Talk:Qur'an alone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why don't the moderators reply

?


[edit] IIPC's description

Why edit IIPC's description? Why reduce it to one line? Can anyone reply this time please? thanks.

-Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and the text should therefore be short and to the point and it is not the place to propagate or promote personal views. A declaration such as "is the most Quran-only group" etc is not objective and did not seem appropriate, at least to me.

[edit] 'Quran alone' Description

Hi. I had edited the description of "Quran Alone / Quranists" yesterday, but Mrabcx edited it back to what it was. I have to say he has got it wrong. Can he please tell why he says it was easier to understand?

The actual description was:

"Qur'an alone Muslims, Qur'anic Muslims or sometimes, anti-hadith Muslims are those Muslims who reject hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, and follow the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, without any further additions. However, some Muslims who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "Muslims", and not "Qur'anites"."

These are the problems with the descriptions:


"Qur'an alone Muslims, Qur'anic Muslims or sometimes anti-hadith Muslims..."

Rejecting Hadiths does not make a person "Quran alone". It is whether you accept the quran or not that makes you "quran alone" or "quranist". People who reject the hadith but accept the bible are not "quran alone".


"...are those Muslims who reject hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, and follow the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, without any further additions..."

There are groups(including me) like www.iipc.tv who reject not only the hadiths, but also the bible and historical details as well. So "quran alone" is not only about rejecting the hadiths as the article says.


"...However, some Muslims who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "Muslims", and not "Qur'anites"..."

I think that only the "ahle quran" and "tolu islam" gruops call themselves "Muslim"(and "tolu islam" is not completely quran alone, they accept the hadith partially!), while the other three groups on the list as well as www.iipc.tv do not go by the label "Muslim", but call themselves "submitter/muslim to God" (with lower case "m").

You can confirm this on the biggest "Quranist" forum www.free-minds.org/forum .

"Muslim" is a different word.

I know what I am talking about. I am a "Quranist" myself and have been into this stuff for six years now.


So I had edited the description as follows:

"Quranists or Qur'an alone people are those who follow the Qur'an (Islam's sacred text) without any additional details. Some reject only the hadith, or recorded Islamic traditions, while others reject the Bible and historical details as well. However, some who follow the Quran alone say that they are simply "muslims/submitter to God", and not "Qur'anites"." Fahadkhan12 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

[edit] "Quranism" and "Quranists"

I think that the terms "Quranism" and "Quranists" should also lead to the "Quran Alone" article.

[edit] Major dispute over why neutrality is needed

QA- HEY, who removed the 99 or 114 names of GOD section and why?

Not all Quran aloners consider code-19 to be a major part of belief. Please be objective in this case. Also user: Edip Yuksel's views on the "Names of God" are not necessarily those that form the belief of all "Quran-aloners". Please provide sources if your claims are true. Thanks and sorry but this is encyclopedia policy. --Anonymous editor 23:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- OK then well use most of the Quran Alone believers support code-19. Fine? And as for thre 99 and 114 names if u only have a prob with edips views then y not remove just tht part iusnatead of the whole section?

Both the code-19 and the 99 and 114 names section is disputed material as it does NOT apply to ALL Quran aloners and if you are going to add that in that will break the neutrality of the article (against policy). There needs to be strong clarification that these views are followed by all aloners. Objectionable material, not proven that all or even "most" Quran aloners believe this. Neutral point of view needed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Ok but it applies to most of them.

No that is objectionable. What sources say that "most" believe it? That can't be proven and must be avoided. There is already a link to the Rashad Khalifa article if people are interested in code 19. Also we cannot add Yuksel's theory because he is not a well-known scholar of any type. I am sorry about this but this is Wiki policy. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 23:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- If you must you can create your own section which for eg states 'Quran Aloners who dont believe in code-19' or put on the code-19 section 'code-19 Quran Aloners views' BUT DONT DEÖETE IT

Listen, it is against Wiki policy to represent the view of some while not representing others. I am trying to enforce this policy and please do not keep inserting the view or you will violate the 3 revert rule and may be banned. If you are going to make an assertion, please have the sources to back it up. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 23:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- We tend to represent both. Lets make two sections. Ones for code-19 Quran Aloners and one is for code-19 rejecting Quran Aloners. Hows tht?

Here I integrated the code 19 section. Take a look. Yuksel's section can not be added though as he is not a well known scholar of any sort nor does his theory for the basis of anything close to a majority of "Quran aloners". Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Now ur saying some quran aloners believe in code-19. Now u r biased. Y not say those Quran Aloners who believer in code-19?

No I am not biased, I am saying that some do believe in it. You can NOT speak for all Quran-aloners because this is not a personal webpage, this is an encyclopedia. Do not make definite statements such as "there are two types" or that "most/all believe it" because that is not known and has not been supported. This is the most neutral the article can be without having to delete those parts or tag it for neutrality dispute. I think you unserstand what I am saying. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- As regards to the 114 attributes being found by edip thts a fact n ill even give u his phone no so tht u can confitm: 001-520-4811919. Call him n hell tell u himself. Its a fact tht he has claimed n found them to be so. As for the Quran Aloners i can speak for many of them coz i know them good enough. The qs is do u know any of them? If u dont then plz stop removing sections without knowledge.

Please understand this is an encyclopedia this will not be allowed. One person's theory does not form the basis of belief. I know you believe it because you are his friend, but this is an encyclopedia and not a personal webpage. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Did we say tht it does? We just mentioned his name coz it was his finding and it is notable. Thts all. No bias whtsoever. On the other hand u isnisting on putting in SOME Quran aloners who believe in code-19... shows clear bias. Who told u tht there r only some Quran Aloneres who believe in code-19, eh?

Well if not all of them do, then some of them do. Most of them don't either. Do you want me to say that a "few" of them do? See this is the problem, you are not realizing this is an encyclopedia article and this is your own personal Point of View. I have to be objective to respect everyone and wikipedia policy and word the statement so that it follows this. Please realize that this is not a page devoted only to your view. So far I have integrated all legitimate material that you have written in an Neutral manner. Usually other editors would remove most of the material completely, but you will find that many of them will agree with the neutral manner that I am modifying it. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- No we want u to say 'THOSE Quran Aloners THAT believe in code-19...' thts the neutral way. Get it?

Sorry, but that is your own personal opinion and not correct wording. There are even other editors who are agreeing with me now and removing those edits. In some cases that is fine and in others that is incorrect wording. Sorry if you can't understand. --Anonymous editor 00:24, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

QA- Wait a min now? Ur saying tht ir should be SOME Quran Alone Muslims believe... without u urself knowing whether it's ome or most of them who believe tht way. Im opting 4 a neutral statement i.e. THOSE QURAN ALONERS WHO... Now if there r other Quran Aloners they r most welcome to add info to this article and represent their views in a neutral manner too. However saying SOME Quran Aloners believe tht way without knwoing is clearly biased.

As I said before, in some cases that is accurate wording and in others that is incorrect. Where you added it most recently is okay, but your prior one was inaccurate. Hopefully this dispute is settled now and you will obey the neutral policies of wikipedia. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:31, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
QA- We always opt for neutrality at least in our view. As far as Edip is concerned it's a pity so many claim that they dont know him. Just type in Edip Yuksel at google or yahoo n ull see more than 10,000 websites showing up. Edip Yuksel was a famous sunni scholar prior to his fleeing to the USA in the 80s. He had so many debates with famous sunni scholars. just view his article 19 questions for Muslim scholars.
I don't agree that we should know him, so many people do get 10,000 hits. I do agree that they should not have deleted his page. I think it was because User:Edip Yuskel was not exactly the best in keeping neutral. He is notable, even if not in American I think he'd meet requirements by Turkish people... but, that is hard to gauge. I think you should try a vote for undeletion. gren 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the Yuksel's and Janjhua's (his friend) pages was self-promotion. There was a large picture there and any attempt to make the article more neutral resulted in reverts by them and anon IPs (100% likely Janjhua and Yuksel themselves) to promote themselves and rally support. There were no sources given and it was being used as a personal webpage. So the article was nominated for deletion by several administrators. I think reading wikipedia policy might help them avoid problems in the future. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:10, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

quote:

I don't agree that we should know him, so many people do get 10,000 hits. ---I do agree that they should not have deleted his page.--- I think it was because User:Edip Yuskel was not exactly the best in keeping neutral. He is notable, even if not in American I think he'd meet requirements by Turkish people... but, that is hard to gauge. I think you should try a vote for undeletion. gren 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Khizar- Im with you on that one. And another thing. Edip's page was created by ME, Khizar, NOT himself. I asked his permission ofcourse and he requested me to do it for him in the way i fell right so i did all the job. So if there was anything lacking neutrality in his page im the one to be blamed NOT Yuksel. This time i'll try to make his page as neutral as possible and i'll add a small pic.

[edit] Code 19 + naming

I think this should be put into a separate article otherwise it is going to start dwarfing this article which is related by some Qur'an alone members but not by others.

Also, I think the title should be Qur'an alone probably, or Quran alone at least, it's not a proper name it's just the name of a concept. gren 00:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with name change. This is not a proper noun so it should have a change in the name. A separate neutral article for code 19 would be appreciated but I am sure self-promotion will be inevitable for some. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is a religion of two people significant?

So far as I can tell, most of the followers of the assassinated Rashad Khalifa are organized as United Submitters International. They seem to be large enough to have conventions. So, they're probably encyclopedic. However, the Quran Alone Muslims seem so far to consist of two people, Edip Yuksel and his friend Janjuah and so far as I can tell, they believe that the United Submitters have deviated from the truth and they alone are carrying forward the real teaching of Rashad Khalifa. See this essay on Edip Yuksel's web page [1]. If we have a religion of TWO PEOPLE, then it is not encyclopedic, however heartfelt it may be.

I believe that the Submitters are also known as Quran-alone Muslims, in which case it is somewhat deceptive of Mr. Yuksel to try to pass himself off as the real "heir" of Rashad Khalifa. Which he has been doing for a busy two days on Wikipedia, defacing one article after another. The article on Rashad Khalifa seems to be fairly balanced and NPOV. The United Submitters article could be made so with a little work. Right now it passes people over to this article, which seems to be Mr. Yuksel's vanity article.

This article should be rewritten to be NPOV, explaining that the United Submitters are also known as Quran-alone Muslims. I don't think Mr. Yuksel should even be mentioned. As noisy as he is, he is not a significant movement.

Yes, I sound angry. I am. I've spent way too much time removing Mr. Yuksel's graffiti from various Islamic articles. Zora 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zora, constant self promotion by "aloners" has been a very big problem for us who are trying to polish Islam-related articles. I sincerely hope that they will avoid this in the future and follow what Zora, I and others have constantly said both on discussion pages and on their relative talk pages . --Anonymous editor 01:05, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
As I state in my above section Quran Alone should be Qur'an alone... which is just the concet of hadith rejection and the various things that fall out from it. Within that you have those that follow code 19 stuff and United Submitters and whatever else... So, I think the concept is notable enough since hadith have become a lot more accessible and therefore there is more common knowledge and discussion about them. I don't see a problem with eliminating Yuksel from this article either. Notability is a hard thing... sometimes it only takes one book for people, other times it takes more. I don't think the standards are (or can be?) too clear. gren 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)

and

[edit] Please contact us directly for any further criticism

[edit] Edip Yuksel

Phone no: 001-520-4811919 email: yuksel@yuksel.org

[edit] Khizar Zamurrad Janjuah(Jonny K)

Phone no: 0049-511-4498174 or moblie no: 0049-17629291362 email: idmkhizar@gmail.com

[edit] Revision

I rewrote the article to conform to what we currently know about "Qur'an Alone" Muslims, and to removed the huge swathes of incoherent propaganda inserted by Mssrs. Yuksel and Janjuah. There is a link to Mr. Yuksel's page in the text, and anyone interested in the minutiae of his beliefs can consult his site. There is no need to burden Wikipedia with the details of a belief that is not reliably known to be held by more than two people. Zora 29 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)

QA- That was no propaganda. Everything stated was factual and accurate. However we cannot stop you from editing or rewriting anything. All we can do is continue our work and hope that the truth will reach out there one day. We had also given you the phone numbers of Edip: 001-520-4811919 and Khizar: 0049-511-4498174. If you doubt any info that we presented labelling it as propaganda why did you not first call us and clarify the issue?

We do not have to get your permission to write about you!

QA- We never said you need to but we preferred that you have the courage to call us directly.

We do not want to publish anything untruthful in Wikipedia. If we say the Submitters believe X, and the Submitters don't believe X, then it should be corrected.

QA- As said before nothing was untruthful. All was based on facts. Wherever it was the case that not all Quran Aloners believed in a certain way the phrase THOSE Quran Aloners who... or SOME Quran Aloners... so that was perfectly fine.

However, this does not mean that we have to include everything that the Submitters, or Edip Yuksel, wish to publicize. You may be sincere, you may believe it is true, but that does not mean that it is of interest to people using Wikipedia. It is sufficient to include a link to your website so that anyone who IS interested may do further research.

QA- How do you know people are not interested. We believe people are very interested to know this since then they would understand that the real terrorism comes from hadith not Quran.

If other people are interested, they will write about you. Topics in which many people are interested usually get lots of editing. You don't get to decide that people are interested; THEY get to decide. Zora 29 June 2005 11:07 (UTC)

I notice that you have reinstated your vanity page. Not everyone mentioned in Wikipedia deserves an article. There are many many names without articles. IMHO, Edip Yuksel should be one of them.

QA- NO Edip Yuksel deserves an article of his own since that chap Ali Sina also has one, and he is way not as famous as Edip. Also Mr. Sina hides away while Edip has made his phone and pic public. What kind of bias is that?

If you want to convince other people that you have some religious knowledge, surely a bit of humility would be in order. Charlatans are known for self-promotion, not saints. Zora 29 June 2005 09:06 (UTC)

QA- We never said that we are saints. All we want is that the truth should reach the people out there and that the Quran has nothing to do with the terrorism caused by those mainstream "Muslims" whlo believe in hadith.

[edit] Specifics

This contains a lot about why they disagree, but what specific things that are different to mainstream Islam does the Quran Alone approach result in? Morwen - Talk 29 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should mention some of the Muslim practices that have a stronger rooting in the hadith than the Qur'an (and hopefully there will be sources for all of this) and show them as things that are traditionally rejected as from God by Qur'an aloners. gren 29 June 2005 20:22 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the list of Quran Aloners removed

Zora you seem to be the only one who keeps on removing whatever is put by us Quran Aloners. Dont you wanna know the truth? Dont you wanna find out how peaceful and at the same time logical, rational and just we are? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaasssssssse, dont mitake us with the sunni or shia traditonal "muslims". GOD Bless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.83.112 (talk • contribs) July 12 2005


I think a list is quite in appropriate for several reasons 1. Self promotion (it seems that user:idmkhizar is promoting himself in the list 2. Who has decided that these are the "most famous living QA"? Many of the entries seemed to be the bloggers and forum posters in the linked websites, that doesn't give them any sort of notability, millions of people contribute to one forum or other, but they are not "most famous". Certainly, Edip can be linked in this article as "see also", but I don't really see anyone else's notability.
Finally, I find the anon's comment quite offensive, what exactly do you mean by we-are-logical-peaceful-rational and "don't mistake us with the sunni or shia muslims"? Please be respectful to other beliefs, people would do the same to yours. And stop self promotion, it doesnt really help any cause. --Ragib 20:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an Alone, Quran Alone, Quran-only should all lead to ONE article

[edit] Article title

I just came across this page and I am surprised that the article title is not Quranic Islam (referring to Muslims who only accept the Qur'an and reject everything else as aberration) - I think this is more accurate since the term "Qur'an Alone" seems to refer primarily to the United Submitters (which IMHO this article places too much focus on since there are already articles on Khalifa and his group). Sound alright to everyone? SouthernComfort 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Quranic Islam would too ambiguous, IMHO. All Muslims are convinced that their Islam is Quranic. Of course, most of them also accept the hadith and sunna, so it is the reliance on the Qur'an alone that is the hallmark of these non-mainstream groups. Zora 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
"All Muslims are convinced that their Islam is Quranic." Actually, I'm not sure if that is true as regards Shi'a Islam. Shi'ism is similar to Roman Catholicism, where tradition takes precedence over the primary religious text. That's my understanding, at least. At any rate, I've been searching for some non-Khalifa material dealing with "Quranic Islam" to no avail. There used to be an Iranian site for a Quranic Muslim group there, but I can no longer find it, so I'm assuming it's been shut down. I just find it very strange that this line of thought is solely attached to Khalifa and Edip Yuksel (sp?), who seem to have some rather odd ideas. SouthernComfort 13:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy article should not have been removed

Why was the apostasy article removed? It explained clearly what Quran Alone Muslims think about this today so crucial aspect. At least now Zora and others should have realized how different Quran Alone Islam is from corrupt Hislam(Hadith Islam). Quran Aloners NEVER EVER even think of killing apostates of their belief. Infact they continue to support them and logically explain their standpoint. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

It was argumentative. It was an attempt to say "Us good, them bad". Also, it's not clear that the various groups of Qur'an Alone Muslims share anything OTHER than a rejection of hadith. Your group may reject the death penalty for apostates, but other groups might not.

JK- FIND ME ONE QURAN ALONE GROUP WHICH BELIEVES TO KILL OR ISSUE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR APOSTATES, JUST ONE. None of them believe this and there should be no two doubts about it. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

I found one website, a while back, arguing for slavery on Quranic grounds. Are you going to claim that all Qur'an Alone Muslims support slavery? Zora 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JK- The site was surely a Hismalic one. What Hismalics(Hadith Islamics) argue, even on Quranic grounds, we do not take seriously as they frequently put verses out of context or see them in light of hadith. Jonny K

[edit] Why are there less pro Quranic sites than anto at the bottom

Yseterday i tried to equalize the lists at the bottom and today i once again see the Hislamics removing sites from the Pro section. What kinna hypocrisy is this? Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bit by bit, article had been distorted

I just wasn't paying enough attention. Bit by bit, the article had been turned into an argument FOR the Qur'an-Aloners and many completely unsupported and unverifiable claims had been added.

There's one bit left to do -- the list of "anti" links really should be pruned down to the best five. I'll do that when I have time. Zora 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JK- Oh so here we need time but when it comes to removing sites from the Quran Alone section, and this is infact a Quran Alone article, then theyr immediately removed. I find that kinna unfair. Jonny K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.68.158 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Aslam Jairajpuri and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan

Why was the discussion on Aslam Jairajpuri removed? Any Ahle Qur'an worth his salt knows how influent Jairajpuri was in the formulation of Ahle Qur'an thought. A detailed discussion on Jairajpuri, as also Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's Qur'an-only stance, should necessarily be a part of this page. Else, a separate Ahle Qur'an page, distinct from this one, should be started. USI should please stay away from vandalizing the new page.

[edit] Some guy named Itaqallah removed my external links

Please state as to why this was done. JonnyK

yes, your external links. they have been removed per WP:EL. also see WP:OWN. ITAQALLAH 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone has deleted my external link

Block quote

someone has deleted my external link but why? Your external link??? WP:OWN. WP:SPAM. One or both surely applies. --kingboyk 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is spelt Qu'ran not Qur'an

[edit] Anyone interested in expanding the article?

(nt.) ~ That would be nice, if it's possible.

-- Mik 14:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)