This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 2020 April 4, see discussion. No consensus, 2020 April 4, see discussion.

Islam Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

the template looks pretty much like a replica of Template:Islam with added sections from Template:Fiqh. is there a reason it's not made redundant by these pre-existing templates? ITAQALLAH 11:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sections as well not on that template. A navbox template has the advantage of being able to be placed in articles where an infobox template would be too big, or where there is a specialized infobox (i.e. Shia islam) where Template:Islam wouldn't make sense. Besides, many topics have infobox and navobx templates (like Template:Antisemitism and Template:Antisemitism topics, Template:Sikhism and Template:Sikhi, etc.)Yahel Guhan 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, you said in your edit summary, concur, we don't. but this is something time-restricted and not a significant part of Muslim life/culture. if you believe it is, please substantiate it on the talk page.

Firstly, how is it "time-restricted? Secondly, reguardless of whether it is a significant part of much of muslim life/culture today, it was so in the past, even as far back as the time of Muhammad, so in that sense, I think it is very relevant. Yahel Guhan 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's time-restricted in exactly the same way Christianity and slavery and Judaism and slavery were time-restricted (note their absence from their respective topic templates). Slavery was as prominent in pre-Islamic times as it was in post-Islamic times. The only difference was that jurists specified a few rules so as to limit their acquisition. In fact, I think the slavery link may be better placed under the law and jurisprudence category given its discussion in the legal literature. What do you think? ITAQALLAH 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure. place it there. Yahel Guhan 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't immediately see why this template is protected (especially since Template:Islam is not), but could someone 1.) unprotect it, 2.) avoid the redirect for women and Islam to women in Islam, or 3.) both? I will not be watching this, so please post on my talk if I am needed. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link in this template to Shi'a Islam redirects to Shia Islam. Because of this, the link is not "black" when viewing the template from the Shia Islam. Not a big deal, but something I usually like to fix. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would you be able to please change Islam by country (at the Islam and culture section) to List of countries by Muslim population but state as: Muslim demographics, thanks. HaireDunya (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) i would like you to add the salafi/wahhabi and quran-only (or quranist) to the list of denominations please

I don't know what that is, and where it would link to. Please prepare code and list it here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know exactly what ou mean by code since i'm new to wikipedia. but...

the purple "islam topics" box has only sunni, shia, ibadi, sufi listed as denominations

i would like you to add quran alone (otherwise called quranists) and salafi to these other 4 please

can you do that for me?

- 92.24.17.248 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's no article about quranists -- perhaps you could start by creating one with a few references to outside sources? Lemuel Akins (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reposted)

the purple "islam topics" box has only sunni, shia, ibadi, sufi listed as denominations

i would like you to add quran-only (otherwise called quranists) and salafi to these other 4 please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

((Editprotected)) hi, under the islam denominations template could you add Quranists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_alone

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Editprotected)) hi, under the islam denominations template, could you add Kalami sect please? Kalam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs)

On reading the article, it is not clear to me that Kalam is a denomiation. Could you discuss this and obtain a consensus from others that this is appropriate? (Perhaps on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Editprotected)) hi, under the islam denominations template could you add the salafi sect please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SalafiJigglyfidders (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have disabled this request again pending input from other editors. Let's wait to see if this addition has support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Editprotected)) hi, Sufi IS a denomination. in the english language, a denomination means; "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." Sufis obviously fall within this category

however the Islam page claims Sufi is NOT a denomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Sufism could somebody fix that please?Jigglyfidders (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit request for this template so I've disabled it. For changes to Islam, you should discuss it on the article talk page but bear in mind there is reference to support the statements and unless you have contrary evidence, it should not be changed. → AA ^(talk) — 01:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Editprotected)) hi, kalam with the branches Murji'ah and Mu'tazili should have a separate heading and branch since they have different laws and different theologies they are currently grouped together under sunni denomination even though most sunni scholars reject them as committing bid'ah

Since i'm not getting any response, reply or feedback from other editors, could someone group them as a separate denomination for me please?

or alternatively you could request another editor to do it on the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam thanks Jigglyfidders (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be discussed in Divisions of Islam to gather consensus and appropriate references added that Kalam is a denomination. There is also the issue of undue weight. → AA ^(talk) — 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Editprotected)) have you gathered a consensus yet on whether to add Salafi to the list? Jigglyfidders (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) hi could somebody add the ahmadiyya sect to this template please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya also, could someone add salafi sect to the template please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to discuss things first. I cannot judge wether this is a correct edit. YOU need to get the consensus, not the people making the change. We just have to confirm that you have proven that there is consensus. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why should i get a consensus when there has already been a consensus on the main Islam page and the schools and branches page?

it's obvious ahmadiyya is a sect and so is Salafi. They are both listed separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyfidders (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

((editprotected)) on the islam template i would like you to add 2 denominations please, because they are undeniable sects of islam. 1. Salafi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi and 2. Ahmadiyya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

could you do that please?Jigglyfidders (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jigglyfidders (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the proponent did post on WT:ISLAM and got no response. So  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to oppose this rather strongly, actually. Both Sufism and Salafism are subcategories of Sunni, but opponents of both movements here on Wikipedia have used the site as a battleground for years. By categorizing either as separate from Sunni Islam, they can then assert that such groups are unorthodox and/or heretical. For this reason, I must strongly urge the removal of both from the box for sects and neither of them are. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this change was made based on the request of one user, I can revert it. However I would like to see templates reflect what is encyclopedic, rather than protect against what you perceive will affect editors' behaviours ... What if we were to put Salafi and Sufismin in brackets after Sunni? And how does your request relate to the addition of Ahmadiyya? (I am not familiar with this stuff, as you can tell.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, putting Sufi and Salafi in brackets after Sunni works in theory, but then we're looking at a number of other groups which might also deserve mention. Ahl al-Hadith are a Sunni group similar to Salafis yet still distinct, and Barelvis and Deobandis are Sunni movements similar to Sufism. Where is the line drawn when including movements in the denominations tab? I don't have an answer to that question myself. Additionally, the Mu'tazila are now-extinct denomination who heavily influenced Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam, yet at times they were counted as subsets of Sunni; where do they fall in?

We need a discussion about how to delineate denominations. Traditional Muslim means of delineation are obviously POV-charged and even outdated. Modern day denominations would be Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi; Ahmadiyya and Qur'anists aren't considered Muslims by the majority but to avoid POV-pushing, they ought to be included here. The Mu'tazila, Jahmites, Kharijites, Murji'ah and Qadariyya are all extinct but their ideas are still influential among modern day Muslims; the terms, therefore, are all POV forks used by Muslims to brand others as heretics. So I'm not quite sure where to go from here; include extinct sects and risk the POV fork, or stick with modern ones - in which case I would advocate the removal of both Sufi and Salafi from the denominations tab, as their inclusions is a clear show of POV pushing on the part of the editors who requested it. If they take issue with that, I'm willing to debate it right here with them (though I doubt they will after being challenged as the intent is very clear). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) Under Law and jurisprudence, there is a subtopic Sexuality. It has 5 components : Masturbation, Sexual techniques · Sukuk · Takaful · Tayammum. You can go through the articles and confirm that Sukuk and Takaful come under Law and jurisprudence > Economics. And Tayammum comes under Law and jurisprudence > Hygiene. It is, therefore, requested that these edits be kindly made to the template.  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an old problem. Issue was introduced in this revision. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. The sections are still somewhat messy btw. (especially in regard to use of italics and , vs. · If you have suggestions for cleaning it up, please make a new request so that this can be solved. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) hi, i have a suggestion where you could add 'cultural uslim' to the template because many muslims are not religious and non-practising but only muslim by culture.

otherwise you can implement it in the denomination page thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Muslim

Jigglyfidders (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where should it be added in the template ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've put it in the "Related Topics", there's not really a fit elsewhere.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here is a version of the template that has more visible and also wrapaware dots between links; avoids bold and italic text within the lists; spaces the lists apart a little more; rewords "Conversion of mosques" to "Conversion to mosques"; and probably one or two other tweaks I can't now recall. If all the parentheses aren't to people's liking, I've seen "Navbox subgroups" used as an alternative.

212.84.101.159 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as of now it says Quranist which should be changed to a noun as Quranism. Could someone make this change pls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.58.182 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now under denominations it says 'Quranist', but the appropriate noun should be 'Quraniyoon'. Could someone make this change? 84.13.63.254 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Umayyad, which this templates links to, only redirects to Umayyad Caliphate so why not change that? --85.129.111.17 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've updated it. → AA ^(talk) — 13:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) Almost half of the link targets in this template are to redirects. Could we please change every one of them to point directly to the article pages? Normally in an article this isn't a problem, but in a template it prevents links from appearing bolded when on the relevant article page and instead creates "self-redirects" back to the article. I've got "link classifier" installed in my vector.js User:Zunaid/vector.js which colours all the offending links in green. There are too many to give a listing here but anyone with a similar user script and WP:POPUPS installed will be able to quickly correct the entire template. Zunaid 06:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the first 7 groups; the others sttill need to be done, leaving the ((editprotected)) tag active. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Completed the rest. I've left in the following: Islamic ethics, and Early Islamic philosophy as they weren't simple pagemoves, it seems that those entire articles have been redirected per some user cleanup issue, so perhaps if we leave the redirect title users may at least look up the revision history if they still wish to see what content was there. -- œ^™ 03:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current article has two problems. 1)In pillars section, only Sunni's pillars are written, and this section must be splitted in two parts, reflecting both Shia Sunni pillars. 2)About Denominations section. As it can be seen in Islam article, the two main sects are Shia and Sunni. Like articles of others religions, for neutrality, Shia name must precede Sunni name (alphabetically ordering). My suggestion is to split this section in two parts, one Shia and Sunni, and one about others.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add The Epistles of Wisdom to the Religious Texts category? It's debateable whether this is an Islamic text, but it is definitely Ismailic and a development of Islam. Thanks for any consideration! Paul Bedson (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you add the templates in interlanguage links ? I cant do it because this template protected. Thanks a lot — Skandar ^blabla 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic, but it would be best if an admin could just semi-protect this template. I see no point for the full-protection. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an off-topic, just i would add the interlanguage links... This template exist in french and it's impossible for me to add it. — Skandar ^blabla 03:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is interwiki for Bosnian Wiki also for this template. -- KWiki (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Sociology pages have been deleted, so the redlinks (· '''[[Islamic sociology|Sociology]]:''' ''[[Sociology in medieval Islam|Early sociology]]'' ) should be removed from this template. --Elonka 14:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie⚔ 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --Elonka 22:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, change the falsely used letter ĥ to ḥ or h.   Ĥ is an Esperanto letter, not used in transliteration of Arabic or any other Semitic language. I couldn't edit the template as it's protected. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this version - it cotains link fixes and nothing else. Christian75 (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it because it was showing the documentation twice. Something that should be considered is WP:HLIST. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This version is without two sandboxes. There was two because one for the actual page, and one for the sandbox... Christian75 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I updated it to use the hlist class, and I also reduced the protection to semi-protection as there were only 160 transclusions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the current template code with the version in the sandbox here (should be the most recent). There's no change in content, just in presentation. The sandbox code doesn't include the noinclude section that calls the documentation: if/once this request is granted, I'll update the documentation page accordingly (collapsible options).

Thank you, 213.246.85.251 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Funandtrvl (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I've now updated the documentation page. (And, incidentally, added this request as a consequence.) 213.246.85.251 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.92.115.38 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

baligh should not be subsectioned as an aspect of Islamic theological jurisprudence; it should instead be under the section on Marrige and Sex, or else be its own topic. Theology refers to the study of the nature of divinity; baligh is a specific aspect of Islamic law dealing with sexual maturity and legal adulthood. 50.254.174.101 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fish+Karate 11:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even showing Jihad as an Islamic topic shows that the extremists own the word. Jihad in the Inner/Greater sense is an Islamic tenant and should be added to the Culture section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.103.41 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This includes nation of islam and more comprehensive, consider replacing it.108.31.73.33 (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]