Talk:Islamic schools and branches/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Islamist groups

Islamist groups aren't necessarily a division (well, no moreso than Progressive Muslim Union). They don't have unique theology or anything just within the group I don't believe... if there is a group that encompasses their philosophy that should be mentioned but not their socio-political instantiations. Please discuss this I don't want to unilaterally remove it. (are some of them Salafi or what was Yassin?) gren グレン 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I made this page to list brief summaries of many different Islamic groups and divisions. Similar pages exist for other religions and I thought this would keep it more organized. I think it's relevant enough to list a few of the most widely known Islamist groups, but I'm really not very opinionated about the list, if you want to delete some stuff go ahead. Cunado19 12:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are more a political group than their own theological division. Like, for Christianity it would make sense to add Baptists... but not the American Baptist Council. That was what I thought... I do think if we have political/sub-theological groups like then we should include other such ones as the Progressive Muslim Union which I mentioned above. I would like to hear others opinions though. gren グレン 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these groups don't really belong on this page. However, they should appear somewhere. Maybe a separate listing with socio-political groups that somehow associate themselves with Islam, but are are only ostensibly theological. -unsigned, 18 Aug 2005-

For the list you're talking about, try Category:Islamic_organizations, Category:Islamist_groups, Category:Jihadist_organizations, or Category:Islamic political parties.

They're actually listed under List of terrorist organisations, the US state department's list is under Islamist terrorism, and more information, and shorter lists under Militant Islam, Islamism, and of course Jihad.

The most mentioned, and most recognized groups are the first four currently on the page: Abu Sayyaf, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The Muslim Brotherhood can go, but I suggest keeping the others. On the list we have major sects, minor sects, movements, schools, related faiths... most of these aren't exclusive and interconnect in theology. I think mentioning the top 4 Islamist groups is worthwhile. But like I said, I don't care that much. But if you want to delete something, fill in the other sections while you're at it. The article is already pretty naked. Cunado19 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section does not really belong here. These are political groups and not actually sub-divisions of Islam itself. They should be in a separate article or listing, as suggested. I am going to remove this section, if anybody feels inclined, they may transfer the info to a separate article. Zunaid 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think the name "divisions of Islam" doesn't incorporate them, then change the page title, don't try to delete relevant information. And sign your name on talk pages. Cuñado - Talk 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature, I've included it retroactively. I have to disagree with you on both of your points. Firstly, I don't think the information on Islamist groups is relevant information to this article. There are other articles that deal with such groups, while this article deals specifically with different religious divisions of Islam according to the interpretation of the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet's life, events in Islamic history, etc. For example, one can be a Sunni or Shia, but one cannot be a "Hamasi" or "al-Qaedi". Secondly, I don't feel it's necessary or desirable to change the title of the article as (a) an article on the topic of the various Islamic groupings is needed, and (b) as mentioned, there are other articles on militant organisations which could deal with those in much more detail. Zunaid 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Within Islamist movements, religion and politics are the same. Unless militant Islamist movements are accepted as theologically indistinguishable from other sects listed, they are an appropriate addition to this page. --Alsayid 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Rescue is not considered a division of Christianity, Kach is not considered a division of Judaism. Militant Islamic groups are not divisions of Islam. --Yodakii 11:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

General note: Before deleting an entire well-written entry because you disagree with it being here, let's have a good faith discussion and see what can and cannot be agreed on, please.

Operation Rescue's aim is specific to overturning abortion laws. No single issue is the focus of the Islamist organizations listed, except for the interpretation and application of Islam itself within their regions. As I already stated, within such groups Islam and politics are one in the same. Further, it is a point of contention between those who support them, and those who don't, as to which side represents "true Islam." I'd call that a religious division. --Alsayid 16:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Islamist section should stay. Cuñado - Talk 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Divisions refer to branches or sects of a religion. These movements are not sects of a religion, but usually adherents of a sect (Sunni, Shia, etc.). And the article is already linked to a main article on those movements. --Anonymous editor 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking earlier of an Islamism entry under "Other Movements" as a fair compromise. I'm glad others came to the same conclusion independently. Although I would have preferred the discussion been held here first, as consensus is not often reached through edit wars. --Alsayid 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Related Faiths

I put back Sikhism and filled out this section. I think it's more clear with actually descriptions of the religions why they are on the list. Cuñado - Talk 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam Main article: Nation of Islam

Ahmadiyyah Main article: Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

Five Percenters Main article: The Nation of Gods and Earths

Submitters Main article: Submitters

Should all Be in related faiths. As they go against the basic teachings of Islam, and are heretics/blasphemous.

--Street Scholar 20:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Five Percenters, but the others call themselves Muslims, and they don't think they go against the basic teachings of Islam. In fact some of them say they are the only correct form of Islam. The religions under related Faiths don't call themselves Muslims. Cuñado - Talk 16:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, then add considered heretics by mainstream Muslims. The point is they go against the fundamental of the Qu'ran, Nation Of Islam say black men are god which totally contradicts the Qu'ran. Submitters reject the hadeeth which is considered blasphemous. Ahmadiyya contradict the Qu'ran, for the reason that Prophet Mohammad was the seal of all prophets after him, only Isa (Jesus) will come, and their leader claims to be a prophet which is blasphemous. Did you know the Ahmadiyya leader died in pakistan after he slipped of his own excrement? Street Scholar

Well that all comes down to your opinion and your interpretation. In Christianity every sect and their mother think that they are the only true form of Christianity and the others are not following the Bible correctly. I think the standard should be self identification. And by the way, in the description I added that "real" Muslims don't agree. Cuñado - Talk 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Question

Could someone shed some light on the exact distinctions between Sunni and Shia Islam? Clearly, the argument started with the succession to Muhammed, this is well documented, but is there also a more contemporary difference? In addition to the historical, clerical differences, i would love to see a section on practical differences between these two. As a matter of fact, i've been looking for this info everywhere (on wiki) but cant seem to find it.

For example, in parallel, one could say that the schism in Christianity had its roots in the dissaproval with Papal rule. Practical differences are that protestant churches do not listen to the pope, focus prayer more stricly on the Bible itself (without interpretation), and reject idolisation of saints. Are there similar distinctions within Islam? If so, they would fit nicely in this section methinks. I dont know much on the topic, but always thought Sunni-Shia is the most important distinction within Islam; if so, a small elaboration on it would be great. --The Minister of War 10:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well in practice, their are different basic beliefs. The Sunni believe in the five pillars of Islam while the Shia also believe in the roots and branches of religion. Please check Five Pillars of Islam or Islam#Six_articles_of_belief under tenets section. Aside from that there are also differences in religious festivals and in prayer. I think there is a page on the Sunni-Shia split but I haven't encountered it yet. Hope that helps :). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í

The Bahai Faith is not a division of Islam anymore than Islam is a division of Christianity. Unless Islam is going to be put into the divisions of Christianity page, the Bahai Faith cannot be listed as a division of Islam. Bahais believe that Muhammed, Christ, and Moses were Messengers of God, and believe that a new Messenger came to us and his name was Bahá'u'lláh. Bahais have their own holy books and writings and do not label themselves Muslims, Christians, or Jews anymore than a Muslim would call himself a Christian or a Jew. The Bahais are not Ahmadiyya Muslims who identify themselves as Muslims.

In some countries such as Iran, the government tries to paint the Bahai Faith as a sect of Islam for political purposes and to persecute the Bahais. As previously stated, Bahais are not a sect; they are an independent world religion. If the Bahai Faith is a sect of Islam then Islam is a sect of Christianity and Christianity a sect of Judaism.

The entire Related faiths section needs to made into its own article or Babism and the Bahai Faith needs to be removed. The title of the main page "Divisions of Islam" is wholly incorrect when addressing these 2 religions.--Bill Bisco 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that Bahá'í can be considered a division of Islam when it clearly contradicts the first pillar of Islam; there is no god but Allah and Muhammed (pbuh) is his messenger. I believe that the piece on the Bahá'í should be erased from this article as it is blatantly obvious it cannot be Islam. -- unsigned by Rbajwa

You need to study the Bahá'í Faith more. Your information is not accurate. Cuñado - Talk 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bahá'í faith was founded by Bahá'u'lláh who is seen as a prophet but not the final one. Muslims believe that Muhammed (pbuh) was the last prophet. Please explain my inaccurate information. -- unsigned by Rbajwa

You're assuming that there can be no prophets after Muhammad, just like Christians believe there can be no prophets after Christ.

Baha'is believe in Muhammad. There is nothing about the statement "there is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger" that Baha'is do not agree with.

The real reason why the Baha'i mention should stay, is because it is a major faith related to Islam. It is in the category of related faiths, and it is side by side with faiths that have much less in common with Islam. You are singling out the Baha'i Faith because like most Muslims you don't like it, and you don't want to see it mentioned, propagated, or regarded as legitimate. Your attitude is why Baha'is are being killed in Iran as we speak.

You only have three edits on your account, and they're all on this talk page. This conversation is over unless someone else wants to chime in. Cuñado - Talk 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Muslims beleive that M is the FINAL Prophet. Therefore the Bahai cannot be considered Muslims. (unsigned comment by anonymous 209.94.192.115)

Baha'is do not identify themselves as Muslims, just like Muslims don't claim to be Christians, even though they accept Jesus. Baha'is claim that they accept Muhammad, but believe differently than Muslims. This is quite like how Muslims believe in Jesus, but do not believe the same things about him that Christians do. Regardless, even if Baha'is are not Muslims by this definition, the Baha'i religion was founded in an islamic culture and society, and its history is connected with modern Islam in Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Turkey, etc. That is why it is mentioned here. -- Christian Edward Gruber 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that there can be no prophets after Muhammad, just like Christians believe there can be no prophets after Christ.

First, that's incorrect. Christians believe in unlimited Prophets, but they are waiting for (along with the Jews) "THE Prophet" (who we Muslims believe is the Prophet Muhammad (as)).

Anyway, Baha'is aren't Muslim because it is against Islam to believe that God manifested Himself in a human being. It is also against Islam to believe that there is another Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (as). According to Muslim sources, Imam Mahdi (as) hasn't come yet because the sign of his comming hasn't happened yet, and thus to believe that the Bab is Imam Mahdi (as) (which is what Baha'is believe) is unIslamic, also. It is also against Islam to believe that there will be a future Holy Book, but Baha'is believe that Baha'ullah created his own book.

You can't be against the religion your part of. Baha'is aren't Muslim, Muslims aren't Baha'is.

Armyrifle 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Baha'is recognise themselves as Baha'is & NOT Muslims or Christians & term it as persecution if they are asked to identify themself as MuslimsReligious identity and the Bahá'í community. Muslims don consider Baha'is as Muslims. I dont understand why people are forcing both the communities to believe something which doesnt reflect their faith. --Doc sameer 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Branch, movement, sect

This deletion of Islamist movements is ridiculous. I can only assume that faithful Muslims are deleting them because it might look bad for Islam. The article does not claim that they are a sect or major division, but along with the schools and disciplines that are listed, they are significant enough to be on the page. There is a movement trying to re-establish the Muslim caliphate and create an Islamic world empire, is that not distinct enough from other beliefs to warrant a short blurb on the list?

If anybody wants to contribute to this page, try filling in the empty sections, not deleting relevant information. Cuñado - Talk 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well would you put Christian terrorists organizations in an article about divisions of Christianity? The article should be about religious branches or faiths rather than political info. For example Hamas is not a division of Islam, it is a armed organization with Islamic beliefs and not even necessarily Islamist. Also, if Islamist organizations were added, then why not social or welfare organizations? We would have a huge article. Also it varies whether some of these organizations are even considered Muslim. They usually adhere to one sect of Islam, rather than making their own sect. Besides the article is already linked to the Islamist page where all these organizations are listed. So really not necessary here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If there was a divisions of Christianity page (is there?) and there were significant terrorist organizations whose theology was based almost completely on Christianity (like the Dominican Order) then yes I would add a section for them. Once again, the article does not claim that they are sects, it says they are Islamist movements. Cuñado - Talk 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But that is why the Islamist page is there. Also whether all of these organizations are Islamist is opinion. I think that there should be a page with just branches of Islam rather than small movements and related faiths, especially since they are already discussed on the Islam page. Like I said if we include these organizations then why not many more Islamic organizations (not just Islamist ones). The article would be very large. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution can be to create an "Islamist" section in "other movements" section and then briefly outline Islamism and have links to some of these organization which are mostly considered Islamist. By the way terrorist is POV and that is not a fair reason to insert these organizations. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well what do you think Cunado? This cleans up the article and still gives the info that you wanted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it! Good job. I want to edit a little to add Al-Qaeda, which I think is the most significant group. Cuñado - Talk 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: the following response moved to this section from "RE:Branch, movement". Please keep related responses in one section. Zunaid 08:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point, the point is it is not Islam (as stated already) and therefore cannot be considered a division of Islam. -- unsigned by Rbajwa

Rename

--Striver 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Islamic divisions, but I don't like Islamic denominations. I think denomination is synonymous with sect, so I don't think it envelopes what this page represents. There are several sects, movements, and even related faiths that would not fall into the category of denominations. See the meaning of denomination:

A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

Cuñado - Talk 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be fine with it because Islamic denominations would focus on the sects of Islam rather than small theological school divisions or related faiths, which is what I think the article should be about. If not maybe another article can be started with the main sects and denominations. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Tablighi Jama'at

I could'nt see Thableegh Jamaath in this list which is active in lot of places all over the world. Also I searched for any article regarding them here but could'nt find. --Soft coder^Talk 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I got the article Tablighi_Jamaat, it was already here. Should'nt we include it here ? I think it would be appropriate in "Other movements within sects" section.--Soft coder^Talk 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him or that movement, so I'll take your word on its relevancy. Please add a one paragraph summary along with the link. Cuñado - Talk 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat is more of an organization or a group rather than a sect, or any sort of movement or beliefs like wahhabism or salafism.

Draft diagram

I respect the fact that you made it, but I don't think it's necessary. As people frequently point out, Sufism is not a sect alongside Shia and Sunni counterparts. Sufism is a kind of mystical philosophy that is compatible with the two main sects. The schools listed under Sunni appear to be divisions within Sunni Islam, the way the divisions of leadership caused the Shia sects to be divided, but those also can't be compared, because Muslims regard all of the major schools as valid traditions, and the different Shia groups are exclusive, and based on leadership disputes. There is too much information to contain in a diagram, so I would suggest just forget about it. Cuñado - Talk 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some good points. I've think I've managed to reflect the partial overlap that Sufism is in the diagram. But I'm not sure I understand the difference between the Shia divisions and the Suni divisions. When you say the Shia groups are exclusive, you mean that they don't respect each other's authority? But the different Sunni schools do respect each other's authority? So the sub-divisions of Shia compete where the sub-divisions of Sunni cooperate?

If these look like basic questions, they are. I'm not doing this diagram because I have knowledge I want to share. I'm doing it because I have ignorance I want to dispell.  :-) And the effort of creating a diagram help. So I don't mind if the diagram doesn't get used, and I do appreciate your helping me with it. Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's my understanding. Each Shi'a division thinks that they are the correct form of leadership as passed down from Muhammad through the respective Imams. Different groups believe in a different line of leadership, therefore they are mutually exclusive. The sunni divisions are more mutually inclusive, more like different forms of Greek philosophy. None claim to be the ultimate truth and deny other sunni groups.

I think this diagram looks much better than the first. I'll add it in the top of the article. Cuñado - Talk 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the diagram Ben. It's very nice. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A more relevant term for Jafari is "Ithna/Isna Ashari". It is a more relevant and precise classification of that sect. It means "twelvers" (they believe in 12 Imams).

Nosairi

I don't think this quite belongs. It appears the author of Nosairi put it here 2 days after creating the article, along with creating Crypto-pagans. The contents are poorly written and the so was the summary for Nosairi on this page.

A summary should attempt to include: when was it started? by whom? why? what is the major theology/teachings that differ from mainstream Islam? and where is it predominant? and if it is a pagan group, then it has little to do with Islam. Cuñado - Talk 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, the Alawi, also known as Alawites, Nusayris or Ansaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite) that are classified as Shia sects are NOT. These are heretical groups who claim Ali to be God on earth. Such people first came into being within the times of Ali himself. Ali refrained them from this practice / belief and after their continued disregard of his warnings to cease and desist, these people were put to death by Ali himself.

Barelwi/Berailvi

Where should this group go? (It also needs to be merged with perhaps multiple redirects). Check List of religions for other groups that may belong here too.

There should be some notability of any articles included here. The pages mentioned are very short stubs, and mention a small community in Pakistan/India. I don't think they quite deserve to be included. Cuñado - Talk 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, although it was my (possibly mistaken) understanding that this was a pretty widespread group in Pakistan (i.e. the followers of Ahmed Rida Khan, not residents of Bareilly). There should be some way for people to identify the various divisions of islam, however small, and this article would seem to be the right place. Or would a category label be better?

Sect of Islam - Sufi?

Since when have sufis been considered a different sect of Islam (Except by some extremists)? This is not appropriate, as Sufism is an Islamic Science, like many others, under the branch of Sunni Islam. [1]

BTW, Tablighi Jamaat is not a sect or division, again, this is an effort of Sunni Muslims.

As the article states it is common to both Shi'a and Sunni. Cuñado - Talk 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely absurd that Sufism in continuously being added as a "sect" of Islam by editors really ignorant of basic facts about Islam. Sufism is a PHILOPSOPHY & NOT a sect! It is revered by all sects of Islam & cannot be ascribed to a single sect. --Doc sameer 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sufism can be argued that it is its own sect, like Sunni islam and Shia islam. It has its own beliefs and philosophies that may contradict or go beyond traditional Sunni views or beliefs or Shia views or beliefs. Most Sunni and Shia scholars and followers do not consider Sufis or Sufism as part of their sect or their beliefs. There are even many Sufis who consider themselves to be 'Sufi', and not Sunni or Shia. It is indeed a separate division in Islam.

Firstly, plz sign your comments (with 4 "~" Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages). Secondly, What beliefs & traditions are contradictory? Do u have any source for that statement? I am a Sunni & a close follower of Sufism, so how would u classify me then? Or according to your assumption, i belong to both the sects at the same time? --Doc sameer 20:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If Sufism is to be included as a sect, please provide a source which clearly mentions "Sufism as a sect of Islam" rather than assumptions based on your POV. --Doc sameer 20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you call yourself Sunni and Sufi, while there ARE others who consider themselves only Sufi, and there are also many Sunnis who do not consider Sufis as part of their sect.

Again.. please sign your comments with your singature with:"~~~~". Secondly, you still havent quoted sources for incuding Sufism as a "Sect". --Doc sameer 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Submitters - Changes by David Aitken

Peace be upon y'all,

The word "superhuman" was not used anywhere.

• Khalifa cannot be called a Muslim, nor can the USI be called Islamic. The USI replaced the terms “Muslim” and “Islam” with “Submitter” and “Submission” in September 1989. Details of the name change can be viewed at [2]. Khalifa did not refer to himself as a Muslim, nor does the USI refer to itself as an “Islamic group.” Today’s Islam has nothing to do with the Quran – which most Muslims will admit, having abandoned it in favor of hadith (oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), sunnah (actions attributed to Muhammad), and the opinions of the ‘Ulema (Islamic scholars).

• Khalifa was not “the founder” of the USI. He was the editor of their newsletter [3] and they believe he was a human being messenger of God. Calling him “the founder” is wrong because he was not the leader of the USI movement. The USI will openly admit that their leader is the Quran (i.e. God, through His literal word).

• USI not a "sect," criterion is "The followers of these sects consider themselves to be Muslim, but are not recognized as such by the mainstream." USI does not fit into this, they are a movement outside of Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidaitken (talk • contribs) .

This rationale is ridiculous. You're saying it was founded by the Qur'an. I'll be reverting your edits again. Cuñado - Talk 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Peace. Didn't say that. Their leader is the Qur'an. Khalifa was *one* of the founding members, not he leader or the founder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidaitken (talk • contribs) .

Today’s Islam has nothing to do with the Quran - I am deeply offended by this statement which has no rational grounds. I would like to request Mr David to keep his ridiculous POV to himself rather than making us suspect his intellect. --Doc sameer 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Double negative wording needs help

The article includes the following text at the start of Section 4. The words "reject" and "invalid" together make the sentance meaningless.

Kharijite is a general term embracing a variety of Islamic sects which reject the Caliphate of Ali as invalid

--Will 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Kharijites WERE the group that spawned from the Shi'a who abandoned Ali' on the basis of his dealings with Mu'awiyah. They disliked Mu'awiyah and saw Ali as God-chosen and couldn't accept that he would dare negotiate, and so they ditched his side, I don't see how this is a general term or even one that refers to all sects since Khariji's themselves were a sect (not a blanket statement).--xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clarify in the text - feel free to correct if I made a mistake (did the edits yesterday) --Christian Edward Gruber 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a map

WP should have a map somewhere of the Islamic world showing where Shia predominate and where Sunni predominate. Alcuin 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The map provided, Islam_by_country.svg, is excellent, except it looks like the colors have gone through an incomplete change. Oman and the UAE are purple (indicating blue and red), but Iran is red - I changed the label to say Shi'a is red on the map, but I think it's still messed up because the legend does not show purple. -kslays (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake delete Sikhism from Divisions of Islam

it betrays any wisdom that you show one religion as a division of another. Even if you think it is distantly related, there is no way it can be authenticated beyond doubt. Sikhism did not emerge as a branch of Islam. On the contrary, sikhism was established to protect hindus and other non muslims from forcible conversions. What can be more derogatory for a pagdhari sikh to see his religion enlisted as a division of Islam. I have nothing personally against Islam but Sikhism is a different religion altogether. I propose to delete sikhism from divisions of islam or if you think it is proper to keep it under related faiths then at least move the sub-section related faith out as a separate article. Please dont keep it under divisions of islam--Ronak307 13:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Faradian Islam

I merged the various entries about the pseudo-Islamic movements founded by or influenced by Wallace Fard Muhammad into one entry. Peace. (MuzikJunky 23:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Question.

The article does not actually raise a doubt that I have: are Muslim denominations divided as Christian ones? In the sense that in Christianity theoretically a Roman Catholic would not attend a Protestant church and possibly vice versa. There does seem to be an increase division within Protestantism as well. Is this the case with Muslims? Are the denominations only divided in some beliefs or also on religious life completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.206.6 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the Muslim population is currently divided into two, Sunnis and Shias, another ancient and significant sect are the kharijites, but they basically do not exist today. And than there are the "other sects", like Ahmadiyyas and Druze and NOI, etc, but they are almost unanimously considered non-muslims by the mainstream. Sunnis make up around 85% of the population, and Shias make up around 12%, whereas all the "other sects" combined form around 3%.

Many among the Sunnis, especially scholars or salafis or deobandis or any individual who is concerned with the teachings of the Sunnah or Sunni Islam and also knowledgable with the beliefs and teachings of Shia Islam consider the Shia also as non-muslims, especially since the Shia hadith differ greatly in many aspects from the Sunni hadiths and Shias also have many rituals and practices that differ from Sunni practices.

But, all the sections and names you see under the Sunnism category in the article are just schools and madhabs and are not considered 'divisions' or 'denomainations' of Sunni Islam, they are all part of Sunni Islam. But Shia Islam is, however, divided into three denominations, the "Twelvers" and the "Ismailis", and all the sections and names under each of these two sections are groups and schools of these two denominations, respectively, and the third denominations is the "Zaiddiyah" who are also quite similar and close to the Twelver. There are differences in belief and acceptances between the Twelvers and Ismailis, and among the Ismailis there are further differences between the different groups of the Ismaili sect.

Thats basically how it is. This is the best i can do for you, hope this helps. RebelzGang (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we should probably rename the Kharj'ite section the Ibadis since they're the only remaining branch and this article as a whole seems concentrated on contemporary divisions in Islam. I think there also should be a section on African American Islam, since that covers many of the sects in "other sects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Move Article

I find the title of the article misleading. 'Divisions' of Islam sounds as if Islam endorses divisions by way of its teachings or something similar (which it surely doesn't as seen from the Qur'an and the Hadith). I believe that the idea behind starting this article (as well behind expanding it) was only to gather and present information about the various sects prevalent in the Islamic world today. It is indeed notable that all these sects arose after the death of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and there is, simply speaking, NO evidence in support for the formation of any of them in the Qur'an. Islam revolves around the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammed and since neither of the two speak of any divisions, the current title is dubious. I feel that a better title for the article would be on the lines of 'Existing Sects in the Muslim World' OR 'Existing Muslim Sects' OR 'Prevalent Sects in Islam' OR 'Muslim Sects' etc. I'd like to hear a few views from other respectable co-editors before initiating the 'move' for this article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Elazeez brings up two good points:

There are many sects of Islam that are extinct, for example Mutazili. Secondly, in most cases, the sects don't consider each other as equally legitimate - thus they don't "divide" Islam, rather claim all of it for themselves. If you ask Sunni or Shia scholars whether there should be sects in Islam, they'll say no (and then claim that all Muslims should follow their respective sect).

Thus, I agree with the above titles. "Muslim sects" I think is the most simple term.Bless sins (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to 'Muslim Sects' initiated hence. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the best title for this article. Firstly the capitalisation is wrong (it should be Muslim sects, lower case s), secondly "Muslim" is not an adjective, it is a noun. The adjective would be "Islamic", which would make the title "Islamic sects". However there is a fairly standard convention on Wikipedia to name articles as "something of something" or "something in something" rather than use a possessive adjective, for example History of Islam rather than Islamic history. Oh good grief! The article is located at Muslim history!!! What the heck is going on? I've stepped into a parallel grammar universe Maybe I'm off base here. I'm going to initiate an RfC in the section below. Zunaid©® 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Druze

It seems that in the article, Druze are listed in the sect of Shia Islam, even though this is not true. Ive been doing a lot of edits in this article, with IP addresses, ever since August of 2007, and ive added and editted a lot of information in the article, and ive always noticed how the Druze have been included in the shia denomination even though its not part of the shia sect and has nothing to do with it. The only Shia influence over the Druze are minor Ismailiyah influences. Most Muslims including the Shia dont consider the Druze as Muslims and even many Druze consider themselves as a different religion and as non-Muslim. While I initially didnt edit this section concerning the Druze, i have known much of these facts, and i have also done some additional research which have also confirmed that indeed the Druze do consider themselves as non-Muslims, while there are also a few who might consider themselves as Muslims, but the view towards them of the mainstream Muslims are that they are taken as unbelievers, due to their numerous beliefs that go against Islamic beliefs, including their belief that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is an incarnation of God and that he will return as the Mahdi. And infact the Druze had historically been prosecuted by Shias, especially by the Ismailiyah. And even on the Druze article there are many links, and one may check them out, as they all confirm these. So, im moving away the Druze from the Shia section. RebelzGang (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Druze page says they refer to themselves as "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect". You should be having this conversation on that page.Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are many mix-ups in the shia section. Im trying to correct them. Some of errors and problems ive noticed are that, Alawi is under Ismaili when it should be under Twelver, and the shia section doesnt even include another particular denomaination. RebelzGang (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

okay, i think its appropriate to move Druze to the Related Faiths section at this moment. The related faiths section contains the religions and faiths that have offshooted or been influenced by Islam, such as babism, bahaism, who claimed to be successors of islam, and nuwaibuism and the five percenters, who initially claimed to be muslim, but later considered themselves as a separfate faith, and sikhism which took influence from the religion and its followers. however, the Yazidi faith is a completely different religion altogether, with totally different beliefs and who have Not offshooted or influenced themselves from Islam. Rather they are a separate independtely started religion with a totally different history and beleifs altogether. So im removing it from the section. RebelzGang (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

best name RFC

What is the best name for the article? --harej 10:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sect is often understood pejoratively, & sociologists use it in a quite specific sense, so I don't think it's a good name. The article covers a variety of different forms of subdivision. For example, the 4 law schools recognize each other as orthodox, so they're parts of a whole that doesn't regard itself as divided. An analogy with this would be the different rites in the Roman Catholic Church, which accept the same doctrine & the Pope's headship, but have different practices on eg clerical marriage. Quite different, @ least traditionally, is the difference between Sunni & Shia (tho' al-Azhar now recognizes the Shia as the 5th school). As the article covers such a variety of different things, I don't think any particular technical term would be appropriate. Instead, you might try something like Subdivisions of Islam. Peter jackson (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote our wp article sect - not for employing wp articles as sources, but since I think this coincides pretty well with common usage of the word "sect":

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.

In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices.

This is the kind of impression the new name gives. E.g., the whole Sunni tradition is "a small group that has broken off from a large, well-established group, like a denomination". I do not think this is the impression the article name should give. JoergenB (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The name was changed recently from "Divisions of Islam". I prefer the previous name. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I understand the discussion supra, there was some criticism of the old name; but IMHO the new name is considerably worse than the old. I think some of the criticism was against the impression that Islam contains divisions in a similar manner as does Christianity. However, there should be a number of possible names that are better than "Divisions of Islam" (and thus a fortiori much better than "Muslim sects"): "Islamic schools of thought"; "Traditions and divisions in Islam"; "Trends in Islamic theology";... I'm sure no reasonable short name is completely immune to criticism, as being inexact; but I can think of few names as misleading as "Muslim sects".

How are various trends/scools of thought and religious practice (e.g., Sufism) in general referred to by Moslem scolars? JoergenB (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of Sub-divisions of Islam or even List of sub-divisions of Islam. It is perhaps more neutral than Divisions of Islam since some of the distinctions are not true divisions. What is the equivalent Christianity article called? I'm starting to think this article is better as an annotated list rather than a full blown description of each sub-division (which already have their own articles) and lends itself quite nicely to a template as well. On another note, what is the thinking around using "Muslim" as an adjective in article titles? To me it sounds grammatically incorrect. We should defer to "Islamic" or better yet "of/in Islam" per the naming convention used by most other articles. Zunaid 08:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A common term in Christianity is "denomination". Unfortunately it's not always used consistently. Eg the World Christian Encyclopedia counts every single Roman Catholic diocese as a separate denomination, which seems counterintuitive. Most people would think of the Roman Catholic Church as a single denomination, tho' admittedly most people aren't aware of the existence of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches, which recognize the Pope as head of the Church, accept Catholic doctrine, are recognized by Rome as part of the Church (with their Patriarchs sitting as Cardinals), but have quite different traditions, eg married priests. These are analogous to the 4 law schools among Sunnis. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Our (old) COD agrees with you, Zunaid, in seemingly reserving "Moslem" or "Muslim" for persons, but employing "islamic" as the most general adjective. JoergenB (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Denominations of Islam sounds better than "Divisions", which is better than "sects". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with "Denominations of Islam". "Muslim Sects" is awkward. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories:

• Religious denominations
• Christian denominations
• Islamic sects
• Branches of Buddhism

Articles:

• Religious denomination
• Christian denomination
• Schools of Buddhism

Maybe a bit of coordination would be in order. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus decision?

• Agreeing, with Peter Jacksons wish for a somewhat more consistent naming policy;
• noting the argumentation for and numeric consensus for "deminations"; and
• considering that the semantics of "denomination" according to the article Religious denomination does not imply a split into different organisations which condemn each others and the followers of the other organisations;

I think that Islamic denominations appears as the consensus suggestion. (A possible alternative would be to change all "xxx denomination" articles to something better; but seemingly no one wants to undertake this now, or has suggested amny alternative.)

However, I'm slightly worried of the fact that the parties moving the article seven weeks ago have not commented our criticism. To avoid possible oversights, I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Sects - again.

If no one points at any unresolved issues within the next few days, I'll move the article, or make a WP:RM doing it if I can't. JoergenB (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the WikiProject Islam talk page, the term denomination is hardly used in scholarly literature on Islam. The term that is used in the Islamic context is branch, and therefore I believe we should do the same. I could go into the logic behind this, however, that isn't the point, the point is on Wikipedia we follow how the topic is discussed in news and professional scholarly literature, since that is also what makes up our sources. --Enzuru 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Denominations" is awful. It isn't used, period. The article uses "schools" in the introduction. I commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Sects - again. Branch isn't offensive (unlike "division" or "sect") but part of the problem is that this article tries to cram different classifications into a single article. For example, it has schools of theology or religious philosophy (Maturidi), schools of practice (Hanafi), broad classifications of faith or approach (Sufi), schools of belief (Shi'a), and then what are more commonly called "sects," relatively small splinter groups, often transient, without centuries of history (Five Percenters). --Abd (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The "small splinter groups" in some cases are declared not to be sects, because they are small and "heretic"... a clear misunderstanding of the common use of the word "sect", I'm afraid.

Discussion again seems to have halted. I move to "Islamic schools and branches", and see what happens. JoergenB (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)