lakemba Mosque, Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilaly. "The behaviour and practices of the Ahbash are based on creating division and hatred amongst people," the statement said. "This does not serve the interest of the Muslim community and is directly at odds with the general policies of Australia's multicultural society."

And last but not the least, here is the glimpse of Habashies / Al-Ahbash's culture which have, in many cases, destroyed the mainstream Sunni Muslim familes:

"I was gonna start a thread about habashis but then i found this one, we were in lebanon when they first came out in 85 my cousin got married to a habashi then my aunti and her kids became habashis and started going against everyone, they stopped us from saying words we're used to saying and telling us to say shahada because we have become kafir, then they told us that the habashi can fly, our family was seperated after it was so close. i listen to their radio sometimes when i am in sydney, their songs are becoming more and more like western songs, they're not anashids anymore, some of the lectures are very nice on the radio but some just attack others so i just turn it off." (Source: http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=5553&st=30&p=96331&#entry96331)

If Al-Ahbash / Habashies are so PROUD followers then they should call themselves Jamat Al-Ahbash instead of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah. But I know they will NEVER do that because that will be an asthama to their strategy to seek legitimacy and recruitment.

McKhan

Habashis == Sunni's

mckhan the only thing you are good at is the copy past issue especialy from Wahhabies sites (Wahhabies are related to the 9/11 world trade center attack)... The conversation with you is done .


and just because you like the copy past issue , i ll post also some stuff .

Source : http://www.cbaa.org.au/content.php/236.html?newsid=849

2MFM Wins Over Sydney’s Muslims (ASSOCIATION OF ISLAMIC CHARITABLE PROJECTS IN Australia) 31st March 2006

MCR’s commitment to community service has won the favor of Sydney’s Muslims.

The Muslim Community Radio (2MFM) on 92.1FM has registered an all time high of 600 members demonstrating a solid approval rate in the Muslim community.

This year’s live simultaneous broadcasts from Paul Keating Park and Fairfield Showground covering the Eidul-Adha Carnival on the 20th of January, the 2MFM 'Learn the Tricks' Open Day, as well as other popular community event livecasts saw a new rush of membership applications.

“It makes me proud of the service we deliver to see this new membership upsurge of almost 100% from the previous year,” MCR’s president Mohammed Mehio said.

“The Muslim Community Radio service thrives with testimonials from the public who support our call for moderation, community participation, effectiveness and access to the public,” Mr. Mehio added.

2MFM enjoys a diverse membership base from individuals and organizations of different ethnic, socio-economic, gender and age brackets. They come together to support a community backbone that has entered the homes of Sydney’s Muslims with a positive social and moral impact.

With 600 members and more volunteers, MCR is celebrating its service to the community with a support base that speaks for itself.


Source : http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=66001

Aug 31, 1995 : Masked gunmen assassinated the head of the al-Ahbash association. It is a pro-Syrian, non-violent, ultra-religious, Sunni Moslem philanthropic organization with a large following in Lebanon. The association had been growing in strength and was beginning to challenge the so called Jama al-Islamiya, which was previously the dominant Sunni Islamic group in Lebanon.

AICP are Sunnis and You and The Wahhabies group and so Called brotherhood will not change that fact . --Muslim sunni 20:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT guilty of inserting / promoting HIDDEN links to WikiPedia AND other project's Islam-related pages to seek legitimacy and recruitment for my group. It is the agents of Al-Ahbash / Habashies. By the way, since when "The Australian," "ABC Radio Australia" or "MSNBC" and other INDEPENDENT web-sites belong to "Wahabis"? I want you to PROVE it. Furthermore, quoting Mr. Mehio, an executive of Al-Ahbash / Habashies' owned COMMUNITY Radio "Islam" and specially from Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, an UMBRELLA organization of Australian Community Radio Stations does NOT constitute to an INDEPENDENT source but a marketing / propaganda ploy. Indeed, old habits die hard. Here is HOW Al-Ahbash / Habashies managed to secure that license (AND pay attention to the date (s) of publication, may be), it will be dawned on you that most of these items were published AFTER 1995 way AFTER (At least 5 to 10 years) the last "copy-and-paste" futile immiatation of yours:
- ICPA-AFIC connection: Pathetically Flawed - by Dawood Yusuf - NIDA'UL ISLAM - ISSUE 2, VOLUME 7, DECEMBER/JANUARY 2000/2001 Date of Publication: December / January 2001
- Lebanese Group 'should Be Investigated Date of Publication: November 2005
- Australian Islamic organisations label al-Ahbash extremist Date of Publication: November 2005

Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies IS a stary SECT / CULT which hides behind the mainstream Sunnis to pursue their agenda as well as to seek legitimacy and recruitment

I am a mainstream Sunni and my family is Sunni even before your "Shaikh" was ever born. As I have reiterated before that I am NOT guilty of inserting / promoting HIDDEN links to WikiPedia AND other projects' Islam-related pages to seek legitimacy and recruitment for my group. It is the agents of Al-Ahbash / Habashies.

I know very well that the agents / sympathizers of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will continue:

  • to make attempts to Habashanize this page and other WikiPedia / similar projects' Islam-related pages by twisting WikiPedia and others' guidelines to the maximum extent and by incorporating hidden links to wage a blatant and hegemonic smear campaign using "Islamic" sounded web-sites like:
  • to castigate / shun / discard / ignore / discredit / "refute" any criticism / evidence by any individual / web-site / organization / outlet - which exposes the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' agenda and beliefs - as either "Wahabi", "Kaafir", "non-Muslim", "Islamist" or part of a "smear / defemation compaign"
  • to use "politically correct" language / jargon / ebonics / verbage / semantics to their benefit and pursue their agenda and beliefs against the other party
  • to purse their "divide and conquer" strategy by trying to DIMINISH / LESSEN and ultimately REMOVE the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE (S), demonstrated / presented / preached by themselves on this very page and by practicing their hedious, vicious, contemptuous and dangerous tactics elsewhere on the web and in their material and Musallahs, between mainstream Sunnis and Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP to seek legitimacy, recruitment and hegemonic superiority of their beliefs and agenda,

and

  • to ignore / discredit all the INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL and ACADEMIC sources and material which doesn't follow the tag-line of Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP.

It is sad but true that WikiPedia and other projects' Islam-related pages have become an easy target / "battle-field" for these people as most of the contributors and editors of these projects don't know the FUNDAMENTAL and SUBSTANTIAL difference (s) between these groups and mainstream Sunni Muslims.

It would be nice if Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP leave mainstream Sunnis alone and be proud of themselves by clearly and categorically identifying / declaring themselves as "Jamat Al-Ahbash" rather than "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah." Alas! Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will not do that as it will be an asthama to their strategy of seeking recruitment and legitimacy under the guise of "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah."

Further Reading:

Here are some religious decrees issued by the mainstream Sunni scholars and other material about the reality of Al-Ahbash / Habashies:

You may always use major search engines like Google and Yahoo for research. You might be amazed to find out that there are SO MANY web-sites and material out there which have REFUTED all the Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies CLAIMS and BELIEFS .etc by quoting and using AICP / Al-Ahbash / Habashies' own material. This page, for which Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's agents are waging their "Jihad" at - to sanitize, promote and rescue themselves, is just, as they say, a drop in the ocean.

McKhan

mckhan grow up :) and stop messing with wikipedia "long copy past lines"

Again you proved my point that the only thing you are good at is the copy past issue ...

I wont answer you again because your brain is not in a mode of understanding , Even when you reported me for violation you pasted the same , It's clear that the one who is messing with wikipedia is you and you don't have the right to delete other links just because you dont agree with them and yes we are not afraid to call our self Jamaat al Ahbash , we are proud of the Person who taught us the Correct Sunni Religion not like Wahhabies (9/11 Related Terrorists , and so Called Brotherhood group) Thank's GOD they are affraid to be called such names .--Muslim sunni 02:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


"...because your brain is not in a mode of understanding" Uhhh, I'm going to have to request you guys to stop. You're dancing along the lines Wikipedia:personal attacks. I quote:
Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. (Emphasis added) --Jibran1 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys have been arguing for months, and have used up about half of the sunni islam discussion page on nothing. You'd better stop or someone will an you. You already have violated rules. It's better to end now before you get banned, this is advice(not a threat).--LF2 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jamaa'ah = jamaa'ah of Mu'aawiyah?

Even though I lived in Pakistan for a number of years, was raised as a Muslim, and have read many Muslim books, I have never heard that "jamaa'ah" in "ahl al-sunnah wa-l-jamaa'ah" comes from the jamaa'ah of Mu'aawiyah. I always heard that it refers to the general Muslim community, that is faithful to Muhammad's sunnah and to the ijma' of the Community. I cannot find this online either in explanations for the term "ahl as-sunnah wa-l-jamaa'ah". Can someone post an alternative interpretation of what "jamaa'ah" means and where it comes from? Kitabparast 03:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Well, part of that is true. When Hasan and Mu'awiya made a peace agreement, the mass majority of Muslims agreed upon it. Only two small groups objected it: A small Shia group that refused to obay Imam Hasan, and the Khawarijet that declared both Hasan and Muawiya to be Kuffar. So, we have three groups: Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a (Jama'a = group of majority), extreem Shia, and Khawarijet. But how about the Shia that accepted the Hasan's decision? They are still Shia.
As far as I know, it's not true. The Jamaa'ah is used to indicate that the group stands as one (atleast in principle). Perhaps the original author will have some evidence on the matter, otherwise, I think it's something that needs to be edited out. --Nkv 07:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Nkv. It looks much, much better now. --Kitabparast 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am actually interested in the differences in the clerical structure and ranking between Shia and Sunni, any idea? Do sunis have Ayatolahs? Do individuals follow a Marjaeh-Taghlid (Mojtahed)? In Shia the Marjaeh-Taghlid (Mojtahed) can only issue fatwa, who can do that in Sunnat? Can individuals decide to go to Jihad or an imam must issue fatwa? Kiumars

I just went thru a few of the posts here, now I understand how a nation of 3-4 million managed to fight with the entire Muslim world over 60 years! Divide and conquer! Keep up the good job!

Kiumars

I'm exhausted, can somebody please take up the issue at List of groups referred to as cults?

The (in)famous List of groups referred to as cults, which unfortunately seems undeleteable, lists since some months Sunni Islam as a cult (and, BTW also Shi'a Islam and whatsnot). This may be in line with the current set of criteria detailed in the intro of that article, but I take it as sign, that these criteria are flawed. Anybody interested in discussing the issue there? I'm out of time and nerves at this isssue. --Pjacobi 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging out redundant content (major proposed restructuring)

I would like to propose some major restructuring to this article for stylistic, aesthetic and practical reasons. As it is, certain sections of the article have become bloated which is unnecessary considering that there are already separate articles devoted to those subjects. I will try to keep my suggestions brief for the sake of discussion:

  • The etymology, history, adherents and further reading sections must be kept as is and perhaps even improved upon somewhat; there is really no other place to put that content.
  • The section on notes and external links, obviously, shouldn't be touched. Though I would prefer that the section on notes is simply called references.
  • The sections for six pillars of iman and sunni view of hadith are excellent, and exactly what the rest of the article should emulate. The sunni view of hadith especially; it merely contains links to the Wikipedia articles for the mentioned topics, not overly lengthy paragraphs explaining it.
  • The section on school of law and theological traditions are just awful. I say this now with complete honesty, considering that between 12 March 2012 and 13 March 2012 I was the one who personally added most of the references for the madhhabs. In retrospect, it just doesn't belong here.

In short, I would like to take most of the content for the schools of law and put it in the article for madhhabs, which to be frank is neglected. I would also like to take most of the content for the schools of theology and put it in the article for Islamic theology, most of which is already there anyway. The latter section here in this article could mention all major schools in one sentence without the details of where most adherents live and who founded it; the former could be summarized in the same way. It is my hope that implementing these changes will make the article easier to read and provide better categorization for the issues discussed therin. I await the responses of concerned editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the section in legal schools, even the article for Madhhab would have become bloated with excessive details not directly related to the matter at hand. Keeping that in mind, I performed a partial merge to the articles for each school. I feel that the Sunni Islam article is now less cluttered and focuses on only the most pressing details regarding the schools; readers of Wikipedia who wish to know more can simply click on the links for each school and seek more information there. I hope my edits are seen as helpful and non-controversial, and feedback is much needed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-contradicting lead

The lead to the article seems like it was written by Sufi and Salafi editors both trying to push their opposing points of view, in regard to the third paragraph. It's uncited and ab it overly long, so I think a better choice would be to simply remove the details regarding jurisprudence and leave such information in the appropriate articles. I hope this is acceptable to my fellow editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Differences among denominations of Islam

You still need something about the Sunnis on this page so that the basics of all the different denominations are on one page and could be compared. The Sunnis are the biggest denomination in Islam and even the adherents of their individual schools of thought out number some of the smaller denominations. Therefore you need this data on this page.

I would propose having a table of the main similarities and differences for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that I'm not the only one ready to help! This page is about Sunnis, so do you mean something about the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites here? I think the Arabic version of this article might have something like that. We would need a serious amount of verifiable, reliable sources though, to ensure that nobody's beliefs are misrepresented. Perhaps there are articles here where we could simply borrow such sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
There's no table at Shia Islam and I think it would be inappropriate to have one. It would be almost impossible to construct one that isn't original research. Any comparisons have to be made by reliable sources, we can't do those comparisons ourselves. I'm confused by the statement "You still need something about the Sunnis on this page". This is the page on Sunni Islam. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Sorry ignore my comments. I meant to say have a table of the main similarities and differences between all the different denominations in Islam, on some other page, not on this page. But over the last week, I have done a lot of research. Having gone through a lot of books in the School of Oriental and African Studies SOAS library and on the Internet and lots of Islamic and non Islamic Book shops, now, I am not so sure. Views of the different early jurists including Jafar al-Sadiq whose views most Shia's follow and Imam Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas whose views most Sunnis follow and the other old jurists criss cross like the weaving of a cloth. They all give priority to the Quran and the Hadith of Mohammad over their own views. I have also found it hard to find any actual text, actually written by Jafar al-Sadiq. May be he also wanted people to give priority to the Quran and the Hadith. This also makes it hard to compare the actual views of these imams. Imam Malik ibn Anas wrote the Muwatta therefore his views are easier to assess.

In: Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook By Charles Kurzman - Page 236 [1]

Charles Kurzman puts it down like this:

"As is evident, all of the founders of the four orthodox schools of Islam agreed upon the wrongness of imitation. They engaged in ijtihad and expressed their opinions, but they did not impose upon anybody else by asserting that their opinions had to be accepted. Everyone was free to accept or not accept. Abu Hanifa said, "This is my opinion. If anyone brings a better explanation, I will accept that one." In the same way, when Imam Malik was asked to compel the agents of Harun al-Rashid to act according to the principles put forth in his work al-Muwatta he declined, saying: "The Prophet's companions spread all over different countries, and there are hadiths in every nation that other nations have not heard of." Imam Shafi'i used to forbid his students to follow his words in the presence of hadith, saying, "If the Prophet's words become evident to a person, it is not correct to leave aside the sunna in favour of anybody's word." In the same way, Imam Ahmad rejected the writing down and codifying of the religious rulings he gave. They knew that they might have fallen into error in some of their judgements and stated this clearly. They never introduced their rulings by saying, "Here, this judgement is the judgement of God and His prophet."

The articles on Islam in wikipedia have also become a mediun for people to push their political ideas. There appears to be more politics in the Islam section than actual information about Islam.

Over the last fews days, on the Islam page I have done a lot of work to tie it to the other pages about islam in Wikipedia, chronologically. I also put links in to other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed by every denomination and the historians. I tried to make it flow better. The whole section on islam still needs work from other contributors.

comment added by Johnleeds1 —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adherents Phrasing

"Estimates of the world Sunni population has been estimated by some analysts to be from over 75% to 90%."

This sentence seems to me to imply that 75% to 90% of the world's population is Sunni Moslem, rather than that the Sunnis comprise that proportion of all Moslems. Dawright12 (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Barelvis status

discussion from talk page of User:Pass_a_Method


Mr pass a method my edit it totally nutral and also depended upon a reliable source.dont insert your WP:OR

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[2]

you are making this article less informative.Dil e Muslim talk 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook By Charles Kurzman - Page 236[1]
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
That's an absolutely ridiculous claim, Am Not New/Dil e Muslim. Barelvis comprise 200 million out of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they share South Asia with several other sub-categories of Sunni Islam like Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth. Please don't use Wikipedia as a Barelvi propaganda platform; see WP:SOAPBOX. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr mezzomezzo your above made statement is WP:OR.and where i added my own contents.mezzomezzo stick to what the sources say in stead of making your own analysis.Dil e Muslim talk 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Every single source on all the related articles note that Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadeeth are also Sunnis and that Barelvi is a sub category for Sunni, not referring to all Sunnis in South Asia. Even if you refuse to accept that, the fact that at least six editors are now regularly reverting what they all agree is OR in your part is telling. You're only making things worse for yourself by being combative. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

mr mezzomezzo havent you read the source.the source is oxford dictionary of religion and it is clearly written on it that souce that alhesunnat wa jamaah is commonly known as barelvi.i am pasting that.and for your information my edit is according to nutral point of view.see me sentence.even its you who is making less informative.Dil e Muslim talk 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

well i am copying discussion to page Sunni islam to discus.Dil e Muslim talk 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The dictionary mentions that Barelvis call themselves that, not that they are that. Ahlus Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah is the Arabic long form of Sunni, which is more like a slang term/short form. And since Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith are also acknowledged as movements within Sunni Islam by Oxford University Press sources as can be seen across multiple articles, your attempt to subtly hint that they (as the other Sunni movements in South Asia after Barelvis) are somehow heretics is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Seeing editors who adhere to the Barelvi movement such as yourself attempt to write this in to Wikipedia over the past seven years has made a number of editors, including myself, aware of what you're trying to do. Be logical and think of what will happen if you continue this sort of behavior. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr mezzomezzo i think you havent read the souce.it is clearly written that ahlesunnah wa jamaat is known as barelvi.that doesnt mention that mentions that Barelvis call themselves that.that is your own deduction and is WP:OR.so i advice you to relay on source instead of giving your own logic.Dil e Muslim talk 18:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Lead References

"Sunni Islam is the world's largest religious body[1] and largest religious denomination for any religion in the world[2]."

  1. ^ Religious Diversity and Children's Literature: Strategies and Resources, Sandra Brenneman Oldendorf - 2011, p 156
  2. ^ New York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s, Andrew Karmen - 2006, p 223

I question the appropriateness of the sources used to substantiate these claims. There is a relevant discussion regarding the first source at talk:Catholic Church --Zfish118 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Improved coverage of leadership

I would like to see more about how Sunni Islam is governed. For instance, how do individual Mosques relate to each other? Do the "Schools of Law" provide supervision for the Mosques; or is each Mosque self governing? I am new to this topic, and unfortunately cannot provide such information myself. --Zfish118 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Islam as a religion lacks a central authority like Roman Catholicism for example, so the governance of religious bodies tends to differ depending on location, country, culture and so forth. Actually, we could still probably find sources stating that too which could be a good addition to the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That is essentially the kind of information that I would find really beneficial to this article. Based on my very brief research the past few days, I came to that basic conclusion, but previously had no background whatsoever to understand the material in these articles (this article, as well as the main Islam article). --Zfish118 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Awesome work so far, good job. I will try to see what else I can add as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Quality

The first paragraph, second sentence contains a rather definitive statement about the size of Sunni Islam compared to other religious denominations. The references cited are a book about religious diversity in US schools and a book about murder rates in New York, neither primary sources for population statistics in the Middle East, North Africa or South East Asia. I suggest clarification or removal unless better reference material can be found. I'm investigating suggestions. (First time contributor, don't know if I followed protocol.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auslander392 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally if the quality of a source is challenged but the source is considered reliable, then deletion is a no-no; instead, it should be tagged with Template:Better source. That way, editors know to come here to the talk page and discuss potential replacements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Schools of Law

The map is extremely helpful, thank you for that. Is it possible to split it into two, one for Sunni and one for Shia? F.Tromble (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderate Sunni-Islam

The Islamic radicalism remains no less a challenge to the world than it did back at 2001 after 9/11. One of its chief aspects involves how non-Muslims, who typically have little knowledge of Islam, may accurately identify Muslim moderates.

Muslim moderation is defined by attitudes and conduct, not by abstractions or historical precedents, which, as with all religions, may be interpreted to support any ideological position. Observing and analyzing Sunni Muslims by such positive, practical criteria is extremely easy. There are more than a billion Sunnis in the world, and they are not all jihadists or fundamentalists, so telling them apart should not be difficult with a little effort. Identifying moderate Shia Muslims is harder, but one thing may be said immediately: those who follow Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq prove their moderation daily, by their silent but effective support to the U.S.-led liberation coalition.

Moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: "what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?" Every Muslim in the world knows about Wahhabism, and knows that it is embodied in al-Qaida. If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate. Denouncing the Saudis alone is not enough; radicals criticize the Saudi monarchy for insufficiently enforcing Wahhabi beliefs. The root cause of Sunni terror is Wahhabism, not the monarchy.

It seems unnecessary to add that those who try to disclaim a link between Wahhabism and al-Qaida, or who blame al-Qaida on American machinations, cannot be considered moderates. If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying "there is only Islam," or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like "Salafism" -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist. Such a radical will not, under any circumstances, declare his or her opposition to Wahhabism per se. They may even claim that the whole concept was invented by Westerners such as myself.

A parallel example may be cited from the history of Communism. Stalinist Communists would repudiate the charge that they were Communists, calling themselves progressives, liberals, or socialists. They would deny that Communism intended anything malign toward the U.S., portraying America as an aggressor (something Islamists and Stalinists have in common) but nonetheless claiming loyalty to it. They would often argue over whether Stalinism even existed. And they would never denounce Stalin, even though the entire planet knew about the atrocities of the Soviet regime. Neither will Islamist radicals denounce Wahhabism.

Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.

Takfir is used to justify the radical Sunni massacres of Shia Muslims in Iraq. It underpins the ideology of the Saudi-Wahhabi sect, the extremist Sunni Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and the bloodthirsty Sunni jihadist movements in Pakistan. It also serves to bind together Muslim extremists through the illusion that they belong to a purified elite. Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.

Moderate Muslims do not engage in takfir. Shias shun takfir, including radical Shias, and Shias fighting against Sunnis who persecute them do not practice takfir against their foes. Enemies of terrorist Wahhabis do not accuse them of unbelief, but of criminality. Traditional Muslims avoid accusations of unbelief, as they were counseled to do by the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet never anticipated that Muslims would fall into unbelief.

Moderate Muslims, including Shias as well as Sunnis, also do not refer to followers of other religions, especially Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, as unbelievers. The Koran never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book, worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this outlook.

Moderate Muslims do not employ the rhetoric of jihad, including attempts to split hairs over the meaning of the term. Moderate Muslims seek a place in the contemporary world for Islam to be respected as a faith, not conflicts in which they may gamble on victory with the lives of others. Jihad vocabulary does nothing to advance the cause of Islam; it creates obstacles to it.

This does not mean moderate Muslims do not defend themselves when attacked. They do. But moderate Muslims in Iraq are under attacks from Sunni radicals, just as moderate Muslims were murdered by Serbs in the former Yugoslavia and moderate Muslims in Chechnya are killed by both Russian troops and Wahhabi adventurers. Iraqi Sunni radicals have more in common with Milosevic's fascist bands than with moderate Muslims. Wahhabis in the Caucasus have interests closer to those of Putin than those of ordinary Chechens, in that both seek a pretext for war. And the Iraqi Sunni radicals and other Wahhabis, Putin the neo-Stalinist, and the Serbs all benefit from the same "antiwar" cheering section in the U.S.

Moderate Muslims also do not reject allegiance to non-Muslim governments. According to current interpretations of Shafi'i sharia, a major school of Islamic jurisprudence through history, there are no countries where Muslims are not required to obey local governments, for the security of their communities. Moderate Muslims do not proclaim public loyalty to such governments while privately counseling that Western governments are inferior to Muslim religious decrees. They do not invent civil rights violations as a political means of fighting Western authorities. Moderate Muslims recognize that Muslims have more rights and opportunities for advancement in most Western countries than in most Muslim lands.

Finally, moderate Muslims are not Arabocentric or trapped in the rhetoric of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent. They recognize that the styles, idioms, and spiritual practices of Islam differ considerably from Mali to Malaysia and from Bosnia to Botswana. Moderate Muslims accept that such diversity should also exist among Muslims in the West; that there can and will be an Islam that is fully American in its culture, as Bosnians and Indonesians reflect the customs and cultures of their lands.

How do moderate Muslims deal with radicals?

Moderate Muslims admit there is a problem in the body of the religion -- not in the principles and traditions of the faith, but among the believers themselves. They recognize that radical ideology and terrorism threaten the future of Islam and must be stopped.

Moderate Muslims do not limit their struggle against extremism to perfunctory statements stating that terror is incompatible with the religion. Rather, moderate Muslims publicly identify, denounce, and combat radicals.

Is the Islamic establishment in the U.S. -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA) -- moderate? No, it is not. Not one of these three groups has ever identified or criticized a Muslim radical in the U.S., except to slander authentic moderates by trying to portray them as extremists. To cite a few notable examples: the aforementioned organizations, which I have called "the Wahhabi lobby,"

accused the moderate author Khalid Duran of being a non-Muslim because they disagreed with an opinion he held (takfir);

labeled the Sufi spiritual shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani a dangerous sectarian because he warned at the end of the 1990s that Islamist extremists in Russia were attempting to purchase nuclear materials;

accused me of "jihadism" because I defended the Kosovar Albanians. In reality, I insisted on recognition that the Albanians are multireligious and that the Kosovo war was ethnic, not religious.

Meanwhile, however, the Wahhabi lobby has stood by every accused radical to appear before an American court, paying for their lawyers and inventing excuses for their transgressions.

Moderate Muslims do not come up with bogus fatwas and other gimmicks to try to befog the Western public. Nor do they suddenly remake themselves as Sufis to purge the record of their previous radical statements. Moderate Muslims know that the foundational texts, commentaries, and legal, philosophical and theosophical works of the religion suffice as a bulwark against extremism; that is why today's extremism is a new and radical, not a traditional or conservative, phenomenon. They also know that for a person to be called a Sufi, authentic spiritual study, based on meaningful traditions and precedents, must be the basis of his or her religious activity, not a search for instant credibility.

Finally, some moderate Muslims may seek to "reform" Islam, but moderates are not required to be "reformers." Many who today proclaim their desire to "reform" Islam are not moderate at all in their manners and mental equipment; some are simply publicity seekers who think that by talking about "Islamic reformation" they will gain access to the non-Muslim public. Others are obsessed egomaniacs who consider arguing over an 800-year old text to be more important than defeating terrorist conspiracies. But Ibn abd al-Wahhab, founder of the eponymous sect 250 years ago, is proclaimed a reformer, and Saudi Wahhabis assert they have reformed Islam. Opportunism and sectarianism are ever the twin obstacles to the success of moderates who seek real improvement in society and especially, today, its interreligious relations.

Moderate Muslims concentrate on devotion to their religion, not on politics or public relations, and always recall that the Prophet called for his umma to be a community of moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel.carter911 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sunni Islam as " the largest religious denomination for any religion in the world"

This relates to the following article snippet ffrom the article. I am rendering it here as wikitext in order to show the internal comment:

and the largest religious denomination for any religion in the world.<!--The following ref looks unlikely; can anyone confirm?: <ref>New York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s, Andrew Karmen - 2006, p 223</ref>-->

This had been removed by this edit, saying "Removed claim of largest denomination in the world that had no reference. How defined is the denomination and what numbers or references exist? Certainly none to justify a claim in the overview."

It was restored to the article by this edit, saying "restoring the REFERENCED statement about the denomination's size. this has been discussed several times before, the removal was clearly inappropriate".

This has been discussed here at #Lead References and at #Reference Quality. I think that more discussion is needed.

The cited supporting source is this page of this book, titled New York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s. The book page cited does support the assertion, using slightly difference in terminology. However, that particular book does not look to me like an authoritative source to support this specific assertion or in relation to this article topic.

I have dug around a bit and found

  • http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html, which says that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Catholics numbered 968,000,000 in mid-1995. That source was last updated 28 October 2005, estimates their number then at 1,050,000,000, vs. an estimate of 940,000,000 Sunnis.
  • this 2013 BBC news story gives the number of Catholics as 1,168,000,000 (my addition of figures given there).

My guess is that there are probably more sources out there and that info in them about this would probably boil down to putting Catholics and Sunnis close in number of adherents, with one probably being slightly more numerous than the other.

I think we have at least two of issues here:

  • the terminology of the article assertion
  • the apparent topical reliability of the various sources

I see several alternatives here:

  1. consider all the sources mentioned here and possibly some others to be reliable, and fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources which differ on this in proportion to their prominence (per WP:DUE
  2. consider the New York Murder Mystery book source to be unreliable for this topic, disregard it, and remove or rewrite the assertion
  3. consider some of the sources mentioned here and/or some others to be reliable, cite those, and rewrite the assertion not to simple claim that Sunis (or Catholics) are biggest, but to claim that there are roughly as many Sunnis as there are Catholics.

I would favor alternative number three, but the choice ought to be made by editorial consensus.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The book was printed by a respectable publishing house and there's no reason to doubt its accuracy, especially when you also acknowledge here that either Catholics of Sunnis could be more numerous than one another - it isn't a particularly wild claim. Your request for more sources to look into the topic, however, is reasonable.
What we can't do, however, is perform our own calculations and compare statements by the BBC, adherents.com, or any other sources; that would be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.
If you want a group effort here to perform more research and see what other sources say specifically about the issue of the size of this denomination, then it's a great plan and alerting Wikiprojects would be in order. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to cover conflict between Sunnis and Shiites

There are conflicts today in the Middle East where Sunni-dominated forces and Shiite-dominate forces are fighting each other. Article needs to cover the whos, whats, whys and hows of this. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to cover divisions and conflicts within Sunni Islam

I came to this article seeking to understand the history of conflict within Sunni Islam. To use an analogy, the Sunni - Shia schism could be likened to the Catholic - Orthodox division in Christendom. Yet within Catholicism there has also been a history of factionalism and division. Protestants and Catholics are the most visible break, but there are also deep divisions within these groups. Clearly deep divisions also exist among Sunnis. For example, Sunni critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort the true Sunni understanding of Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and the Taliban. Can a section on divisions internal to the Sunni faith be included in this article? Asd154 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunni_Islam/Archive_1&oldid=1136382968"