Misdemenor (talk | contribs) |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) Ok to move it→Atharis |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”"[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Theology+and+Creed+in+Sunni+Islam&source=bl&ots=wbZa7C3R50&sig=nfVyShfJ-OZkoE0i65GfoJgA2dA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMgb_7m5XMAhVHthQKHUEFDxEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=Athariyya&f=false] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”"[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Theology+and+Creed+in+Sunni+Islam&source=bl&ots=wbZa7C3R50&sig=nfVyShfJ-OZkoE0i65GfoJgA2dA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMgb_7m5XMAhVHthQKHUEFDxEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=Athariyya&f=false] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Doug Weller}} Per my evidence over at the fringe board [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Athari] the Atharis schools prominence is up in the air, however until we can sort that out: I would propose Athari be moved under others bracket per the statement from the same source: ''"This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school"''[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=orthodox+athari&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20athari&f=false] [[User:Misdemenor|Misdemenor]] ([[User talk:Misdemenor|talk]]) 03:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Doug Weller}} Per my evidence over at the fringe board [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Athari] the Atharis schools prominence is up in the air, however until we can sort that out: I would propose Athari be moved under others bracket per the statement from the same source: ''"This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school"''[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IYzGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=orthodox+athari&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20athari&f=false] [[User:Misdemenor|Misdemenor]] ([[User talk:Misdemenor|talk]]) 03:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Move is ok. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 05:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs == |
== RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs == |
||
{{rfc|reli}} |
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=604B231}} |
||
There has been a long-running dispute relating to the status of the Zahiri school. It seems to have arrived at a consensus with respect to the [[Zahiri]] article, but we still have a disagreement about presentation in this template. There are two relevant areas of controversy: |
There has been a long-running dispute relating to the status of the Zahiri school. It seems to have arrived at a consensus with respect to the [[Zahiri]] article, but we still have a disagreement about presentation in this template. There are two relevant areas of controversy: |
||
Revision as of 05:08, 20 April 2016
Movements or organizations?
The Arabic version of this template includes the Muslim Brotherhood as a movement. There is a good point to be made in that the MB is both an organization and an ideology. Additionally, we also have the Tablighi Jamaat, Murabitun World Movement and Ansar as-Sunnah - where do they fit in? Organizations or movements? And is there a way to work them in without causing the template to become bloated? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it wiki policy to use other Wikipedia articles as a reference guide for things concerning encyclopaedic entries on Wikipedia? Can you provide peer-reviewed English language sources please? F.Tromble (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sources for what, though? I'm not so much making an argument about what is or isn't an organization/movement as I am simply asking - in fact, I'd need to ask you if you have any sources on it. I got nothing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good subcategory to make, but then there's the risk of it becoming cluttered. Actually, could we make a category for organizations and at the same time trim the section for books of hadith? Some of the titles mentioned there are minor in terms of historical influence, yet it's by far the most bloated part of the template. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Template needs to be re-worked
Template looks really dull comparing to other islamic and religious templates. Needs to be re-worked on. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
When you click view button at the bottom it jumps to Template:Shia Islam... in addition template is incorrect collapsible option was used in some articles due to space limitations in those pages hence | bodyclass = collapsible is necessary, i.e hide/show -option
Sufi is not a school of divinity
Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, that escalated quickly. 213.205.251.63, you should have started discussing here after your first WP:BOLD edit was reverted, instead of reverting the reversion (see WP:BRD). Now then, about the presence of Sufism in the list of aqidahs, I agree that it looks out of place and is also not supported by the main articles: Aqidah#Traditional Sunni Schools and Schools of Islamic theology#Sunni schools of divinity. Neither lists Sufi under the Sunni aqidahs. I'm not sure where Sufi (or Ahl al-Hadith, for that matter) belongs on this template, but at least not under Aqidah, from the looks of GBooks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It was such an obvious error I didn't see why there was a need for a lengthy discussion. You'll note that none of the 4 individuals who accused me of vandalism or claimed that there were "many references" for there view will come here with a single evidence to back up there claim. The main reason for this is that here isn't any evidence. Anyway, Sufi is not a school of theology and should not be listed there. I don't believe it fits in with any of the existing sections. I did consider "movements", however this doesn't feel right either as there is overlap with other Sufi movements such as Barelvi. Another option would be to put a new section entitled "Sufi orders" and then list the main orders such as Qadiri, Chishty etc... a bit like the Sunni schools of law section. This should be acceptable as Sufism is part of Sunni Islam. As for Ahl Hadith, this is clearly a movement and should be moved there. By the way, my IP address has changed again. Apparently I am meant to inform others of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.225 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As expected, none of those who accused me of vandalism or PoV pushing have contributed to this discussion. The main reason is that they have no evidence whatsoever that Sufism is a school of theology. The "many references" they claim do not exist. I will therefore make the change that should have never have been reversed in the first place. Sigh.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.37 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is of course possible that your "accusers" forgot about this in the meantime. Try getting their attention by pinging them, e.g. via
{{u|Username}} ~~~~
. For this to work, you'll need to combine a link to the user with your signature (four tildes) in the same edit. Alternatively, leave a message at their user talk pages. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 20 February 2016
Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. Please remove.
213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit protected}}
template. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Atharis
"Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that staunchly opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns and conflicts, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE). This is the historical tradition that stressed strict adherence to the literal outward (zahir) meanings of the sacred texts, known as the Athariyya creedal school. For the Atharis, human reason can neither be trusted nor relied upon in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, this distinctly anti-theological strain of Islamic thought, which once struggled with the intellectual argumentation of the classical Sunni theologians, flourished and contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century, now known as “Islamism.”"[1] Doug Weller talk 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Per my evidence over at the fringe board [2] the Atharis schools prominence is up in the air, however until we can sort that out: I would propose Athari be moved under others bracket per the statement from the same source: "This will also allow the reader to distinguish between the two orthodox Sunni schools of theology and the Athari school"[3] Misdemenor (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move is ok. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs
There has been a long-running dispute relating to the status of the Zahiri school. It seems to have arrived at a consensus with respect to the Zahiri article, but we still have a disagreement about presentation in this template. There are two relevant areas of controversy:
- Encyclopedias and general histories commonly refer to the Zahiri madhhab as "extinct" or "defunct", while other sources cited in the article note that the modern Ahl-i-Hadith movement "consciously identified themselves with Zahiri doctrine", and that the maddhab is "prominent" among Salafis, though it is "not formally operating today".
- While there is argeement that the Zahiri school was historically considered part of the Sunni legal community, some sources state that it was then "excluded from the Sunni consensus". It was conspicuously listed apart from the Sunni madhhabs in the Amman Message, and we haven't been able to find a RS that explicitly refers to its modern form as "Sunni".
The question is how the Sunni Islam template should be designed in view of the above. Here are the options which have been floated:
- Leave the template as it is.
- Move Zahiri under "extinct"
- Move Zahiri on its own line with "disputed" in parentheses.
- Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there.
- Remove Zahiri from this template altogether.
Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Option 4: Rename the "extinct" subsection to "other" and move Zahiri there. Option 1 doesn't seem preferable because two editors have strongly opposed that no matter what. Option 2 is demonstrably false based on RS. Option 3 would only be a temporary solution since a dispute would still need to be resolved by editors. Option 5 is doctrinally impossible since all of traditional Islam is either Sunni, Shia or Ibadhi, and Zahirism isn't Shia or Ibadhi. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)