Template talk:Islam/Archive 5
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This is anarchive of past discussions aboutTemplate:Islam.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
please remove the ahmadiyyahs from the tribes list122.169.135.174 (talk)15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Deontalk02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Good evening, I should like to request the inclusion of the terms "islamofacism" and "Radical Islam" in the green drop down to the right titled "Islam", at the very least under 'Other'. It's not like Wiki to cherry-pick...46.26.122.170 (talk)00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done and addedCriticism of Islam as well. --Alan Liefting (talk -contribs)21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC) | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Islam is NOT about sects/denominations as mentioned. This is completely wrong info.Syadmustafa (talk)11:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. When making edit requests, please make your request(s) as specific as possible, in the form of "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?)12:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please check why pics of pigs (Sow_with_piglet.jpg) are showing up on this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_in_Islam when the same template is used and it shows up fine on other pages. The image should be (Allah-eser-green.png). Thanks.
Thanks Arjayay, but the image is still there.94.201.239.211 (talk)19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Done this vandalism has been reverted and the user has been blocked.Arjayay (talk)19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
IF YOU BELIVE THAT THEY ARE PART OF A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CLASSIFY THEM UNDER one of these:
OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO WRITEAlevi,Alawi,Druze,Nizari as well!!!68.100.172.139 (talk)08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)An editor has removed the link to the article on theAhmadiyya movement from the template.The rationale given is that the movement is not considered to be a denomination of Islam by other Muslims. The relationship between the Ahmadiyya movement and the rest of Islam seems to resemble the one between theMormonLatter Day Saint movement and the rest of Christianity. Both self-identify as a denomination of Islam and Christianity, respectively, and both are characterised as non-Islamic and non-Christian by those who do not belong to the respective denominations. Just as the Mormon movement is linked to from the{{Christianity}} template, so it makes sense to link to the Ahmadiyya movement from this template. I am not saying that because it's done one way there, itmust be done the same way here, but rather, I quote it just to point out how similar cases are being handled elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Of course, this is only based on a cursory comparison of the relationship between the denominations and their respective religions. Either way, whatever the final decision, it should be grounded onconsensus, so I think that it is important that this is discussed properly. --Joshua Issac (talk)14:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Opposition Just because someone claims to be a Islamic sect does not make them Islamic.Let's examine the Ahmadi position:The idea that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not the final messenger (as Ahmadi's don't distinct between the words rasul and nabi)Prophethood (Ahmadiyya) The declaration of faith in Islam: There is no God but God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. - The shahadahIn defiance of the shahadah one cannot be called an Islamic sect.Even shias accept the first line and then say that ali is the wali. But they still accept the base.The Ahmadis undermine the first premise. Therefore, they are not an Islamic sect but a seperate religion.
The ahmadiyya sect or religion debateshould not be settled by Mormon analogies rather it should be settled by the rational and empirical facts which govern the Islamic theological position.I think the matter is quite clear, objectively, and despite all analogies, the rational position tells us not to change it otherwise. (Wiki id2(talk)15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
Keep for the obvious reason that Wikipedia is not there to decide on someone's faith. This matter has been discussed a trillion times, see for example the talk pages ofAhmadiyya andAhmadiyya Muslim Community and their archives. Maybe an FAQ pageTalk:Ahmadiyya/FAQ should be created because these complaints keep on coming. Thank You.--Peaceworld15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Counter Wikipedia doesn't decide one's faith, I agree.Facts classify faith It is rational that on a meritocratic basis, the Ahmadiyya movement may call itself Muslim but it is too much on the fringe. An example is the Baha'i faith. They too claimed at one point that they were an Islamic sect, but eventually accepted that they might have stuff in similar but they are different in essence.An example is: Abrahamic religions. We do not say that Islam and Christainity and Judaism are the same because they worship one God. They have a common shared geographical and scriptural tradition married with political and social objectives. The Ahmadiyya is entirely different from these categories. It originated in the subcontinent and does not accept the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a final prophet. I'm not desecrating the Ahmadiyya community, I'm trying to establish the objective fact - which is that as much as they want to be the Islamic religion the objective facts (not the Pakistani constitution or executive orders - but the rationale behind it) provides a view as to why it is not a sect but a seperate religion in it's own right. A religion which is based on the Islamic traditions as Islam is upon Juadaeo-Christian ideals - so Ahmadiyya is not a sect per se. (Wiki id2(talk)21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC))
No that is not true. Your mind is dogmatic regarding your first pointRefutation 1: I never said Ahmadiyya is a 'false religion' Don't get reactionary. I said that Ahmadiyya is a 'seperate religion' from Islam and not a sect of Islam.
Refutation 2:Yes Muslims say that Islam is the right religion - wikipedia doesn't adopt it. should not. Because, the religious community trying to establish objective facts and wikipedia counts other religions in trying to establish the truth. But within theIslamic community and those who study Islam, there is an agreementon the objective facts on what makes a Muslim
Refutation 3: I never ever said that word "fringe" referring to ahmadiyya' in the derogatory sense. Do not compare Ahmadis to Judaism on the basis of small numbers - the fact that you do actually suggests you tacitly acknowledge the fact that Ahmadis are a seperate religion from Islam.
Refutation 4: I do not hate Ahmadis, in fact I have met many educated ones at events of the Pakistani community and PTI in Oxford. But the objective reality is that it is difficult to objectively classify Ahmadis as Muslims given the fact that they're position the the Prophet Muhammad is not a final prophet is not supported
Refutation 5: You compare "pbuh" to not being used. Again that is a matter to those external to the community and different for those within. A Christian would not expect me to cross and nor would I ask him to read the Kalim; the fact that you are raising up these childish points suggests you are not interested in actual intellectual debate but only making the selective points that you want to do so.
Your second point is utterly false: themajority of scholarly consensus regards Islam as an Abrahamic religion. Wikipedia is not based on opinion. It is based on facts true. But the simple reality is that the scholarly consensus exists that the Ahmadis are not a sect of Islam because they do not consider the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the final messenger of God. Ahmadiyya do have the right to call themselves an religion, but they do not have the right to consider themselves a sect of the religion becausethey do not follow the main premise which underpin it. That is anobjective fact. (Wiki id2(talk)21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC))
1.When you quote me!!! Quote what I said completely!!!! I said Ahmadis should not call themselves Muslims because they do not follow the premise which underpins the religion. I even highlighted it in bold. Don't quote selectively in order to portray me as a bigot. I even said that "I respect the ahmadiyya community" I have said they should "not be persecuted" etc. You said about me: "According to you the ahmadiyya do not have the right to call themselves Muslims".They do not lose the right to call themselves because they are Ahmadiyya. 'They do not have the right to self identifcation (just as any other sect would not) because they do not follow the premises which underpin Islam. Don't try to spin doctor what I say.'
This is not about religious views or faith views. It is certainly not about self-identification. It is the rational and empirical reality which is that the Ahmadiyya sect does not adhere to the most fundamental part of Islamic principles therefore it cannot be considered an Islamic sect. (Wiki id2(talk)14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC))
--Peaceworld14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
To be quite frank referring to an article by BBC News about an Ahmadi saying Ahmadis are Muslims is not objective, not an academic analysis, therefore it is ludicrous to present here because it is not unbiased!! it does not make a difference.The objective reality is that the country in which the Ahmadis have significant population, in Pakistan, they are not considered muslims but instead a seperate religion. There is no point providing links to articles because in the end these are some interpretations and are mostly by news outlets - what the Guardian or Geo TV says doesn't decide who a muslim is.The rational and objective reality does and that is the respective constitutional amendments to the Pakistani constitution. The only country with an Ahmadi population of more than one million - and it is not considered an Islamic sect but a seperate religion in it's own right. (Wiki id2(talk)14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC))
And before you refer to the Indian supreme court ruling, remember that in Pakistan the Supreme court has already ruled the amendment declaring Ahmadi's non muslims as constitutional and correct to the objective reality. The priority of the Pakistani decision has to be given because that is where the overwhelming majority of Ahmadis are, if they are not an Islamic sect but a seperate religion than that is how it has to be recognised and given priority over to the Indian one. The second reason it has to be prioritised over the Indian one is that (Wiki id2(talk)15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC))
We are not here to talk about persecution. Which is completely wrong. Even Islam says so. Yes that law is wrong. Ahmadis ought to be allowed to proseltyize. But that was passed under a mlitary dictatorship. Wheras the constitutional amendment which affirmed the finalty of prophethood (as rejected by ahmadis) was approved by the correct democratic process and had a 2/3 majority in parliament. Even today, Ahmadis are regarded by supreme court as a minority whichought be protected see:
]http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/Pakistan/220075-Affective-laws-needed-to-protect-minorities-right] t makes sense about what Mar4d said. Sunnis and Shia's are about 98% of all Muslims, make it simple, put Sunni, Shia and Other. There we can have a list of all denominations including five percent, ibadi, sufis (which is debatable itself as to whether sufism actually transcends the sunni-shia sect debate as sufis can be either sunni or shia etc..) and there we can have a special section which will say that many scholars dispute the right of Ahmadis or Mahdavias to call themselves Muslims. It can cover both sides. Something which this template cannot do. Sunni, Shia and Others That makes logical sense. I think we can agree on this point. Because it will make the template more brief and clean looking as well (Wiki id2(talk)09:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC))
Then we can put in sections of the other which specifies both the Ahmadi position and the dispute which the overhwelming majority of Muslim scholars have with Ahmadis. (Wiki id2(talk)09:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC))
You said "e.g. 40% of Bangladeshi Muslims recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, similarly 25% Thailand, 16% Malaysia & 12% Indonesia) "Spin doctoring the stats!! < br />"In South Asia and Southeast Asia, Muslims tend to be skeptical of regionally or locally based religious sects. For example, Ahmadiyyas, members of an movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in India in the late 19th century, are not widely considered to be Muslims (see Glossary, page 112). Out of the five countries where this question was asked, only in Bangladesh do more than a quarter (40%) of Muslims believe Ahmadiyyas are Muslims. In Indonesia and Pakistan, a majority of those interviewed state that Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims, while in Malaysia and Thailand most either have not heard of the group or do not know if it is part of the Islamic tradition". -[1]Page 93 The argument from surveys which you tried to do has pretty much been blown out of the water (Wiki id2(talk)09:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC))
It is the right of the state to categorise people for the purposes of their faith for the purposes of census, conscription and economic policy decisions etc.. I am taking Pakistan as an example of a country where in the census the ahmadis are regarded as a seperate faith.I never defended the blasphemy law. Do not make this about politics. The Blasphemy law is wrong. There should be freedom to criticise anyone. But the State, even in developed nations uses census to classify on faith basis, they do categorise the faith - that does not contradict UDHR. Ahmadis being classified as a seperate faith does not contradict UDHR. If the Pope decides to excommunicate someone from the catholic church e.g. for paedophilia. He is no longer a catholic. That does not contradict UDHR as no one has criticised the Church for it. Islam does not have a Pope. But it does have a scholarly community. Ahmadis are not on the sect list, but on the faith list of the Pakistani census. The blasphemy lawdoes contravene the UDHR, as does most of Ordinance XX - I agree with you. But the sectarian matters are not included in UDHR.
In fact you cannot even used the UDHR to justify your position.
1. You consider Ahmadiyya to be apart of the Islamic faith, not a separate religion. So they are not subjected to UDHR, as the religion clause of UDHR does not apply to sects. As you consider Ahmadiyya a sect of Islam.
2. Therefore the Islamic rules determine whether they are a sect or not.
3. The rejection of both sunni-shia-ibadi-sufi and RATIONAL assessment of the Islamic doctrine of theFinality of prophethood as cited by the Majority (not all) but majority of Islamic scholars sunni (saudi arabia (home of Islam), pakistan etc.) along with Shia scepticism in Iran therefore acts as the power, by analogy, which the Pope has to excommunicate anyone from the catholic church. Because from that point on they won't be catholic. Whether UDHR likes it or not. Shows that Ahmadi's can't be regarded as Muslims because intellectuals have determined that it falls outside of the ambit of all of Islam non-deonminational. As theFinality of prophethood is a universal Islamic belief akin to Tawhid.
4. Therefore Ahmadis are not Muslims.But a seperate religious faith. Who have every right to be protected from persecution, as per the UDHR once Islamic rational thought (aql), (fiqh) and ijma (scholarly consensus) has determined it so not to be a sect but rather an independent religion. Which from then on becomes subject to UDHR religion clauses as it is a SEPARATE religion.
| Thisedit request toTemplate:Islam has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the background color, and user green border instead.212.76.244.105 (talk)21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; seeWP:TESTCASES. * No objections from me, just please sandbox the changes and I'll be happy to carry it out underBRD. —{{U|Technical 13}}(t •e •c)01:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Not done: --Islam90 (talk)07:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | Thisedit request toTemplate:Islam has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
The movement "FIve-Percent Nation" is listed on this series template as a denomination of Islam, however, it is not related to Islam, but to the New Religious Movement known as The Nation of Islam. It should appropriately be (and is) listed as part of the Nation of Islam series under offshoots. It should not be linked to Islam.
Thanks.ParsonJody (talk)03:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —{{U|Technical 13}}(e •t •c)14:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)| list5 =
68.100.172.139 (talk)21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
68.100.172.139 (talk)05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the total Muslim population, 11-12% are Shia Muslims and 87-88% are Sunni Muslims.
Five-Percent Nation,Mahdavia ANDAhmadiyya is not amongst them....68.100.172.139 (talk)08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
68.100.172.139 (talk)08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is something likeBahá'í Faith andBábism which is notMuslimbelief.Ahmadiyya is a NEW RELIGION with its own prophet...similar toBahá'í Faith andBábism which have their own prophet. OtherwiseJudaism andchristianity are supposed to be the same religion..68.100.172.139 (talk)05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{cite encyclopedia}}:Invalid|ref=harv (help) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions)05:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)YOU CAN PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE with theseFive-Percent Nation andMahdavia..wherever they belong to!!otherwise YOU ARE CREATING new CATEGORIZATION???68.100.172.139 (talk)08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
68.100.172.139 (talk)08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
if you writeahmadiyya then YOU HAVE TO WRITEAlevi,Alawi,Druze,Nizari as well!!!68.100.172.139 (talk)08:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
in your template:
BIGGER COMMUNITIES AND MADHHABS ARE NOT SHOWN.....
You are putting less important and small communities LIKE
as if they are MAJOR branches....68.100.172.139 (talk)09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
68.100.172.139 (talk)09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{cite encyclopedia}}:Invalid|ref=harv (help) That's a citation from a reliable source which says that Aḥmadiyya is a part of Islam. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions)16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)The following groups have larger populations...
HAVE more members thanAhmadiyya, BUT YOU NEVER MENTION ABOUT THEM IN THE TEMPLATE!!!
68.100.172.139 (talk)19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
YOU HAVE TO CLASSIFY ALL SECTS UNDER ONE OF THESE:
WHY DONT YOU MENTION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:
AS YOU DID INAhmadiyya68.100.172.139 (talk)22:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WHICH ARE NOT IN THE TEMPLATEWHY DONT YOU PUT OR LIST THEMIF AHMEDISM IS ANOTHER SECT PUT IT SOMEWHEREBUT IT ISNT THE EQUIV OFsunni more than a billion nor equiv ofshi'ite more than a 100 million
according to your logic??— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.100.172.139 (talk)23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Similarly you have a private template ofAhmadiyya as well. Therefore you cant put them there otherwise you have to putDruze &Nizari ++Alevi &Alawi as well they are onIsmaili template O.K.Ahmadiyya is onAhmadiyya template do you understand??— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.100.172.139 (talk)23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Islam (FRENCH)SO THAT you may perform the necessary corrections68.100.172.139 (talk)01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
if you claim that it can NOT be put under one of these titles, then it is a new religion, but not islam.
Alevi,Alawi,Druze,Nizari,Assasins,Gulen movementunder one of these THREE main branches, namelySunni -Shi'ite -Khawarij, in a similar way, you can classifyAḥmadī movement under one of them. If you claim that it is so special and cannot be classified under one of the 3 main branches ofSunni -Shi'ite -Khawarij; then the members of these groups, namelyAlevi,Alawi,Druze,Nizari,Assasins,Gulen movement CAN CLAIM that they are very special as well. In that case, the names ofGulen movement,Alevi,Alawi,Druze, etc. SHOULD BE written besides theAḥmadī movement, this is my opinion.
SEE:Template:Islam(in FRENCH)68.100.172.139 (talk)05:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
YourAḥmadī movement is just an equivalent of the following:
And you are just missing them..THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, YOU HAVE TO LIST THEM AS WELL..AS THEY DID INTemplate:Islam(in FRENCH)you are just incorrectly copying from other sourses68.100.172.139 (talk)08:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
YES ISLAM IS A PART OF THESE THINGS:
BECAUSE YOUR TEMPLATE JUST GIVES THEIR NAMES AS ISLAM...THAT JUST SHOWS YOUR INADEQUACY IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE ONLY THESE
REPRESENT ISLAM GO AND READ A LITTLE BIT OF THISTemplate:Islam(in FRENCH)68.100.172.139 (talk)08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)YOU ARE ASKING ABSCURD QUESTIONS AND EVEN THIS SHOWS YOR INCOMPETANCY IN THE AREA IF YOU ARE GOINGTO PREPARE IT DO IT PROPERLY YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO WILL DECIDE ON THISJUST LESS THAN 0,1% OCCUPIES YOUR TEMPLATE:THIS
CAN YOU TELL ME WHO ARE THESE GUYS AN WHY SHALL WE LEARN ABOUT THEM???68.100.172.139 (talk)08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
we have a template forsunni as well you can delete it since totally abscurd!68.100.172.139 (talk)08:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The following groups have larger populations...
68.100.172.139 (talk)08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
YOUR TEMPLATE INCONSISTENT WILL ALL OTHER LANGUAGES:OUT OF 40 SECTS OR BRANCHES ONLY THOSE YOU LIKED PLACED THERE68.100.172.139 (talk)08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
BECAUSEAlevi,Alawi,Druze,Nizari,Gulen movement ANDAlavi Bohra are MISSING!!!!68.100.172.139 (talk)08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Five-Percent Nation ormahdaviaSORRY but since you are a muslim, I have to ask you because your template is telling us to ask you68.100.172.139 (talk)08:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Once upon a time you were defendingyarsan was a member ofislamyou have forgotten so quickly dear professor of islam68.100.172.139 (talk)08:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
you forgot to put this into your template:Islamic terrorismmaybe somewhere at the bottombetweenahmadiyya andmahdavia is a good place for this, it may help to the reader to see faster what you are doing there...68.100.172.139 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I read yourAhmadiyya page and UNDERSTOOD thatIslam is a branch ofAhmadiyya , thanks a lot for the preparation of this illuminating article!! THEY HAVE 5 MORE PROPHETS, ISLAM HAS ONLY ONE THATS WHY ISLAM IS A SECT OF AHMADISM68.100.172.139 (talk)09:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You can put christian terrorism (like Lord's Resistane Army or religious-skinheads) and Zionist terrorism (like Israel's unlawful attacks on Palestinian civilians) to relevant templates too.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR)09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sunni -Shi'ite -Khawarij
- IF YOU CANT PUT UNDER THESE GROUPS
- THEN EITHER(1) IT'S NOTISLAM
- OR(2) ISA NEWLY EMERGED TARIQA WHOSE PATH IS A SPECIAL WAY probablyundivine one i.e. it'sdivinity is an open ended question..
- YOU HAVE TOTHEN RE-GROUPS THESE SPECIAL so-called TARIQA
- what you have to do is to invent a new TITLE for theseresidual groups
- WHO CLAIM THEMSELVES AS A PART OF THEDīn ofIslam
- A PROPER TITLE MAY THEunclassifiedtariqah ofislam
- QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE RESIDUAL GROUPS
- ANSWER: According to your template is the following ones
- Aḥmadī movement,
- Din-e Ilahi(add),
- Khojas(add),
- Nation of Islam,
- Five-Percent Nation,
- Malcolm X(add),
- Mahdavia
68.100.172.139 (talk)20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
cannot be caytegorized under
68.100.172.139 (talk)22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
68.100.172.139 (talk)01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
asserts thatahmadis are the followers ofSunnimadh'hab but nothing is mentioned about their creed. It impies thatahmadis'aqidah is not unique butsunni. Nevertheless, it can also be deduced that they have unique creed and they are fromSunnimadh'hab ..68.100.166.227 (talk)20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
| Islam |
|---|
 |
 Islam portal |
Template documentation{{Islam|name}}, wherename is the first word of the section's name in lowercase—e.g.,{{Islam|texts}}.{{Islam}} or{{Islam|all}}.[[Category:Islam templates| ]][[Category:"Part of a series on" templates|Islam]]
you may consider the following:
| list5name = denominations| list5title =Denominations| list5 =
As I see from this talk page there has been already a great deal of complaints about this section..maybe you consider this suggestion as a solution. It looks like this list will continue to increase in the near future. Whenever a new sect emerges you can continue to add into your list.
68.100.172.139 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)It may be better to put into alphabetical order68.100.172.139 (talk)18:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
| Islam |
|---|
|
| Islam portal |
if you like you may includesufism underother currents since sufis belong to amadhhab as well.68.100.172.139 (talk)19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
since these are the true denominations
68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)68.100.172.139 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)68.100.172.139 (talk)21:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It explicitly indicates who isSunni and which denomination isshia. Then, everybody understand thatAhmadiyya isMuslim but neitherSunni nor [[Shia]. In addition, everybody seesibadi is not a part ofkhawarij butislam likeAhmadiyya. I believe this final version satisfies everybody without offending anybody.68.100.172.139 (talk)21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
| Islam |
|---|
|
| Islam portal |
| Thisedit request toTemplate:Islam has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
under DENOMIANTIONS of Islam there are a few Muslim sects, one of them Ahmadiyya. Beside Ahmadiyya in brackets the word kuffar is written. This is not a complaint i simply want the word kuffar removed on behalf of my religion. This word kuffar is considered a very rude word meaning unbeliever this word mostly refers to people in Islam. Because it says kuffar beside the word Ahmadiyyat it would lead people to interpret the Ahmadiyyat Muslim Movement as a wrong sect of Islam. Although Ahmadiyyat is the true Islam. Please change "Ahmadiyya(kuffar)" to "Ahmadiyya. PLease and Thank YouWaleedMangla (talk)02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish aconsensus for this alteration before using the{{edit semi-protected}} template. —{{U|Technical 13}}(e •t •c)03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)One of the links leads to pageNon-denominational Muslim, which redirects toNondenominational Muslim. Somebody please fix it so it links to the latter page directly. I can't do that because I'm not allowed to edit the template.89.66.171.5 (talk)19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Murji'ah is one of the oldschools of divinity in Islam and is not anIslamic branch. It's misplaced in the template, it is not a part ofIslamic schools. It is aschools of divinity likeMu'tazili. Thus, it should be deleted from the list sinceMu'tazili,Ash'ari andMaturidi are NOT mentioned anywhere in the list.68.100.164.65 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)IfMurji'ah will be kept, thenQadariyya,Mu'tazili,Ash'ari,Maturidi, andJahmi should be written somewhwere. In my opinion,Murji'ah is not a part of this list.68.100.164.65 (talk)22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
So that I can understand the related pages...68.100.164.65 (talk)23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only one that thinks Allah image edges are annoying. When I try to concentrate on the arabic word but my eyes moving to the edges. It gives an optical illusion. I think we should remove the triangular edges.Johnzsmith (talk)02:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
68.100.166.227 (talk)03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The titles listed here are copied fromTemplate:Shia Islam and are wrong. It does NOT working.68.100.166.227 (talk)21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
| Thisedit request toTemplate:Islam has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
The titles listed here are incorrectly copied fromTemplate:Shia Islam and are wrong. It does NOT working68.100.166.227 (talk)21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The|expanded= option seems to work fine. You're gonna have to be more specific about what needs to be changed with regard to schools.Alakzi (talk)15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Do you have these titles in your template? NO!.. Then why are you misleading users?Template documentation advises incorrectly that these NAMES should BE used to OPEN sub-sections.. It is wrong if you still cannot see you don't know how to use it..
This is NOT a denomination but theology school!!68.100.166.227 (talk)22:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is NOT a denomination but theology school!! It's incorrectly placed.. Then where areMaturidi &Mu'tazili?Murji'ah is something likeMu'tazili,Maturidi, andAsh'ari.68.100.166.227 (talk)22:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I placed here your note for them...68.100.166.227 (talk)23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
| This is anarchive of past discussions aboutTemplate:Islam.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |