Talk:Madhhab/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other Madhabs?

Are not Zaiddiyah, Ibadi, Zahiri also described as madhabs? Perhaps there are others? Шизомби 10:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

They're not actually. They're considered schools of thought or perhaps sects. Classically however, Sunni Islam has just 4 Madhabs. --Nkv 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

title

This page has been moved from "maddhab" to "madhhab".

The pronunciation is like "mahth-hab" (where the "th" is like the "th" in "there"), rather than "mad-thab", which is how it looks now. The "dh" denotes the "th" sound as in "there". - Fred Rice March 24, 2004

Why not rename it to Mahz-hab or something? --Striver 15:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest moving the page to Madh′hab instead of Madh'hab. It might not seem like a big deal, but it's technically correct to use the prime symbol and not the apostrophe. The apostrophe represents the hamza, and the prime symbol is the designated symbol for this. It's also used for Arabic: سه (s′h) to differentiate between that and Arabic: ش (sh). Cuñado - Talk 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Salafi Islam

I removed the term "school" following the parenthetical statement discussing itjihad, as it seems somewhat erroneous to refer to Salafi Islam as a "school" relative to the actual Madh'hab when translating that word as "schools" as well. Does anyone disagree with this or have a different perspective?

I agree with your edit. MezzoMezzo 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jafari being a Madhhab?

I posted that Jafari is a madhhab due to the fact that the SUNNI islamic university Al-Azhar made a statement concerning the Jafari school, stating that it is a valid and recognized madhhab. I listed sources in the article. Sikandros (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They recognized it as a madhhab, but not as a SUNNI madhhab. In fact, the very reference you used was the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa which even notes that while Al Azhar considers it a legitimate madhhab, it is stil a SHI'A madhhab, and that they don't consider the fact that it is Shi'a to make it illegitimate. Seriously man, this is basic stuff any Muslim (Sunni or Shi'a) over the age of five could tell you. That you persist in this is quite ridiculous. In fact two of the sources you used were Shi'a sources explaining their madhhab.

You also threatened to report it as vandalism if I remove your mistake again. You need to review the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, as you don't seem to understand it at all. Any good faith edit, whether correct or incorrect, is not vandalism; vandalism is the intentional compromising of Wikipedia's integrity.

Look, if you want to get mediation on this then i'm down but I warn you this is going to reflect VERY poorly on you as an editor. The Jafari is a SHI'A madhhab, this is noted in every one of your own four sources aside from being common knowledge of anyone with even a basic understanding of Islam. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

as-Salamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu

Brother, insults will get you nowhere. The concept of a madhhab does not exist in Shi'ah Islam, therefore, they have no madhhab. The term used by Sunnis to describe the practices of the Shi'ah is Ja'fari. If a group of Sunnis followed the Ja'fari madhhab, they would be termed Ja'faris, just as one who follows Maliki would be a Maliki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikandros (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did find it strange that Jafari was in both Sunni and Shi'a sections. From what I know, there are 4 Sunni maddhabs (not including Jafari). Hence, I propose that Jafari be removed from the Sunni section. If a Sunni were to follow the Jafari rulings, then they may be called a Jafari, but this doesn't mean that Jafari is a 'school' in the sense that the other 4 are schools. In Wikipedia, we present mainstream views as far as possible. Sikandros, I believe your edits to be well-meaning, but I can assure you that the 'Jafari being a Sunni school of thought' is a very unconventional/erroneous viewpoint. As such, I strongly recommend that the Jafari content in the Sunni section be removed. Thanks. W'sam. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ja'fari is a Shi'a madhab, not a Sunni madhab - and needs to be presented as such. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Map?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a map in the article depicting the main areas of the world where each madhhab is most highly represented? -- 85.179.165.16 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done--Daffodillman (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored the map again, please do not remove without discussion and consensus.Daffodillman (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Established Schools

Please restrict editing of this section to providing additional information and/or correcting inaccuracies. Wholesale deletion of the text and replacement with a misleading and non descriptive paragraph does no one any favours. Additionally this Section is not the place to promote ones own particular preferred form of Islam, this is an encyclopaedic article.Daffodillman (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This section would benefit from a mention of Shi'ite Madh'ab from someone with some knowledge in this area.Daffodillman (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

This article is coming along nicely, thanks to those who have contributed. If anyone has suggestions forv improvements and expansion perhaps they could be posted here so we can all contribute. I think it needs more citations and references and some limited expansion of each Madh'hab as an introduction.Daffodillman (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Zahiri Madhab

There is a statement in parentheses which is being continually reverted so I would just like to make it clear again: according to the Amman Message, and Sunni Islam on the whole, the Zahiri madhab is not an accepted Sunni madhab today. Now the issue is a bt more complex than that, but the simple statement is largely true. If you read the Amman message, it mentions four schools of Sunni Islam, two Shia schools, the Ibadi school (without specifying them as kharijites) and finally the Zahiri school. If the Zahiri school were a Sunni madhab they would have just mentioned it with the other four at the beginning.

So thanks, hope that all makes sense and clears things up. I'm going to proceed and undo the undoing of the undoing :) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, would like to point out that the current listing of the eight schools is the same as appears in the Amman Message, so naturally it is better, more accurate and faithful to maintain it in this order ServantofAllah93 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your points on the organization of the mahdhab list according to the Amman Message is very logical and I think all can agree to that. While I uphold that not including it with the main four is a semantic issue - if they aren't Sunni, are they Shi'a? - your point on simply following the text of it makes a lot of sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it is NOT a Sunni Madhab. All agreed. The POV bias in favour of Zahiri has therefore been removed.109.144.134.141 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sir, you're essentially deleting sourced content across several articles using multiple IP addresses to push your own POV. I'm the one that researched the issue and added the source in the text; what I wrote represents modern scholarly consensus, not your own personal POV. Do NOT remove reliably sourced material again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

End of lede (last two sentences) belongs in Development if anywhere. Lacks clarity as it stands within the lede:

Fourth sentence was (paraphrased perhaps, sorry): "The prominent Islamic jurisprudence schools of Damascus in Syria (often named Awza'iyya), Kufa and Basra in Iraq, and Medina in Arabia survived as the Maliki madhhab, while the other Iraqi schools were consolidated into the Hanafi madhhab." The mention of Awza'iyya seems quite awkward not only within the context of that sentence fragment but in the paragraph as a whole. If that school rates a mention shouldn't it be detailed (or at least identified in a full sentence) below in Development? The fifth sentence vaguely referred to schools "developed later", pointed out that the Jariri school is no longer extant... and the paragraph ends. An indirect hint at the absorption of Awza-iyya and no mention anywhere of Laythi or Thawri? Development needs an overhaul if all recorded schools are to be touched on in a single page (and this would seem to be the appropriate page to do that, even if it requires a digression into whether the concept (or a specific interpretation) of "madhhab" is/was exclusive to Sunni). Also removed Development reference to the former Libyan leader: not only did it skip from the 10th century CE to "the modern day" in the middle of a paragraph, but it was merely the list of schools acknowledged by the Amman message, which has its own section. TheNuszAbides (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While you're point about the former Sudanese (not Libyan) leader is correct, total removal of sourced content which is technically related is something better avoided. However, I reinserted it under Amman Message and to be honest my version seems awkward upon review. Perhaps there is a better way to include it in the article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

needs correction as follows: # Zaidi (Shia) AND # Ibadi (Khawarij)

Amman Message

Main article: Amman Message

In the modern era, Sadiq al-Mahdi, the former Prime Minister of Sudan, defined the recognized schools of Muslim jurisprudence as eight specific schools. The Amman Message, a three-point ruling issued by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries, officially recognizes those eight legal schools of thought.

1. Hanafi (Sunni)
2. Maliki (Sunni)
3. Shafi'i (Sunni)
4. Hanbali (Sunni)
5. Ja'fari (Shia) (including Mustaali-Taiyabi Ismaili)
6. Zaidi (Shia)
7. Ibadi (Khawarij)
8. Zahiri

References

@68.100.166.227:corrected the link to Khawarij.--Peaceworld 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation and spelling

Amongst all the warring over Zahiri, the article seems to be bouncing around between different styles of spelling and capitalization.

Wikipedia tends toward a pro-lowercase style (c.f. decapitalization of bird species common names, and other debates). So I think we would write Impressionist school of painting rather than Impressionist School of painting. I'm not sure whether Catholic Church vs. Catholic church has been debated already. Until other precedents and further discussion reach a different consensus, can we settle on madhhab rather than Madhhab, please?

Also, it's jarring to read an article that has three variant spellings of the key term in different sentences without cause or explanation. So I would suggest the following:

• Stick to the Arabic term maḏhab, not the Urdu mazhab.
• Use the basic transliteration madhhab per WP:MOSAR.
• Lowercase, see above.
• The plural is given in the lead sentence as maḏāhib. Unless this is incorrect, in running text we should use madhahib, not madhhahib, madhabib or mazhabs.

Pelagic (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Zahirism

Stop edit warring. There's only 4 Sunni schools. The Amman message itself does not recognize Zahirism in a Sunni category. This is not the place to promote fringe movements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia lets keep it that way. Zahirism has been excluded from Sunnism and is therefore not recognized as one. Britanica does not count Zahiri as a 5th school [1]. but the four schools are mentioned on the britanica page.. Hanafi [2] Shafii [3] Hanbali [4] Maliki [5] The Ibadi school is not khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Zahiri is definitely counted among Sunni schools of jurisprudence by a number of reliable sources.[6] Statements by Sunni scholars or rulers do not matter here - as a rule of thumb we use third-party sources, which means academic works by researchers on Islam take precedence over statements by Sunni clergy or politicians. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 11:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What Kashmiri says is absolutely correct - I don't even need to wave around a single source, because the body of articles such as Madhhab, Fiqh and Zahiri make it very clear with ample reliable sources from well known academic publishing houses that Zahirism is indeed a Sunni school. It isn't famous and was certainly dead for a period, but then again the Hanbali school was also dead for a period when the Abbasid authorities outlawed it in the 900s, and it was only revived during the Mamluk era. The determining factor, then, is ultimately reliable sources, not the personal opinion of a single editor. I'm going to restore the consensus version of the articles in question, seeing as how they're based on a broad reading of academic sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Its no longer a Sunni school due to consensus against it. Many sources say its now extinct. [7] [8] [9] . You are pushing for a fringe group to be included with the 4 schools. The Amman message says the following "Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Madhahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi'i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Zahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim" [10] .Misinterpreting the message is POV. Kashmiri the source you posted just proves that the school of thought is no longer existent. Kashmiri dont follow my edits I seem to run into you everywhere. Misdemenor (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Misdemeanor, now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Your source for claiming that Zahirism is extinct by consensus is Ibn Khaldun, who died a few centuries ago. Meanwhile, over on the Zahiri article - which I know you've read since you've edited it - the history section provides numerous citations from academic/university publishers pointing out that Zahiri was extinct for a period, but has since been revived. In addition, that same section shows other people who lived both before and after Ibn Khaldun mentioning it as a school within Sunnism. And again, the question bears repeating: if Zahirism isn't Sunni as the reliable sources claim (I can't believe I'm even entertaining this, but here we go), then is it Shi'a or Ibadi? Because traditional Islam only consists of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadi. There is no third category traditionally, and the others such as Ahmadi and Submitter are much later and unrelated denominations.

You obviously seem to care about this quite a bit but the sources are all against what you say; again, even a cursory glance at the reliable sources already citing the information in Zahiri and Fiqh demonstrate that Zahirism is both Sunni and, albeit recently, extant. If I was on here claiming that the Awza'i madhhab exists, or the Thawri madhhab exists, then yeah, I'd be off my rocker. But Zahirism exists, and like the extinct Awza'i and Thawri schools, it was always Sunni and still is. I really don't know what your problem with the reliable sources is at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not just Ibn Khaldun that says they are extinct. Are you reading the sources that i have posted above or not? Did you read what britannica summarized?? Revival you say? So you want to include the salafi/wahhabi movement as part of the sunni school, by combining sources under the disguise of Zahirism?

If they truly are reviving as you claim. Why not wait until they have enough followers? Then if they self identify as “Sunni” we can say they are. Right now its misrepresentation and undue weight. Their numbers are so minuscule that you can hardly call it a minor school of sunni islam. Technically it is to be considered gone. RS rightly considers that it is. Cherry picking sources will just make others assume you are finding ways to make this school valid, revived etc. I believe its already in the article but it can mentioned that Zahiri ideology has been revived through the spirit of movements such as wahhabism/salfism. That should only be in the body not at the introduction.

There’s two issues.

1. They are extinct or so tiny that they are irrelevant. The current salafi movement members claiming to be of the school is not a valid defence. Salafi establishment does not aim to be looked at as a zahiri school follower.

2. They can’t be listed as current 5th school. They are not considered sunni by the 4 schools. In plain terms no group would want to be presumed affiliated with a group that they have severed ties with. Im not sure if it was you or the other editor that basically said “who cares what sunnis think on the matter” (mind you I’m paraphrasing). Misdemenor (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Misdemeanor, but your intellectual dishonesty has grown too great to merit a response. This isn't about Salafism or Wahhabism; there's a link but as the sources in the history section of the Zahiri article make clear, the school is existent in and of itself. If you're refusing to acknowledge that here, then that simply reflects poorly on what exactly your goal is while editing here.

When you're ready to discuss all the sources in detail, I'll be here, and I hope others will as well. Until then, you simply restating your personal beliefs and the centuries old quotes you base them on has no bearing on the article itself - and it certainly isn't a basis for editing the article, either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting that after this discussion, Misdemenor conceded on a noticeboard that Zahirism is a Sunni school at least, so that much progress has been made in the discussion. Evidence that they still exist has been posted there as well; hopefully, this can again be laid to rest. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood me I am only agreeing that it can be referred in the body section that It was once part of the Sunni establishment historically. Let me be as clear as possible; Sunni label must be removed from the head of the article, it should not be listed beside the sunni schools on the template, it needs to be labelled extinct or removed completely as it is undue weight. Misdemenor (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand at all; you just changed your tone. Across several other articles, you held that Zahirism isn't Sunni at all and that it's outside of Sunnism and Shi'ism - a baseless claim no source has ever supported at all. Most recently, you conceded that it's Sunni, but I never put words in your mouth and said that you agreed they're extant yet, hence my comment on evidence being posted. Relax; nobody is putting words in your mouth, but it's worth noting that your position has changed (more than once, it seems by your most recent posts). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets say Ahmadiyya wanted to be referred to as 5th madhhab of the traditional sunni school. Do you believe that it should be? It could not be because 4 schools reject the group. The school would need to be scholarly recognized "to be Sunni" by all 4 schools. This is the same analogy your arguing for. No academic would refer Ahmadiyya as an accepted 5th school without the other 4 schools approving. Your proposing that anybody start a school and then they can claim to be an accepted traditional school and should be portrayed as such. i believe your misconstruing the term "Sunni" here. The term refers to the traditional 4 Sunni schools, which at one point Zahiri was part of. Zahiri ended by not only being kicked out of "Sunni"(traditional islam) but also became extinct. It is not working or active. again another source distinguishing it from traditional Sunni [11]. Please stick with sources. We don't want want to have original research or fringe to reflect on articles. Misdemenor (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Misdemenor, but I've already pointed to reliable sources elsewhere proving that Zahirism is Sunni and that it still exists, while you seem to have changed your position at least twice now. We're not talking about Ahmadiyya so that's irrelevant. Zahirism might be a small minority or a non-mainstream view, but to claim it's extinct after all the contrary evidence that has been given is simply silly. If you were willing to make more reasonable suggestions regarding the articles instead of simply deleting reliable sources and getting yourself reverted by multiple editors, you'd probably find our interactions less frustrating - the community is willing to work with anyone who wants to be reasonable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion over there was archived. The board is not only to discuss content but also users. You claimed I’m pushing my own “views”. No sir I’m not, Im sticking to reliable sources and you are using original research as the uninvolved editor rightly said. Its not up to us to define what the traditional Sunni schools are. We can’t compromise because this is not a blog. Doing so would make a mockery out of the encyclopedia. Zahiri school is not sunni and its extinct. BTW why do you keep saying I change positions? Did you not read the thread I had started on the noticeboard, I clearly said reliable sources view the school to be extinct" Your simply in denial. Misdemenor (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Misdemenor Hmmm, "Zahiri is not sunni"... Interesting. Then, according to you, what school is/was it? Shia? ;) Because I hope you don't question Zahiriya is/was a school of thought. kashmiri ^TALK 11:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not "according to me", its according to the sources it was ceded from tradtional sunni islam and is not regarded as sunni. It can only be mentioned in the historical section that it was once part of the sunni schools. What is the ibadi school? sunni or shia? The answer is its none of the above. Several reliable sources say there's only 4 schools. [12] [13] [14] . This source explains that zahiri would not confirm to Sunni dogmatics and became extinct.[15]. The academics are simply stating facts so to say they are biased etc is not accurate. You can not misinterpret sources to say that Zahiri is being revived through Ahl-hadith movement. The current Salafi movement find the term Sunni as bida(innovation), they want to be referred to as muslims only. Misdemenor (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I'm getting confused, man. You are saying that "zahiri is not sunni" in one sentence, and that "[zahiri] was once part of the sunni schools" in the next one. I am having serious problem with the logics you present. It is akin to someone arguing that Stoicism is not a school of Greek philosophy because no school of thought by such name exists in modern-day Greece. Can you be so kind and explain to me the process and/or rules that make Sunni teachings become non-Sunni, when teachings themselves don't change? kashmiri ^TALK 03:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Im going to assume you have not read the discussion above. The 4 schools formed a consensus to recognize each other as traditional Sunni schools. 1. The traditional 4 schools formed a consensus to cut ties with Zahirism which led to it no longer being viewed as Sunni. 2. It is no longer an active school of thought. The only way to label them Sunni is to apply self label, but you must provide proof that they are still around which MezzoMezzo has failed to do. In plain terms they are not around to defend themselves so they are not Sunni. Hope thats clear. Misdemenor (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is how you define Sunni Islam, then I suggest you start a serious discussion at Talk:Sunni Islam. Because the current consensus definition says that "Sunni Islam is a denomination of Islam which holds that the Islamic prophet Muhammad's first Caliph was his father-in-law Abu Bakr." You are now proposing that instead Sunni Islam is what some other have jointly agreed to call as such. That is, in your view it is unimportant who a given school considers as the first Caliph, or any similar doctrinal subtleties. Instead you argue that one is Sunni by "mutual recognition". That's quite a significant departure from the classical, widely accepted definition of Sunni Islam, so I strongly suggest you bring up your proposal at that Talk page, or even at WikiProject Islam. But until a new definition is accepted, let's stick to the prevalent consensus that any Islamic school of thought that accepts Abu Bakr as the first Caliph be called a Sunni school, okay? Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 16:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You did not understand me. I meant thats how traditional Sunni Islam is defined. Traditional Sunni Islam is defined by the 4 classical schools. You can not propose modern Sunni to be defined as classical that would be outright false. You can not propose that any new movement be part of the traditional Sunni islamic school. All academics have made note that Zahiri did not confirm to the traditional Sunni school so it was not classified as Sunni. See britannica's page on Zahiri here [16]. Your porposal that any group can be Sunni would be acceptable to the current era. That involves any active groups claiming to be Sunni per self label wheather or not they follow the proper caliph. Which means as long as they say "we are sunni" editors are obliged to label them such. By your logic even the khawarij were sunni because they accepted Abu Bakr as the Caliph Misdemenor (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Misdemeanor, but this has gone beyond the realm of being helpful or even serious. Reliable sources point out that Zahirism existed, went extinct, and experienced a revival. Reliable sources prove that there are still Zahiri scholars in existence. Reliable sources prove that Sunni Islam is defined by acceptance of the four Rashdun caliphs. You're stuck on this dogmatic belief of yours that Sunnism is defined as four madhahib, and you reject all reliable sources that go contrary to that view by insisting that it is not possible for another school to be considered Sunni. That's religious fundamentalism, that isn't encyclopedic, and that's beyond the point of being considered.

You've failed multiple times to make your point and if you're going to continue like this, then I'll consider the discussion closed and take any attempts by you to edit against reliable sources (which you've outright deleted before) based on your own dogmatic beliefs as combative editing and report accordingly. You've wasted enough time with the back and forth pushing of your religious beliefs on the encyclopedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again your using original research and im not the only one thats made that claim [17],You have clearly not read the rules on the dispute resolution as you have started to personally attack me there, I suggest you stick to wikipedia policies or this will escalate in you being topic banned. Misdemenor (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I never personally attacked you; I made a judgment based on the malicious SPI you started on Kashmiri on myself and the fact that, when neither you nor the volunteer user could actually prove that any OR took place, you just disappeared until the NPOV noticeboard discussion was closed and then opened a DR discussion. But that's fine; just more proof that the RS do state that Zahirism experienced a revival and thus exists, and is Sunni, and that you're pushing your own personal religious POV. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I and the uninvolved editor delusional? or are we sunni's influenced by dogmatism? Which one is it? I did not open the discussion at NPOV to go back and forth with you. I wanted outside opinion on the matter. Seeing that discussions with you have been exhausted I would like others input. Misdemenor (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Now wait a minute Misdemenor, you claimed multiple times on the NPOV discussion that you opened the topic to discuss me (despite the fact that the notice board expressly isn't to discuss users). Now you say you want an outside opinion on the matter, and that you want the input of others (which I would love, personally). This is at least the third time you've backtracked on the positions you've held without clarifying your intent. Is your goal to discuss me personally, or the actual topic?

If it's to discuss me personally, then this isn't the place for it, and nor was the NPOV notice board.

If you only want to discuss the topic, then what was the point of the SPI where you tried to link myself, Kashmiri and Gorge - which will probably go down in Wikihistory as one of the most obviusly ridiculous SPIs ever?

We aren't getting anywhere since you won't plainly state, in clear English, what exactly you want. If you've changed positions then that's fine, but you need to be u front about that. Because if you just say that you want an outside opinion without stating clearly about what, then we're all going to keep waiting around for clarity and mediation that simply won't come. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the DRN thread was closed after becoming stale. As I predicted, Misdemeanor, your attempts at forum shopping across several noticeboards, slandering multiple editors whom you disagreed with via a ridiculous SPI and your inability to state what exactly you want hasn't really yielded the results you seem to want. Reconsider what exactly you want to happen here, what sort of changes you're proposing, and try to state them in a way that doesn't involve threatening other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself so listen carefully. I am entitled to discuss editors on that noticeboard just ask any administrator if you dont believe me. Every now and then you make a summary of my actions. Im not going to entertain your red herring. We already got outside input hence the uninvolved editor. The school of thought should not be given any prominence and we need to follow reliable sources. Misdemenor (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, I hate repeating myself just as much - and considering the fact that you were reverted by multiple users across several weeks, I think that the message has been repeated enough. Please stop pushing your baseless POV that Zahirism is extinct - you blatantly rejecting reliable sources and then pretending that you're following them won't fool anybody over the age of twelve. You've been warned by multiple users now; if you revert war again, this will go straight to the notice boards, and you will lose. When you're ready to have a mature discussion, please let the community know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Zahirism redux

@MezzoMezzo and Misdemenor: It looks like I inadvertently stepped in the middle of a heated discussion. Let me see if I can help toward a resolution. I'll address two issues here: whether Zahiri is extinct (with belongs to the Zahiri article) and whether it's Sunni.

To start with the obvious (WP:NPOV), we should reflect "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I believe every discussion of Zahirism in general histories and encyclopedia entries that I've come across referred to it as extinct. I'm aware of several such sources and that's clearly a significant view. There are also sources cited in Zahiri which present a different perspective. Our goal here is not to decide which perspective is right or wrong, but to find a wording that adequately reflects both these views.

Likewise, our goal is not to determine who is and isn't Sunni. The Amman Message is one significant view. There are also sources that refer to the historical Zahiri school as Sunni. The tricky question is whether or not we can refer to its recent revival under that term. Based on my understanding, those who identify themselves as its followers these days, would certainly consider themselves Sunni. Problem is, none of the sources I've checked explicitly use that term for those contemporary currents. So, unless we can produce such a source, I don't think we can identify modern Zahirism as Sunni without violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: thank you so much for stepping in, and I'm sorry if it came all of a sudden. I'll try to be succinct, since so much has already been said.

I would still posit that Zahirism be recognized as Sunni for two reasons, neither of which would constitute a synthesis:

1. All strains of traditional Islam (not counting later sects such as Ahmadiyya) will either be Sunni, Shi'ite, or Ibadhi; the delineation is whether one accepts the first four Rashid Caliphs (Sunni), the prophet Muhmmad's family exclusively (Shi'ites), or some of the Caliphs and not others (Ibadhi). There's no such thing as a fourth category outside of Muslim polemics, ex. Sufis and Salafis both declaring each other non-Sunni. If Zahirism isn't Sunni, then are they Shia? Or Ibadhi? This is essentially an argument for default.
2. Zahirism never stopped being Sunni. If it was Sunni in the past, why isn't it now? Because a 500 year old ruling from the Mamluks (which is the sources the other individual is citing) said so? If the Amman Message is only one view, then isn't the same true for a court ruling in a fallen empire?

For me, I just don't see how Zahirism stopped being Sunni when it's a madhhab that acknowledges the first four caliphs; if someone does that, then they're Sunni, and if they don't, then they're Shia or Ibadhi. To me, this isn't synthesis; this is a very basic fact.

Anyway, thank you so much for adding to the discussion - I think the others involved were turned off when they were hit with personal attacks, and with only myself and Misdemenor, I don't think a resolution can be reached. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: This is a view that may be shared by many others, but I don't think it's the kind of incontrovertible conclusion to which WP:SYNTH wouldn't apply. A clear indication of that is the different position taken by the authors (and apparently signatories) of the Amman Message, which seems incompatible with your premises. One can also point to some intricacies of the question. For example, is the meaning of "Sunni" the same when it is used to classify a maddhab and as a personal identification? Also, what significance does a broad juridical consensus have for the identification of a maddhab as Sunni (one might say, how does ijma` relate to jama`a)? The notion of "exclusion" from the consensus is a recurrent theme in RSs on the history of Sunni fiqh, and in particular in application to the Zahiri school. My point is not to get into a debate about these subtleties, but simply to note that this question is complex and admits of multiple perspectives, so that we should limit ourselves to reporting the relevant conclusions made in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: the gist of what you are saying makes sense. Upon review, I must concede - and please correct me of I misunderstood - that:

1. RSs mention a juridical consensus that Zahirism stopped being Sunni at one point.
2. We would need RSs explicitly stating that its current reincarnation is now Sunni again.

It's a consistent position (if I understood it correctly). I find it strange that a single ruling from the Mamluk state would represent juristic consensus, but your central point seems sound. There are a few choices we are now faced with, though.

1. Sunni Islam has traditionally been defined by accepting the first four caliphs - NOT by following one of the four mainstream fiqhi madhhabs since most Muslims are laymen and don't know anything about the madhhabs. Since the modern day Zahiris still accept them, as did the ancient ones, then what do we call them? RSs on the articles of Zahiri individuals mention them as Sunnis; how do we reconcile that? (not rhetorical)
2. The Ahl al-Hadith movement is a major movement of ultra conservative Sunnis in South Asia; most explicitly call themselves Zahiri in addition to also being very right wing Sunnis. How do we reconcile that?
3. All of traditional Islam is considered Sunni, Shia or Ibadhi. So are Zahiris Shia or Ibadhi, if not Sunni? (not rhetorical)
4. How do we declare Zahiris a new fourth category of Islam, despite the fact that the modern day people who are Zahiri are all Sunnis, and avoid original research? (not rhetorical)

I don't mean to be argumentative, because your central to points as I understood them are solid. My only concern is how we regard the above points. In addition, we have two decisions which are probably easy to make in light of what you said:

1. On the Template:Sunni Islam, where does Zahiri go? It isn't extinct, so do we remove it entirely, or create a little section for "rejected/disputed" madhhabs?
2. In the Zahiri article, how do we explain this specifically in the text?

Please understand that I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue; if you check the archives of the talk page for the Barelvi article, for example, you'll find half a dozen of us hammering out ever detail of every line acrosd a few weeks. It was time consuming but we brought the article in line with policies and the changes stuck, as a result. And since I and a few others got nowhere during the previous exchanges with a certain person on this topic, I'm actually relieved that you're bringing these points tp the table. So if my words come off the wrong way, then please accept my apologies - I'm thrilled that you're volunteering your time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Rest assured, your courtesy and attention to detail are appreciated! Of the questions you raise, some clearly bear on problematic choices we have to make, and I think we can address them in a policy-compliant way. Others, while theoretically valid, may not have to be answered in order to reach concensus on the articles. Please let me know if I'm wrong about some of these distinctions. Here are my practical proposals:

1. The Sunni Islam template seems to be the most problematic. This is an issue of due weight, and at the moment, I don't know the sources well enough to argue for a specific option. Adding a "disputed" subcategory is one. Another option is renaming "extinct" to "other". The purpose of the template is not to take sides in these debates, but rather to facilitate navigation to the articles that reflect the different perspectives. By the way, I can't find the original text of the Amman message, but I did find this semi-official summary (أحد المذاهب الأربعة من أهل السنّة والجماعة (الحنفي، والمالكي، والشافعي، والحنبلي) والمذهب الجعفري، والمذهب الزيدي، والمذهب الإباضي، والمذهب الظاهري). I have to say, this is scant evidence to work with. It would be good to find sources where this dispute is covered in more detail.
2. In the text of the articles, we can tell the story of the Zahiri school as RSs do, borrowing their phrasing about "exclusion". This article, in particular, has a lot of room for improvement, and I originally came here planning to work on the history section. I'm not sure what role the Mamluk ruling you refer to played in this history. I don't have full access to sources that discuss this in detail, but the breadcrumbs seem to lead back to Hallaq's thesis that considers it to be a matter of juridical controversy (per Christopher Melchert in snippet view: "We may guess at some of the reasons for the demise of the original Zahiri school. [...] This is roughly the explanation of Wael B. Hallaq: that the juridical theory of Sunnism recognized qiyas and therefore excluded Zahirism.").
3. We don't have to apply sectarian labels where RSs don't. For example, at a glance it looks like the Zahiriyya article in Brill's Enc of Islam 2nd ed never once addresses the question of whether or not the madhhab is/was part of Sunni Islam in the space of five columns of text, so it's not necessarily an issue of vital importance. If RSs identify modern followers of the Zahiri school as Sunnis while discussing that school, we can mention that while staying clear of synthesis.

Does that make sense? Eperoton (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: whoa...just whoa. You have no idea how refreshing this is. I've edited Islam related articles here for almost a decade; in general, such discussions often leave one open to all sorts of incivility and rudeness and this discussion has been no different. You're a breath of fresh air, both in terms of manner and ideas. I'm not one to kiss behinds either, so that means something.

1. Wait a minute...sidestepping the issue should be fine, right? There has to be a way to just design a simple template without giving further value judgment, though I never considered it before myself. Could we do a RfC for choosing between renaming "extinct" to "other" and putting Zahiri there, or just putting Zahiri in smaller text than the four mainstream schools and writing "disputed" or something next to it?
2. If I understand correctly, the solution here is to gather more sources, expand on existing articles and simply improve the encyclopedia through more writing. If I understood that correctly, then I'm totally down - I'd much rather be doing that than being called a "snake-eating ignoramus."
3. Your last point does make sense; I suppose we just don't need to address the issue everywhere and only bring it up where relevant based on sources...currently, are there any problems of that nature in existing articles? (I think we're talking about madhhab, zahiri and fiqh, right?)

This might be it. You have no idea how mild this has been compared to many other discussions; the Barelvi article (which I mentioned) became a mini warzone for a while and even if things did turn out alright in the end, a lot of us got insulted by other editors who came and went along the way. This discussion, however, has been awesome. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Yes, this has been an uncommonly enjoyable DR. I look forward to disagreeing with you about other articles. :)

I think doing an RFC for the template is a great idea. Hopefully, we can summarize the current points of consensus cogently enough to avoid another long debate about them. I've made some hopefully non-controversial changes to the Zahiri article, but I think the lead still needs a bit of work. For the opening phrase, here is how some tertiary sources handle it:

• EI2: "Al-Zahiriyya, a theologico-juridical school in medieval Islam..."
• The Oxford Distionary of Islam: "School of Islamic law founded by Abu Sulayman Daud al-Zahiri in the ninth century. Flourished in Spain, particularly under the leadership of the jurist Ibn Hazm. Extinct by the fourteenth century, although it is recognized by four extant Sunni schools"

We could write something like: "The Zahiri madhhab or Al-Zahiriyya is a school of Islamic jurisprudence founded by Dawud ibn Khalaf (died 883). It is characterized, etc. After a limited success and decline in the Middle East, the Zahiri school flourished in Spain, particularly under the leadership of Ibn Hazm." Then, in the second paragraph: "Although the Zahiri school is commonly characterized as extinct, it still retains a measure of influence and is recognized by contemporary Islamic scholars. It is adhered to etc". What do you think? Eperoton (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Based on the liberties taken with the sources I've verified so far in Zahiri, that article could use additional source verification. Eperoton (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The suggested lead above seems fine enough - you seemed to have worked around some of the more contentious points while still adhering to the sources. Plus, since I was technically involved in the disagreement above, it's probably more fair that a previously uninvolved editor handle some of the tweaks, verifications and rewrites.

Regarding the RfC, shall we phrase the question as an issue between "disputed" for Zahiri or "other" for all mahhabs aside from the main four? I figure once that's posted over on the template talk page, we could post alerts at the Islam and historical project pages to let more editors know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: That sounds like a good plan. I can do that a bit later, or please go ahead yourself. Eperoton (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see if I can get around to it first, if not I might come knocking - it seems we both also have other projects going on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Reliable sources say its extinct you cant refer to the article. I would like sources that counter mine without using wp:snyth. The articles opening line should refer to the school in past tense. Misdemenor (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: give it a rest. You've been proven wrong about Zahirism being extinct not only here but also by other editors at other pages. The discussion is going to move on with or without you; if you want to keep making blatantly false claims, or simply making takfir of anyone you disagree with as you just did a few sections up, then you're going to find yourself alone. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Folks, I think we all win the Bill Clinton Hair-Splitting Prize for managing to conjure up an appropriate context for his famous observation: it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Seriously, we could debate what it means for a maddhab to "be" in the present tense in this day and age, and look around for Arabic sources on the "fifth madhhab" controversy, which doesn't seem to have hit English-language publications yet. However, I can't help but think we all have better things to do on the WP. Hence, I propose that we deviate from the customary WP usage slightly and imitate the two encyclopedias cited above in omitting the troublesome word altogether. Ẓāhirī (Arabic: ظاهري) or al-Ẓāhirīyya: a school of Islamic jurisprudence, etc. Eperoton (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Zahiri should be omitted from the sunni template per undue weight or added under extinct. Labeling it other will make the template look awkward by itself. Misdemenor (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll write up an RFC about the template shortly. Eperoton (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruling regarding following a madhhab

I'm really quite shocked that the Sufi movement here on Wikipedia seems to be at it again. I recently had to remove an entire section sourced by Attack sites and, in the case of masud.co.uk, hateful material used to "cite" this section. It has been said many times over: the position of Sunni Islam for centuries is that the layman has no madhhab; madhahib are for students of knowledge who wish to learn fiqh in an organized fashion. The laymen simply asks the scholar for his opinion, and this is not a madhhab. ONLY the modern day Sufi movement, with their revision of traditional texts, has attempted to imply that traditional Sunnism considered following a madhhab for laymen. This is evidence by the implication in the deleted section that non following a madhhab came from Saudi Arabia; a ridiculous assertion considering that Saudi Arabia teaches the Hanbali madhhab in its schools, and this accusation is only due to the enmity leaders of this Sufi movement such as GF Haddad and Tim Winter have for the country. And if there was any sort of a debate or consensus reached, it would have NOTHING to do with Peace TV, a 21st century English-language TV station whose influence is less than nothing in light of Islamic scholarly history. Please, let's all keep Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research in the event that anyone witnesses a return of such unfounded claims. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you brother for your input. Discussion is welcome. However, I will have to respectfully disagree with some points, while conceding and agreeing on others. Firstly, I would suggest that you desist from attacking the apparent (yet most likely non-existent) 'Sufi movement on Wikipedia', in a similar fashion that I would advise against people from attacking the big scary "salafi" or "wahhabi" movement, which similarly does not exist. The point being, when you disagree with someone, rather than resorting to labels, it is better to engage with them on their content. Secondly, it would seem that it is being inferred that masud.co.uk is an 'attack site', containing hateful material. To put it bluntly, this is baseless and not true, but on top of this is an altogether surprising allegation because I can't for the life of me figure out what the 'hateful material' or attack site nature of it comes from :/ Anyway, I will conclude that a slight oversight was made in the heat of argument, which happens to all of us. Just one further point on this matter, if the masud.co.uk link is consulted, you will see that the 'fatwa' is not authored by the site, rather it is simply hosted by it. The author of the 'fatwa' is the famous and most eminent Murabit Al-Hajj, and he is in and of himself a most reputable source, in a similar fashion as if you were to have a quotation from Tolstoy on Russian literature.

Also, it was stated "ONLY the modern day Sufi movement, with their revision of traditional texts" - again, please consider what was said about labelling, though I again make the assumption that this was a regrettable remark made in the heat of argument so no real harm caused :) However, this accusation against Sufis alone belies the number of valid and reputable references given. To simply remove the whole refenced section is incorrect, however if a good reason can be brought for this, I implore you please bring it to this talk page :)

However, your point made about the statements concerning Saudi Arabia is perhaps a valid one and I have sought to clean up the section and added a reference. I believe an acceptable level of neutrality has been reached, however please again feel free bring forth reasons why this may not be the case :) Indeed Saudi Arabia does teach Hanbali in its schools, as Saudi Arabia is the home of Hanbalism and the current Arabian Government is really the first ruling government to institute a sort of Hanbali Islamic law. However, as has been said in the revised version, and referenced, Saudi Arabia is also generally home to the Salafi movement, and the boundary between Hanbali and Salafi fiqh is often blurred to beyond distinction.

I have conceded that remarks made concerning PeaceTV and its speakers should be removed, however the influence of the channel considering its worldwide viewership should not be underestimated, especially considering such a small number of laymen have access to traditional sources, and are more likely to turn on the television in their tens of millions to hear a simple message in Urdu or English.

Looking forward to constructive feedback :) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you that after almost six years on this site that the Sufi movement here, while uncoordinated, is real and pops up every few months. There is no way to prove this other than simple experience.

As for the issue of masud, however, then it's hateful intent is very clear; it represents only the Sufi-Ash'ari point of view, and both the hosted material and the people who run the site have come close to declaring Salafis, for example, to be outside the fold of Sunni Islam. It's just as subjective and biased as sites such as "Troid" or "salafimanhaj" and neither should be tolerated as serious references on an encyclopedic website. Both G.F. Haddad and Yasir Qadhi are similar in that neither should be cited when speaking about other movements, because objectivity simply won't be there. The issue of the masud site has already been discussed perhaps five years ago and noone who is familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and neutral POV would accept such a site.

Now, is Saudi Arabia the home of the Salafi movement? Yes, for the most part, and Salafis are quite often hostile toward madhhabs, even the Hanbali madhhab. So what you've said there is accurate and cannot really be opposed, as long as it is made clear that the government in Saudi, especially in the last few years, has taken a very traditional approach to Islamic jurisprudence.

Ok, about PeaceTV. You're correct, it's modern, advanced and has a lot of viewers. But to say this view is considered refuted - by who? There are 1.5 billion Muslim people in the world, most are working poor in manual labor or agriculture. It is impossible to prove what the bulk of 1.5 billion people think, and as for scholars than there are quite a few scholars associated with the Athari school of aqida in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and so forth who don't agree with the view traditionally held by Ash'aris on madhahib and taqlid. To claim that one view or the other is refuted is to take a side, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is about providing information and then letting the reader decide. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll take your word for Sufi movement, but what defines "Sufi" anyway?

Considering that the Asharis, together with the Maturidis, represent the vast bulk of Muslims, and considering that the two represent Classical Orthodox Islam, it's hard to say it's a POV, unless you are saying it is the established, majority POV?

With regards to Masud.co.uk, I again insist the website is irrelevant, as like I said they are hosting a fatwa. Now even if they are hate preachers or whatever, that is irrelevant to the fact that Murabit Al-Hajj is not, and is considered one of the foremost scholarly luminaries in the Muslim world. To draw a comparison, it's like a Socialist website hosting a transcript of an Obama speech... even if the website is another hate-preacher, it is only hosting an accurate transcript of a speech of someone completely unrelated to the group.

To make it more clear, I inserted the words Orthodox and Classical. So the Orthodox opinion has been given. While yes you admit that many challenge this today, again this is not the orthodox opinion. So hopefully that has been made clearer and is no longer possibly ambiguous.

And you make a point about 'refute' which is valid, so I have rephrased it appropriately. ServantofAllah93 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

While I am happy to have the feedback, there are a few things where it's necessary to put one's foot down and call out a disagreement over factual information. The claim which Ash'aris and Maturidis often repeat - that they comprise most of the Muslim world - is beyond ridiculous. In order to understand and join either movement, one must study multiple classical texts of Greek logic and syntheses such as jawharat at-tawhid; things with the common laymen from Africa and Asia neither have the time, education or resources to do. One of the difficulties of pinning down Athari/Hanbali/whatever one wishes to call it creed is that it includes the vast majority of Musim laymen. The fact that the highly educated at insititutions like Azhar and Deoband (and even then, both places have scholars who are also Athari) might ascribe to these schools says nothing about the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, especially considering that these two intellectual movements are somewhat antagonistic toward laymen and the beliefs they commonly hold. I don't see how, logically, Asharis or Maturidis can claim to have sway over any more than the scholars of those creedal schools and their direct students.

As for Murabit al-Hajj, then he is held in high esteem, but again only among those who agree with them. If we do want to go classical/orthodox, then we find that the scholars of all four madhihab were unanimous that the laymen - again, the vast majority of the Muslims - do not have a madhhab; they ask the knowledgeable ones and are not bound to only ask scholars of one school, or even ask only one scholar. The notion that Muslims must follow madhahib is a relatively recent phenomenon, and even in institutions like Deoband which have a Maturidi majority, there is a recent movement among Hanafis of both Maturidi and Athari creeds to recognize that the layman has no madhhab; thus, they are returning to the orthodox position that madhahib are for scholars and students. I can bring the quotes from the Hanafi and Shafi'i scholars on this matter in particular, though I think that since both you and I appear to be busy and only edit intermittently, we might shelve this for now and move the differing views of the Sufi/Ashari-Maturidi and true classical/orthodox view to a shared sandbox page, and do our best to ensure that both views are represented. Will that serve better to represent all views? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sunni view NOT sufi view, is that "Salafis" (Albani etc) are outside the fold of Islam. If masud website has not declared that already then they risk being non muslim according to the Sunni establishment. So if your trying to say masud is extremist for its views then you might as well call the whole Sunni establishment that. Historically sunni muslims do not tolerate fringe groups. The Amman message is a dubious statement that wasnt made clear to the signatories. It uses words like "true salafi" thought which can easily be misconstrued to mean anything. Let me be clear mainstream Sunni Islam is not what salafists are pushing for around the world. The academics agree not because they want to take sides but because its the hard truth. Asharis and maturidis are the orthodox sunni creed [18]The layman theory is not an excuse to be uneducated in Islamic law, it was used in a time when Sunnis had a central authority. In plain terms it means not everyone is a scholar. In the Hanafi India/Pakistan the Barelvi are the traditional/Classical group NOT deoband the semi salafist therefore "layman has no madhhab" is expected from a reform group. Salafist propaganda is to dismiss following a madhhab, but have been labelled Wahhabi school followers regardless by Sunnis. Much like the Salafist theology you are trying to come up with your own opinion on what "truly is mainstream", the definition of mainstream here is referring to traditional or majority followers of Sunni Islam but I believe your incorrectly equating this definition to mean one who is on the "right path". In modern times Salafi-Sunni disagreements are intentionally being labeled a Sufi disagreement by Salafist propagandists inorder to undermine Sunnis. The Salafis gained foothold in the muslim world by attacking Sunni doctrines directly, NOT just for tolerating Sufi practices. The famous Salafist Muhammed Abduh said "I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam". This statement proves entirely that Salafist thinkers view the Sunnis to be deviants if not non muslims and this is why they are proponents of reform. Misdemenor (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Responding to a four year old discussion just to prove that you're an extremist who declares other Sunnis to be outside the fold of Islam? Seriously? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Im not the one following the radical Salafist ideology. Merely every single terrorist group today follows Salafism. In your above statement you implied Sunnis deviants who needed to return to "orthodox practices" by disregarding madhhab. I cant help but mention the late Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti who wrote a book called "Al-La Madhhabiyya (Abandoning the Madhhabs) is the most dangerous Bid‘ah Threatening the Islamic Shari'a". He ended up being killed for his views. Let me reiterate my statement SUNNIS view Salafists non muslim. The Sunni establishment did not find itself in a situation where sects kept multiplying in the past, therefore Madhhab being mandatory was not an issue till now. Its also not Sunni view that the majority are deviants who must return to "orthodox practices". Misdemenor (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more striking: that you repeated takfir of an entire group of people, or that you think you know what I believe in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is very clear to everyone unless you changed your position since then. Misdemenor (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)