This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

what is the door like - lilmissattitude

this "basilica" is not located in terrassa but in monistrol de montserrat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.76.106.154 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Red Sox Nation" in the article appearss to be a gratuitous reference to an external element- unrelated fandom. This is that reference:

"In Red Sox Nation, many Christians (especially Anglican and Roman Catholic) have small yard shrines; some of these greatly resemble side altars, since they are composed of a statue placed in a niche or grotto; this type is colloquially referred to as a bathtub Madonna. Nativity scenes are also a form of yard shrine."-

[run on sentence]

But WHAT's Red Sox Nation spozed to mean here? Is RSN in reference to location? the book? some cult expression - or what? 69.228.91.158 (talk) user: HILARLEO

This article/list had many sarcastic comments, which have now been removed, because the author was editorializing quite a bit against the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. Since there are no citations in the descriptive paragraphs, where did this information come from in the first place? It seems like someone's personal opinions! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this be changed to "List of shrines", without any descriptive, editorializing paragraphs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The classical Sunni position has and always has been that it is forbidden to raise graves, pray near them, venerate or call upon the dead and so on. This is clearly referenced and can be widely read about in any book of sunni jurisprudence (Maliki, Sha'fi, Hanbali, Hanafi).

It is upon those that support the act of grave veneration, namely the shia and sufi groups, to provide references for these practices if they wish it to be incorporated into a unified Islam section. The truth is that they follow a unique POV and this should not affect the balance of the article with regard to the mainstream practice of Islam which forbids it.

It is recommended that the grave should not be raised more than one hand span. It should also be demarcated with some sort of ridge. The purpose for this is to make it clear that it is a grave so it will be respected.

Jâbir has narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) raised the level of a grave one hand span.

Al-Qâsim b. Muhammad said to `Aishah: “O `Aishah, mother, show me the grave of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his two Companions. She exposed three graves. They were neither high nor flat, and they were covered with gravel.” [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]

It is disliked for a grave to be raised higher than that. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent `Ali b. Abî Tâlib to Yemen, he commanded him: “Do not leave a statue without destroying it or a high grave without leveling it.” [Sahîh Muslim]

Sakimonk ^talk 23:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the entire section on Sunni Islam has been copied and pasted word for word from the following bigoted sources:

• http://islamqa.info/en/21394
• http://islamqa.info/en/65944

In addition to this being a copyright violation, the sources are not reliable or impartial. Islam QA is a fanatical Salafi website that considers all non-Salafis to be heretics and deviants.

The Sufism and Shi'ism sections are even worse as there is not a single reference given at all. I will look to rewrite the entire section using academic sources. Further, it is not clear to me why the Sufism section is separate to Sunni Islam given that Sufism is part of Sunni Islam. RookTaker (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the entire section seems to be about the legality of constructing on graves. Whilst some of this might be relevant to this article, the definition of a shrine covers a lot more than this. RookTaker (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the difference(s) between a shrine and a Sanctuary?. --Lagoset (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an illustration supposedly of a Buddhist shrine at Wat Phnom in Phnom Penh. It's not. It's a memorial commemorating the return of three provinces to Cambodia in 1907. The statue is of king Sisowath, and the three ladies to the right symbolise the three provinces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.134.140 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the recent edits by Batreeq as they consisted of removing reliable material from the book The Living and the Dead in Islam written by Werner Diem and Marco Schöller. It is published by Otto_Harrassowitz an academic publishing house and therefore absolutely fulfills the conditions for WP:RS. If you think it is not acceptable then put your reasons here. MontyKind (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this reversion by you, you state: "Undid revision 852144250 by Batreeq (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced content and addition or primary sources. Take your contentious edits to the talk page."

You are incorrect and have missed my citing of secondary sources. I am correcting the article which contains fallacious information. This is in no way a violation of WP:OR, because

• It is explained. I utilize edit summaries. My latest edit summary reads: "Restoring edits. They were already sourced, yet I have added additional sourcing (e.g. Oxford). The following are sourced: Oxford, Imam Muslim's commentary, Imam Bukhari's commentary."
• I cited Oxford Islamic Studies Online (for extra corroboration).
• I quoted and cited the hadith commentaries (which are each secondary sources) of Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj and Muhammad al-Bukhari, who are classical Muslim scholars, above the quoted hadiths. For your convenience, I have screenshotted the cited hadith page and marked it up to explain my illustrate my point: https://imgur.com/Er8r3Fq.

Clearly, there is no issue here. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting you again as you have removed material which is sourced from academic publications that clearly fulfill WP:RS. You have provided no reason for this removal despite being asked for a reason above. Further the mass quotes from religious sources are primary sources and are again your interpretation so do come under WP:OR. MontyKind (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reason to revert my edits because they do not violate any known policy, and Wikipedia:Be bold encourages us to improve articles. Simply revising a section does not warrant reversion or warning a user. I have not violated WP:OR because I have cited and quoted scholarly interpretations from three different scholarly sources —Oxford, commentary of Muslim ibn Hajj, and commentary of Muhammad Al-Bukhari—all of which are secondary sources that interpret the primary source (hadith of the Prophet). – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading what I write here? If so, then why have you not responded to the questions I raised? If not, then please do so before responding. For your convenience I will once again explain why I reverted your edit. You removed a significant amount of content sourced from the book The Living and the Dead in Islam written by Werner Diem and Marco Schöller. It is published by Otto_Harrassowitz an academic publishing house and therefore absolutely fulfills the conditions for WP:RS. I am asking you once again why you removed the content and the source. Removing content can be interpreted as vandalism per WP:VAN which states that, "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." MontyKind (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at page 177 and 178 of the book. It supports my edits of flattening the grave. Nonetheless, my edits are within Wikipedia's policies and do not violate WP:OR. I should be asking if you are reading my arguments. Why are you ignoring the fact that I cited Oxford and two commentaries of classical scholars of the hadith? I am not vandalizing and you cannot prove that my removal (and replacement with reputable sources) constitutes "malicious removal", nor am I disregarding any policies. WP:VAN in context reads:

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that the editor in question is intending to improve Wikipedia, those edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful; instead of calling such problems vandalism, use the appropriate terminology to make it easier to correct. When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement, for that reason you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a standard warning template. Choose the correct template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct."

Please read WP:NOT VANDALISM. Additionally, please reply with how you believe this issue can be resolved. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue at hand, you have repeatedly attempted to remove well sourced material from this article and I have asked you on a number of occasions to explain your reasons for this. To date, you have not provided a reason. To spell it out further I will breakdown the material that you tried to removed in detail:

• More than any other tomb in the Islamic world, the shrine of Muhammad (s) is considered a source of blessings for the visitor. --Ref: Diem, Werner; Schöller, Marco (2004-01-01). The Living and the Dead in Islam: Indices. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 46. ISBN 9783447050838.

Can you explain why you removed this?

• Among famous sayings attributed to Muhammad (s) include one stated as: "He who visits my grave will be entitled to my intercession." --Ref: Diem, Werner; Schöller, Marco (2004-01-01). The Living and the Dead in Islam: Indices. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 46. ISBN 9783447050838.

Can you explain why you removed this?

• Visiting Muhammad's tomb after the pilgrimage is considered by the majority of Sunni legal scholars to be recommended. --Ref: Diem, Werner; Schöller, Marco (2004-01-01). The Living and the Dead in Islam: Indices. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 55. ISBN 9783447050838.

Can you explain why you removed this?

• The tombs of other Muslim religious figures are also respected. The son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the primary jurists of Sunnism, reportedly stated that he would prefer to be buried near the shrine of a saintly person than his own father --Ref: Diem, Werner; Schöller, Marco (2004-01-01). The Living and the Dead in Islam: Indices. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 7-8. ISBN 9783447050838.

Can you explain why you removed this?

The above sources all fulfill the conditions of WP:RS. If you think otherwise then please provide your reasons here. I asked you about this at the beginning of the discussion and you still haven't answered.

You also added the following line "In Sunni Islam, the building of shrines over graves is generally considered forbidden." You stated that this was sourced from the definition of Shrine in the Oxford Islamic Studies Online website by John Esposito. I had a look at the definition and could find no such claim. Can you substantiate the precise text that backs up this claim? The text I am looking at begins "SHRINE. The Arabic term qubbah (a tomb surmounted by a dome) refers throughout the Muslim world to.."

You also mass quoted Hadith from two religious works produced over a thousand years ago. The problem here is that you are using primary sources to back up your personal interpretation. It is no different to quoting from the Bible and then adding your own conclusions. This is precisely what WP:OR is. You would need secondary sources to back up your interpretation of the primary sources to justify inclusion. Further, the mass quoting of content falls under WP:LONGQUOTE and should be avoided. Additionally, you have taken your translations from sunnah.com. This website does not appear to be acceptable per WP:RS as it does not appear to have an editorial board or academic backing.

Finally, I am not entirely sure why the Islamic ruling regarding building on graves should take so much prominence in the article as this is an article regarding Shrines. It would seem to fall under WP:UNDUE to focus so much on an Islamic legal ruling. MontyKind (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for your response. What you’re saying regarding the content removal makes sense. However, the following alleged saying attributed to the Prophet is graded weak by hadith scholars: “He who visits my grave will be entitled to my intercession.” Yes, a scholarly source quotes that saying, but it does not evaluate the credibility, nor grade it. It is graded as da’if by:

• al-Haafiz al-Dhahabi in Lisaan al-Meezaan (4/285) under the biography of Haaroon ibn Abi Qaz’ah wherein Muhammad al-Bukhari stated “This is not to be accepted or followed.”
• Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in Lisaan al-Meezaan (6/217) and al-Talkhees al-Habeer (2/266)
• Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in Tawassul wa’l-Waseelah (p. 133 and 134)
• Sheikh al-Albaani in al-Da’eefah (no. 1021 and 47)

The secondary sources are the comments above the hadith by Bukhari and Muslim, not the developers of Sunnah.com. In short:

• Primary source: Matn — actual hadith text quoted attributed to the Prophet. Had I quoted or cited this alone, yes, it would be a violation of WP:OR.
• Secondary source: Chapter titles (notes) as written by scholars and the compilers of hadith — secondary source since these are notes by scholars about the content of the hadith below the chapter title notes. They are not Prophetic narrations, rather, they comment on the narrations and are secondary sources.

Still, if you doubt the reliability of Sunnah.com, that’s fine. You can see that it is available on other websites and printed copies, such as http://cmje.usc.edu/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/004-smt.php. For the first quoted one, the following chapter is present: “Chapter 200: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PLASTER THE GRAVE OR CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING OVER IT” (USC-MSA web (English) reference). Again, this is a secondary source publicly available on a reputable website because this is not a Prophetic narration, rather a note by the scholar Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj.

Regarding the optional Oxford citation I chose to cite, the specific section I had in mind was “Many modern Islamic reformers criticize visits to shrines as mere superstition and a deviation from true Islam.” It’s towards the bottom.

I believe it is okay to re-add some of the information sans hadith quotations and, of course, keeping the existing content (except for the weak narration). Your thoughts? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You seem to be agreeing that the existing content fulfill's WP:RS and should be kept. Can you confirm that this is the case?

2) Regarding the Hadith currently referenced in the article (which is sourced from the academic work The Living and the Dead in Islam p. 46), it is not for editors to make claims about which hadiths are valid and which aren't. The book is simply stating that the relevant hadith is used as proof by Sunni Muslims on the recommendation of visiting the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad (s). Therefore it is absolutely fine to include this in the article.

Further, your attempt to discredit the hadith has been taken from the website Islamqa.info. This site is a bigoted Salafi / Wahhabi website that considers anybody outside of their group to be a non-Muslim or a deviant. It is therefore absolutely unacceptable as a scholarly source due to it's extreme bias per WP:NPOV. Additionally, the interpretation in this website contradicts reliable academic sources. In particular, we read in the academic book The Living and the Dead in Islam that their are a number of hadiths which defend the practice of visiting the shrine of the Prophet Muhammad (s). On p 46 the author states that,

In a famous report, attributed to the Prophet himself and edited by ad-Daraqutni (d. 385 H) and many others, we read: "He who visits my grave will be entitled to my intercession" (man zara qabrl wagabat lahu safd'ati) or, according to a different version: "I will intercede for those who have visited me, or my tomb". Another tradition says that paying the Prophet (s) a visit after his death will be like having paid him a visit during his lifetime".....

All these reports are shared by Sunnis and Shiites alike, though the ways of transmission differ.''

In other words there are many hadiths which state the same thing. Further, the vast majority of Sunni Islamic scholars have recommended visiting the Prophet Muhammad's (s) shrine such as Ghazali, Nawawi, Munawi etc.. Qadi Ayyad stated that visiting the Prophet was "a sunna of the Muslims on which there was consensus, and a good and desirable deed." --Ref Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Oxford University Press, p 290/291.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explicitly states that travelling to visit the tomb of the Prophet (s) was "one of the best of actions and the noblest of pious deeds with which one draws near to God, and it's legitimacy is a matter of consensus." --Ref Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Oxford University Press, p 291.

Further, visitation of the shrines of the righteous has been approved by a number of other early Sunni Muslim scholars. According to Tirmidhi, the scholars Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Ruhuyah, Abdullah ibn Mubarak and Imam Shafi'i all permitted the practice. --Ref The Living and the Dead in Islam, p 23.

There are quite literally dozens of other hadiths and statements from Sunni Muslim scholars sourced from books that fulfill WP:RS that back up this practice so it absolutely should be included.

3) The quote you supplied from the Oxford Islamic Studies website doesn’t support the claim that '“In Sunni Islam, the building of shrines over graves is generally considered forbidden”' since the quote doesn't state this. It specifically refers to modern reformers. It would therefore only be valid to state that "'“Modern Muslim reformers believe that the building of shrines over graves is generally considered forbidden”', otherwise it would fall under WP:OR. I would be happy for this corrected version to be included.

4) The Qur'an and Hadith are considered Primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage. Examples of reliable sources include the Encyclopedia of Islam, The New Encyclopedia of Islam etc... Further, the hadith's you mention require interpretation from reliable academic sources such as those mentioned above.

The chapter headings in the books of hadith are not commentaries or interpretations but simple one line groupings such as "The command to observer prayer" etc... It is no different to headings such as the Book of Genesis in the Bible. The headings are not a commentary. You will therefore need to bring a lot more to the table than a one line heading from a work compiled over a thousand years ago to support bold the claim that "In Sunni Islam, the building of shrines over graves is generally considered forbidden."

5) Finally, I asked last time why you think that we should include this information at all given that the article is about Shrines and not about the Islamic ruling on building over graves. The volume of content you want to add seems to fall under WP:UNDUE. MontyKind (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

1) Yes.

2) It makes sense to keep the hadith in the article to abide by WP:NPOV. However, I am not contesting whether or not visiting the shrines is forbidden or permissible, rather am discussing the hadith. However, to include all points of view and be neutral, I believe that it is best to add a footnote explaining that the authenticity of the hadith is disputed, citing (any of or all) the four aforementioned sources (I did not suggest IslamQA.info due to it's unsuitability as a source on Wikipedia as you explained).

3) Agreed.

4) I will go by your word regarding the heading notes..

5) The entire Islam section discusses grave shrines (tombs). What other type of shrine did you have in mind that you wish to include?

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 2, if you are able to find reliable sources that discuss the authenticity of the hadith in question then that can be added as long as it is properly attributed. For example, we have the statement "According to Ibn Taymiyyah all the ahadith encouraging the visitation...." in the article. This is properly attributed and seems to be from a reliable source so it is fine to add. However, taking information from Islamqa.info would be invalid as it is not a WP: reliable source.

Regarding point 5, shrines are not just confined to tombs. The Ka'bah for example is a shrine and really should be added to the article. When I get some time I plan to do this.

I have tidied up some of the text you added in the opposition section. You stated, for example that "Muslim reformers/revivers (mujaddids) oppose the building..." whereas the source makes no mention of Mujaddid's. This would be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS to infer this. MontyKind (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding the reference to mujaddids, I actually placed a citation immediately after the brackets which referred to reformers as such. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS reads, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The original sentence you added is not supported in either source provided but is combined from 2 different sources. MontyKind (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have reinstated the honorific term mujaddid for Ibn Taymiyyah. This is contentious given that many people within Sunni Islam opposed him during his life and thereafter (read the book Ibn Taymiyyah and his Times, Oxford University Press for details). Further, one could also validly add the title Mujaddid to Ibn Hajar, Ghazali and others referenced in this article since reliable sources also support this (e.g. Waines, David (2003). An Introduction to Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 210. ISBN 0521539064 states that Imam Ghazali was a Mujaddid). Why should Ibn Taymiyyah in particular be given this title in the article at the exclusion of others? MontyKind (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this edit dispute is essentially solved, with the section previously named "Opposition to tomb shrines" being expanded. Now, @Montykind: Please let me know precisely why you don't believe the Salafi and Wahhabi opposition section shouldn't be a subheader under "Sunni Islam" for accuracy, since they are Sunni movements. FYI, if you are to mention that Sufism is Sunni as well, please refer to the Sufism article, which reads: "Existing in both Sunni and Shia Islam, Sufism is not a distinct sect".^[1]

Regards, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be consistent. Either all Sunni movements should be listed under the Sunni heading or none. Otherwise it gives the impression that Sufism is not Sunni which is PoV. MontyKind (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MontyKind: Sufism is not strictly Sunni, but Sufis can be Sunni or Shia as cited above. Perhaps a short sentence explaining this should be added to the article's Sufi section for clarity, but it certainly does not violate WP:NPOV to leave it as it is. In comparison, Salafism and Wahhabism are strictly Sunni and thus, should be situated under the Sunni header. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Sufi's belong to Sunni Islam^[1] as do many medieval scholars such as Ghazzali, Ibn Taymiyyah etc... To put the Sufism section outside of the Sunni heading gives the impression that it is a separate non-Sunni sect which is a Wahhabi Pov. Similarly, not all scholars consider Wahhabism to be within Sunni Islam. A recent conference led by Al-Azhar university (the Oxford University of the Sunni Muslim World)^[2] concluded that "Salafism/Wahhabism, the state religion of the Saudi Kingdom is not a part of mainstream Sunni Islam."^[3] As such, we should either put both sections within Sunni Islam or neither since that reflects the majority view. The other alternative is that we remove Salafism / Wahhabism from the heading entirely and take it back to "Opposition to tomb shrines". MontyKind (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MontyKind: The sects to which Sufis belong to are irrelevant because Sufism is not a sect as explained and cited above. Thus, it should not be a subheading of the Sunni or Shia sections. Furthermore, some scholars have declared Shias to be non-Muslims, but I still see the Shia section under the Islam heading. Shias still identify as Muslims, hence the name, Shia Islam. Likewise, Wahhabis^[1] and Salafis^[2] still identify as Muslims. If they identify as Sunni Muslims, that warrants their inclusion under the Sunni Islam subheading. Criticism of their status as Sunni Muslims does not belong on an article pertaining to Shrines. Finally, can you please cite the page from the second citation you mentioned? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said that, The sects to which Sufis belong to are irrelevant because Sufism is not a sect as explained and cited above. Thus, it should not be a subheading of the Sunni or Shia sections.

Firstly, I have already provided evidence that “the vast majority of Sufis are Sunnis”^[1] and that Sufism is "in reality, the normative modal of scholarship and the best approximation of what defines 'orthodoxy' in Sunni Islam"^[2] which you didn’t respond to. If the vast majority of Sufi's are Sunnis then it makes perfect sense to put them under the Sunni subheading.

Secondly, Salafism and Wahhabism are not sects either. They are movements within Sunni Islam like Sufism. Read the article Sufi–Salafi relations. Hence according to your logic it should not be a subheading either.

You also said that, If they identify as Sunni Muslims, that warrants their inclusion under the Sunni Islam subheading.

Sufi’s too identify as Sunnis (see above). Therefore according to your logic it warrants inclusion under the Sunni Islam subheading also.

You said that, Criticism of their status as Sunni Muslims does not belong on an article pertaining to Shrines.

I didn’t say it did. I simply highlighted the fact that the academic institute Al-Azhar which is the "Oxford University of the Sunni Muslim world"^[3] recently excluded salafis from Sunni Islam.^[4] We therefore don't have complete consensus amongst academic institutes that they are definitely Sunni.

As a general point we need consistency. If Wahhabism is grouped under Sunni Islam because they self-identify as Sunni's then so should Sufi's since the "vast majority" identify as Sunnis. If the Sufi's should be excluded because they are not a sect then Salafism / Wahhabism should also be excluded as they too are not a sect.MontyKind (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained and cited, Sufism exists both in Sunni and Shia Islam.^[1] There is a difference between Sufism being strictly Sunni and the majority of Sufis being Sunni. Just because the majority of Sufis are Sunni, this does not mean that the movement—Sufism—is Sunni. Likewise, just because the majority of Muslims are concentrated in the Asia Pacific region, this does not mean that Muslim = Asian. You are suggesting that just because the majority of Sufis happen to belong to Sunni Islam, Sufism is Sunni, which is not true. Not to mention that there is a difference between Sufism (existing in both Sunni and Shia Islam) and Sufis (the majority [not all] of which happen to follow Sunni Islam yet there are Shia Sufis too).

Regardless of which are sects and movements, Wahhabism^[2] and Salafism^[3] are both Sunni by definition. Sufism is not, so it would be incorrect to place it under the Sunni Islam heading. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini - 27 May 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of shrine 197.239.6.190 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]