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

Islam: Religious texts Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts. Theology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology 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.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is absolutely ridiculous. On a wikipedia article about an ideological movement, you can't even find a single word of criticism (!), let alone a section dedicated to explaining what critics have to say (who are the overwhelming vast substantial majority of Muslim scholars). I felt like I'm reading an article from a quranist website that is making an argument to prove themselves right, not from an objective encyclopedia that claims to be objective and to emphasize critical discourse! I'm dying of laughter at this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.159 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a legitimate request, but please don't forget you are in Wikipedia and speak properly (WP:CIVILITY). Criticism section will be created when sources are gathered. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 17:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quranism or Quraniyya (Arabic: القرآنية‎; al-Qur'āniyya; also known as Quran-only Islam or Quranic Islam) is a protestant branch of Islam.

The meaning of “protestant” in this sentence is not clear. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 02:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too appropriate, but whoever added it probably had in mind Sola scriptura... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to Quranism emerging as a protest against Sunni and Shia doctrines and practice, similar to how Protestant Christianity rose as a protest against the Catholic Church. That's how Edip Yüksel along with some other prominent Quranist figures define it anyway. Sincerely, Adigabrek^Talk 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies, I didn’t see the responses in this thread until today…) I don’t think it’s undue per se, but I do think there should be some kind of clarification on its meaning. I’m by no means an expert on the topic, but even replacing “protestant” with “sola scriptura” would be clearer IMO. (I also think it might be inappropriate to source one English word to a non-English source, but in this case I defer to editors with more experience/knowledge of the topic.) postleft on mobile! 02:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got some time today, so I found the cited book. It turns out this book is originally in English, so I think it is exceptionally strange for the Turkish version (a translation) to be cited in an English article. In any case, the book does not say Quranism is protestant. I tried to find a reference for this on Google Books, JSTOR, and a few other sources I have institutional access to, and by Googling keywords (including searching through more of Yüksel’s work), but came up empty-handed. I’m now going to be WP:BOLD and remove it, since the lead already says it’s “similar to... the Sola Scriptura view of Protestant Christianity.” Thanks everyone and feel free to add it back in if you find a proper reference. :-) postleft on mobile! 17:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2a04:4a43:4d7f:8c08:89ac:6c16:5f87:8f47: Please explain. Sincerely, Adigabrek^Talk 19:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the section in question: "The Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) regularly criticizes and insults Quranists, gives them no recognition and calls them kafirs (disbelievers).[83] Quranists responded with arguments and challenged them to a debate.[84]"

Some reasons I question the neutrality: -No examples or quotes are given of any insults -No detail or mention whatsoever of what happened after the debate was allegedly challenged, what arguments were used, or who were challenging in the first place

Personally I think this passage to be painting ngood guy bad guy agenda, what do you think?g a Parrot444 (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They reject the Hadith, but what about the Sira? Thanks, 2A10:8012:1:9DF3:EDB1:F317:3AE1:9051 (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also rejected, it's part of the hadith corpus. 184.147.23.65 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]