Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protected

The article is protected now. Please discuss your issues at this page and try to reach a concensus. -- Szvest 12:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the links at the bottom of the article I miswrote originally. Is there a way I could edit it quickly and then lock it again. That is honestly all I would change. It was my mistake so I want to fix it. ZaydHammoudeh 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of the Talk Page

The talkpage is growing in langth. It has begun to become unweildy and takes even noticable time to load on a T1 connection so it must be unbearable on a dialup modem. I think it is time to archive it as most of the discussion has been not progressed in many months. I am not an expert on how to do this. If someone could do it or explain to me how to archive the talk page, I would gladly do so. ZaydHammoudeh 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. For more info, please refer to How to archive a talk page. -- Szvest 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood who want to overthrow Middle Eastern regimes

The term Jihadist Salafi is an oxymoron. Those who adhere to the way of the Salaf are not found to be individuals of extremist Jihadist views. What we have here now are groups who have chosen to coin the term "Salafi" because it has become increasingly popular to accept the Salafi method of understanding Islam. The same thing occurred in earlier generations from people adding the phrase Ahl Sunnah to their cause in hopes of gaining support for their movements. There is an important point to note and that is a name means nothing. We are more concerned with the outer appearance which actually proves what and who you are. Would you find a man cutting his head with a blade and then claiming he is Sunni? Of course not. And even if such a person claimed he was Sunni we would know it to be false because Sunnis simply do not do that.

You can sign your contributions with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

If there are several groups of people claiming to be Salafi, WP lets them all speak for themselves. We can't decide who's a real Salafi and who isn't, and we certainly can't let YOU decide for us. Zora 08:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For a long time, the article had three categories: Salafis who were politically quietist, Salafis who believed in jihad against non-Muslims only, and Salafis who followed Qutb in wanting to bring down various Middle Eastern regimes. It was clearly stated that many Salafis did not accept Qutbis/Islamists as fellow Salafis. Many hit-and-run editors have tried to remove all references to the third category. At some point someone succeeded and the removal is now frozen by the article protection.

I understand WHY Salafis who don't share the Islamist views would want to emphatically deny all links to them, but I don't think it's right to do so by censoring any mention of the connections. It's sufficient to say that many Salafis are horrified by what they see as a misuse of their beliefs. Zora 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you think of starting another article under the heading Jihadi Salafi or Jihadist Salafi? Its a commonly used term/phrase and the distinction might lessen salafi traditionalist interest in hit-and-run deletion. --Leroy65X 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this should involve the removal of all mention of these takfiris from the main Salafi article. There's also a problem in that WP already has a number of articles on Islamists, all competing. I'm not sure of the names, I've stayed out of it, but I see them mentioned. Extremist Islamic terrorism? Islamofascism? Qutbism? Why start yet another article? Zora 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In part I'm suggesting it as a way of trying getting around the hit-and-run, but there are differences between the groups. I mean, there must be or the non-jihadi salafi wouldn't be so bent out of shape about the inclusion of jihadis in the article ... don't you think?

The same goes to some extent for the other groups. Qutbists aren't necessarily terrorists; unlike Khomeinists they don't believe in an Islamic "state"; some Islamist are more modernist than fundamentalists; and so on

I would never argue some of these articles aren't a mess, but there is a rationale for not merging all of them. Leroy65X 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ Zora. We can discuss the differences in this article. If there's a large list of diffs than we'd create another article. Creating more articles than necessary creates 'turbulence'. You'd find yourself fighting vandals and having nightmares w/ POV pushers. I just suggest that we develop the idea of the differentiation in this article or start a section such as 'Jihad within Salafism' or something. The article is a small one anyway. -- Szvest 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is from the Page of Sayyid Qutb the Man who was a Member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the True founder of Modern Day Jihadi Groups like Hizbul-Tahrir and Al-Qaeda.

"And it is necessary for Islaam to judge, since it is a unique, constructive and positivist aqidah which has been moulded and shaped from Christianity and Communism together, [with a] blending in the most perfect of ways and which comprises all of their (i.e Christianity and Communism's) objectives and adds in addition to them harmony, balance and justice."(Pages 61. 13th edition and print of Sayyid Qutb's "Ma'rakat ul-Islam war-Ra'samaaliyyah", published in 1993CE (1414H).)

Madhab Section in Intro

This new information regarding the madhab really has no citations. For Cunado to insist on including it seems very POV because it really has very little to do with the article and continues factual errors and misunderstandings. I think if we plan to include it in the article, we should discuss it first. No one can insist some new part they included stays and if anyone wants to remove, then they must use the talk page. It really is the other way around. If you want to include something new, then you use the talk page not vice versa. I really think the first paragraph should be removed pending discussion. ZaydHammoudeh 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also if you want to make changes, you can not insist on an article with numerous spelling and grammar errors. It needs to be cleaned up first anyway. So please before we discuss it, check over the language to make sure it is presentable even. ZaydHammoudeh 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not add that. It was User:164.58.189.249 with this edit. It became mixed in to other issues. If you want to remove it go ahead. Cuñado - Talk 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please identify one spelling or grammar mistake with my last edit. Cuñado - Talk 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cunado19, this article was stable for a while after a lof of discussion. You are trying to make a major change with out talking to anyone. Please discuss it first. --Islamic 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you explaining your edits either.

We ought delete all unsourced and poorly-sourced material. If that means stubbing the article, then it does.Proabivouac 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article didn't have any references when I found it, and I began adding some and marking the rest as unreferenced. I suggest deleting the sections currently tagged with {unreferenced}. Cuñado - Talk 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are sourced already, but they are not mine, they existed a while back. --Islamic 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential article protection

Guys, the article is getting instable because of the revert war. I'll be obliged to protect the article if no serious discussion is on the air. I suggest you reach a concensus re the following:

• What is Salafism.
• What relation it has w/ Wahhabism if there's any.
• Are there any "Contemporary Salafis" in contrast w/ "Classical Salafis"?
• Who says it represents Islam in a whole and who says it is a sect. (categorizing)

I believe if answers re the above are answered basing on sources and references than the article would stabilize again. Otherwise, i'll be forced to protect the article. * "Origins of Salafism" should stay. Szvest 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

I just filled out the article a little with more references. I also alluded to several possible uses of the word "Salafi" and made it clear that modern usage (and hence this article) refers to the 19th century movement and its modern variants. I added references to everything. This is not an issue that needs protecting, unless you want to block Islami and {sprotect} the page. There are four editors that have been reverting Islami and his sockpuppet Truthpedia (see here). He has not contributed to the article besides reverting to an old unreferenced version, and he has not brought up any specific issues on the talk page. Cuñado - Talk 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected --> Please discuss

I've just protected the article as i stated on November 7th. Please organize a list of the issues to be discussed in order to reach a concensus to sort this out for once. -- Szvest 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

I have been waiting for the issues to be brought up. I have added references to my edits where there were none before. Besides the content I changed, I added an enormous amount of formatting and cleanup that was reverted. If editors would be considerate enough to edit over me instead of reverting I wouldn't have taken such a hard stance. The real issue is referencing, however. Cuñado - Talk 20:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But can anyone of you present a list of the disputed points? -- Szvest 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to make a whole list right now, but one thing that should be noted is that Muhammad Abduh did not create the term Salafi. It has been in the Arabic and Islamic lexicon long before him. For example, in Mu'jamush Shuyookh (2/280), Imam adh-Dhahabi said concerning Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Bahraanee, "He was a good Salafi with respect to the religion." In the same book (1/34), adh-Dhahabi said of Ahmad ibn Ni'mah al-Maqdisi, "He was upon the 'aqeedah of the Salaf." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaydHammoudeh (talk • contribs)

I also am extremely busy. I think Salafi is analogous to "Catholic" or "Orthodox" in the Christian churches. Catholic means "universal", and was part of the creed that formed all the early churches. The fact that the Roman Catholic church is so named, does not mean that they are the true Catholic church, but they are a creed that chose a name that implies correctness. Likewise, Orthodox means "correct", and they also claim to be catholic and apostolic. It's the same thing with Salafism. You can say that "Salafi" may mean anyone who tries to follow the examples of the early Muslims, but all Muslims do that. The term "Salafi", and this article, is about a modern movement that wanted to be portrayed as the only true form of Islam, and took a name that implies correctness. This modern contemporary movement is not the same as the general term for the veneration of early Muslims, and had a marked beginning at al-Azhar (noted by several references). The confusion and ambiguity of the name is what the founders intended, and all this is noted in the current version of the page with several references. Cuñado - Talk 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the slow response. I have been busy. I understand your argument that Salafiyyah is a general term used by those in the past. However, if we examine the book, "Aqeedatus-Salaaf As'haab al-Hadeeth" (The Creed of the Salaf and the People of Hadeeth) by Isma'eel as-Saaboonee (d. 449 A.H.), you will notice clearly the word Salaf in the title. The creed in the book has many ideas that would be disputed by the Rejectionist Shiites include that Abu Bakr was the best of the companions; similarly, the asharites would have issue with the idea that we affirm Allaah's statement of a hand and the like. Similarly, this is the same methodology and creed called to by the later scholars including Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, ibn Baaz, ibn Uthaymeen, etc. It is clear therefore, that the idea of Salafiyyah was established long before the 19th or 20th century. ZaydHammoudeh 10:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not anything new. See the Salaf article, and maybe what you want to add to the article can go there, as a general term for the veneration of the early generations. However, there is a modern movement that is awkwardly named Salafiyyah, and by trying to confuse and mix the two ideas, you are giving God's blessing to the modern movement and implying that anyone who venerates the early generations is part of the modern Islamist Salafiyyah, which is the state sponsored ideology of Saudi Arabia, and the foundational teachings of groups like al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The modern contemporary movement is nothing like the Salafiyyah that your book speaks of, despite what modern practicioners will tell you. Cuñado - Talk 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. I searched through links from "What links here" to see in what context people link to this article. About half are clearly about the modern contemporary movement. For examples see Patrick Cockburn, Hijab, Islam in Bahrain, Qur'anic literalism, Chechen people. The other half are mostly ambiguous with nothing in the context indicating which it refers to. I have a suggestion, let's delete the unreferenced sections and add a section on "Historical Salafism" and another on "Modern Salafism" (starting in the mid-1800s). I think if both parts are written accurately it will help. Cuñado - Talk 17:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments

I am not all that well-versed in specific Salafi beliefs, but i will make some comments that i think will be useful for anyone that's really trying to work on a quality article.

First, perhaps people should be more mindful of the differences between groups in Aab countries, which tend to have many connections both physically and philosophicaly and groups in other Islamic countries such as South and South East Asia. Second, i think an important problem with many of these articles is the references. TV shows do not count unless they are in support of more scholarly work. And while we're on that, i would like to point out that as an Arab who has been studying Active Islam for some time, most Western work - even the most 'academic' - is a load of crap when it comes to the study of Activist Islam. I would strongly suggest that people reference local scholars. Many of these write in English and are published abroad. It's just a matter of not relying on google. Rather, people should bother to use books and academic journals. And kindly stay away from the likes of Friedman, Huntington and Bernard Lewis. All three know little about Islam or the region. They just kind of jumped onto the Islam bandwagon post-Cold War.

Bassemkhalifa 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A Really Bad Article

Omg, this is one of the worst articles I've read on this site, ok I've done alot of changes and I'm here to till you what parts I edited and what parts I added

first, I edited this part "and encouraging struggle (jihad) of varying degrees, such as juhadul nafs (struggling to overcome unwanted desires within one's self) and jihadul ilm (the struggle to obtain or increase oneself and others in knowledge)"...do you know any Islamic madh'hab that doesn't encourage and support that, or is this just to draw attention to the word "Jihad". and "alafis place great emphasis on prayer and to ritual practices in many activities in life -- the right hand should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk with pauses between every few swallows and beginning things with the saying of Bismillah (in the name of Allah) -- so as to follow the example of Muhammad and his companions and make religion, patience and prayer activities in their everyday life."....also what Islamic Madh'had doesn't put greta emphasis on all of these things?..c'mmon man!!

second, "alafism differs from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movements of Islamism from the early 1900s to the early 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafis reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like political parties and governmental revolution. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah and learning. Salafis promote sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state."...this is absolutely false, nothing is true in that, who said Salafis prohibit politics?...matter fact we encourage enaging in politics as they believe Islam is involved in all parts of the muslim's life spiritually, socially, financially as well as plitically.

This is absolutely true. There were no ideologies, no political parties, no talk about social justice (as opposed to God's justice) during the time of the Prophet and salafi, and so today salafi do not talk or think about these things. I don't doubt angry undergrads calling themselves salafi talk about them, but we are talking about serious salafi such as http://www.salafipublications.com --Leroy65X 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

^^^Man you're wrong, Ibnul Qayyim who is one of the most respectable salafi schlars has a book called Islamic Politics, Ibn Taymiya spoke greatly about politics, you just don"t understand the concept of politics in islam, you think politics is only political parties and stuff, and that's wrong, please nobody re-edit this again

Saying "no, you're wrong" and making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims do not constitute proof. You also shouldn't make major edits without discussing it first. That's two counts against you. If you tamper with this article again, it will be reverted. Also, please log in when making edits. MezzoMezzo 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

...Now I also added this "However non of the medh'habs are to be followed blindly as Salafis oppose following any of the four madh'habs blindly or exclusively but varying and comparing opinions with scripts of the Quran and authentic hadieth(as all of their narrations must be linked back to Muhammad and the first three generations of Muslims) and in some rare cases they choose opinions that totally differ with the four madhhabs."....I really felt the need to clarify the salafi view on the four schools of fiqh or the four madh'habs.

More specifically:

What the hell is this about Salafism that started post-NINETEEN70s? Are you serious? Where did this information come from?

You are refering to Salafism differs from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movements of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s,? It comes from a serious scholar. (Globalized Islam : the Search for a New Ummah, by Olivier Roy, Columbia University Press, 2004 (p.245) Much more reliable than angry undergrads, don't you know. --Leroy65X 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

bid`ah means innovation. has nothing to do with the word foreign. please correct such ridiculousness.

who wrote the country watches? they're kind of meaningless.

Bassemkhalifa 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a very glaring factual/historical error, i'm probably not the only one who picked up on it. Under history of Salafism, it referenced a number of Egyptian scholars in the 19th century, long after the Salafi movement had begun in Saudi. I was a bit confused and checked the articles on individuals such as Muhammad Abduh and while they were certainly reformers, they did not say anything about Salafism or returning to early religious practices. Then I checked the reference, a PDF file from a paper written by a Dr. Ali Khan about Islamic revival. The reference was to a section called the Second Period of Ijtihad, which I read in it's entirety and found absolutely no mention of Egyptian scholars or Salafis. I looked through the rest of the paper and still found nothing about Salafism or the Egyptian scholars in question. I removed that entire section, as it was wholly inaccurate to the subject matter. This article is going to need some major work to bring it up to par with other religion articles. MezzoMezzo 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Certainly Wahhabis deny Muhammad Abduh was a salafi. Perhaps most Muslims calling themselves salafi disown Muhammad Abduh. But as far as historians like the authors of Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World are concerned, it was Muhammad Abduh and his followers who are responsible for the term, and to whom the term applies:

As the head of Egypt's religious law courts, Abduh championed reforms that he saw as necessary to make sharia relevant to modern problems. He argued that the early generations of Muslims (the salaf al-salihin, hence the name Salafiyya, which is given to Abduh and his disciples) had produced a vibrant civilization because they had creatively interpreted the Quran and hadith to answer the needs of their times. (p.7, Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World) --Leroy65X 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's some very good information actually, I like what you've done with the article. You appear to have backed up both positions well enough and your addition of more references was very helpful. The style (i.e. Wiki-links, formatting, etc.) could use some fine tuning but as far as the information goes for the time being you have my support for this new version. MezzoMezzo 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the MB Salafi or not?

Sorry to take so long to reply Mezzo. I think I have a job for the crack arab speakers at the A Team. Take a look at http://ikhwanonline.net/Article.asp?ArtID=120&SecID=0

the "who are we" (min nahnu) section from ikhwan.net. The first paragraph appears to say that MB see themselves as being salafi da3a (I think) i.e. see themselves as salafi.

I haven't checked yet but I strongly suspect salafi publications and other groups will take exception with the idea of Akhwan Muslimeen are salafi.

So perhaps just as the article has "Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of legal interpretation (madh'habs)." followed by bullet points for the three interpretations

and "The various Salafi groups tend to differ not so much in matters of Islamic practice, such as prescriptions for prayer (salat) or Islamic dress (hijab) as in their attitude towards the state." ... followed by three bullet points,

I suggest something like: "Salafi are not all in agreement as to who is a true salafi.... followed by maybe two bullet points --Leroy65X 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all man, plenty of time to work on this. You are correct in that sites such as Salafi Publications and Salafi Talk would dispute that, so a clarification is indeed a good idea. I agree with your new suggestion, but what sort of bullet points could be put without taking sides in the issue? MezzoMezzo 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph following

Salafis reject scientific theology (kalam). They consider this to be based on classical Greek philosophy (such as Plato and Aristotle) and an import foreign to the original practice of Islam.

(New paragraph with two bullet points:)

Just who, or what groups and movements, qualify as salafi is disputed.

*Some define the term broadly, including the Muslim Brotherhood (who include the term salafi in the min nahnu (about us) section of their website[1]), and Deobandi

*Others exclude the Muslim Brotherhood ... and Deobandi as given to innovation (bid'ah), or worse.

Inshallah, you Mezzo and others will find this NPOV. Some other text will have to be rewritten also.

--Leroy65X 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me for now. Man, you're actually teaching me this stuff, I had no idea that some people considered Deobandis to be Salafi. MezzoMezzo 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Salam, I'm quite sure the two paragraphs below refer to Salafi defined by the 2nd bullet point ...

Many others exclude the Muslim Brotherhood [9][10]and Deobandi [11][12] since they believe these groups commit (bid'ah), or worse.

... and not the first, but I will have to do more research to nail this down. --Leroy65X 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Salafis place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life - three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [13], making sure their galabea or whatever garment they wear does not extend below the ankle[14] -- so as to follow the example of Muhammad, the Sahaba (the first generation of Muslims), the Tabi‘in (the second generation), and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in (the third generation)[citation needed] and make religion part of every activity in life.

Salafism differs from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movements of the 1970s and 1980s commonly referred to as Islamism, in that (at least many) Salafis reject not only Western ideologies such as Socialism and Capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [15] Instead, Muslims should stick to traditional activities, particularly Dawah. Salafis promote Sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state. --Leroy65X 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Salafism

I did some rewriting in Salafi#History of Salafism. See what you think. --Leroy65X 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Salafis and inerrancy of quran...

"Salafism insists on the inerrancy of Muslim scripture and what might be called a strict constructionist brand of sharia or religious law"

Why should this be added? All Muslim Sunnis without exception believe in the inerrancy of the Quran and that it's word-for-word from Allah. This belief isn't restricted to salafis, so I think we should add that information. MB

Check out the article on Qur'anic literalism. It's a difference in interpretation, and thus the statement is apt. MezzoMezzo 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another hadith from Sahih Bukhari

Salam. as I was reading the Sahih Bukhari, I came across this hadith: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri R.A.: The Prophet S.A.W. said, "A time will come when groups of people will go for Jihad and it will be asked, 'Is there anyone amongst you who enjoyed the company of the Prophet S.A.W.?' The answer will be, 'Yes.' Then they will be given victory (by Allah). Then a time will come when it will be asked . 'Is there anyone amongst you who enjoyed the company of the companions of the Prophet S.A.W.?' It will be said, 'Yes,' and they will be given victory (by Allah). Then a time will come when it will be said. 'Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of the companions of the Prophet S.A.W.?' It will be said, 'Yes,' and they will be given victory (by Allah)."[4:146-O.B]; The Book of Jihad, hadith number 1252. Can we use this hadith to indicate the source of Salafism? Pejuang bahasa 00:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i believe that would constitute original research. ITAQALLAH 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Political affiliation

Assalam-o-alikum,

I'm a bit shocked to find out that Jaish-e-Mohammed and Sipah-e-Sahaba are placed under salafi political affiliation. I do not have the books but as far as my knowledge goes and it goes truly deep as I interviewed both organisation's members couple of years back and according to what I know, they follow the Deobandi Madhab and Deobandism is not Salafism. I'll try to get some sources but I left my job in the newspaper around 1997-8 and it wasn't a very big newspaper. I'm also a bit surprised by the facts on this article. Please reply.

Thanks

Rizshe 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Deobandism is certainly not Salafism, but it would appear that they have been accused of being such. Our job as editors here on Wikipedia is to present publicly known information, not to make judgment calls. Furthermore, you really need to source any large insertions you would like to make in the article. Your own personal testimony is an interesting anecdote, but not actual proof (even if I do agree with it). MezzoMezzo 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your reply and you just reminded me of my days when I submit an article and the editor had to say something interesting :) lol. Anyways referring back to the topic, I really doubt that they're being accused of such. Most of the schools belonging to deobandi's deny having any relations to Salafis. Here is an answer about Salafi's on UK Darul-Iftah's website. http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-21102374 Hope that helps and I'll certainly try to find my sources if I can, though finding some people in Karachi especially if you're out of the country for about 10 years is like finding a needle in haystack. Rizshe 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely at the section you'll see that immediately after noting that people such as Pape consider them salafi, there are already four separate references supporting the statement that most people don't consider them salafi. If you have another reference to add then by all means do it, but it looks to me like it's already addressed in the article. MezzoMezzo 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits

Recently, User:Arawiki has continuously undertaken a number of disruptive edits while refusing to respond to requests to respect the consensus version of the article. These issues include:

• The removal of Rabee al-Madkhali from the section under Saudi Arabia; this individual is a well known Salafi scholar and there is no reason to remove him from this article.
• The removal of Muqbil ibn Hadee and Yahya al-Hajuree from the article - again, two of the most well known Salafi scholars in this century and material for articles on them is already being collected. There is no reason to delete the entire section on Yemen either.
• The insertion of the known khariji Abdullah Azzam - this man is not acknowledged by the world Salafi community today as one of them and has nothing to do with this article.
• The insertion of Sayyid Qutb - not only does he have nothing to do with Salafism, but many modern Salafi scholars came very close to making takfir of him (declaring him a non-Muslim). He has absolutely nothing to do with this article.
• The deletion of legitimate sites on Salafism such as SalafiPublications.com. This is a site that is very clearly related to the article's subject matter and to not only remove it but replace it with a shoddy, unprofessional khariji site supposedly "refuting" it is inappropriate and wildly irresponsible.

Initially this user's edits (and those of anonymous IP addresses making the same exact edits, suggesting the possibility of a Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry violation) appeared to be in violation of the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Now I am not sure if these edits are indeed in good faith or simply disruptive; the matter is not clear. What is clear, however, is that this edit is a clear violation of both the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as they can do so in a professional, helpful, and mature manner. Intentionally insertion factual inaccuracies, violation the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and launching of insults is neither helpful nor conducive to a good editing environment. MezzoMezzo 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabee al-Madkhali is not Salafi and he contributed nothing to the Salafi Dawa. He is a known employee of the Ministry of Interior of Saudi Arabia. Muqbil ibn Hadee and Yahya al-Hajuree have no entry and they don't contribute anything important. On the other side Abdullah Azzam is an important academic Salafi figure who is a student of prominent Salafi teachers. He and Qutob are already mentioned in the article and the entry is, unlike yours, is well sourced. Your actions are to be in violation of the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Now I am not sure if these edits are indeed in good faith or simply disruptive; the matter is not clear. What is clear, however, is that this edit is a clear violation of both the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as they can do so in a professional, helpful, and mature manner. Intentionally insertion factual inaccuracies, violation the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and launching of insults is neither helpful nor conducive to a good editing environment.--Arawiki 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i think a plausible remedy to this dispute would be to provoide citations for any individual who is asserted to be from amongst the Salafis. citations should be good quality and verifiable (see WP:V and WP:RS). the pro-/anti- external link spam is something we can do without. ITAQALLAH 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arawiki, it isn't advisable to replicate others' comments in your own response, as it may obstruct fruitful discussion and attempts at dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Before going on, I would like to defend myself against the personal attacks once again aimed against me and my edits.

"Rabee al-Madkhali is not Salafi and he contributed nothing to the Salafi Dawa. He is a known employee of the Ministry of Interior of Saudi Arabia."

Saudi Arabia is the only openly Salafi nation in the world, and not only has the country done much for the Salafi da'wah both financially and otherwise, but Rabee Al-Madkhali has as well. The information in his article speaks for itself. Your claim is entirely false and invalid.

"On the other side Abdullah Azzam is an important academic Salafi figure who is a student of prominent Salafi teachers."

He studied under Omar Abdel Rahman among other prominent terrorists and/or supporters of terrorism, in addition to being a strong influence on Osama bin Laden, the biggest terrorist and khariji alive today. Again, the article on Abdullah Azzam speaks for itself and you are again entirely incorrect in this matter.

"He and Qutob are already mentioned in the article and the entry is, unlike yours, is well sourced."

With the exception of the two shaikhs from Yemen - which is an issue that you do have a point in since they don't have articles yet - everything I have done has been properly sourced. As I said before, Shaikh Rabee's article speaks for itself; Azzam and Qutb's articles do as well and it is clear from that that they are both khariji/ikhwani in ideology and there is nary a mention of Salafism in their articles. The fact that you brought up sources actually refutes what you say.
As for the rest of your comments, they are pure trolling; you copied and pasted my comments as Itaqallah had mentioned. Please review WP:Troll and the above policies that I have mentioned, as your comments are disruptive to this page. As for Itaqallah's suggestion, I believe this is very helpful and as always I am thankful to have your input. I am confident that the original consensus version of this article will be found to be quite sound. MezzoMezzo 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Itaqallah's suggestion (and possible mediation, if he's willing to help ;) ) were helpful. Unfortunately, the disruptive edits have continued and this time without even an edit summary. I would suggest that the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline and the Wikipedia:Edit war editing guidelines are relevant here. However, if this continues I am not sure where to go from here. Some outside mediation or advice would be appreciated. MezzoMezzo 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah's suggestion "citations should be good quality and verifiable" were helpful but you failed to follow them, but I did. --Arawiki 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arawiki, once again please review the official Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies as I have followed said suggestions. The Rabee Al-Madkhali speaks for itself and considering that a large number of the other scholars on the list have also been at various times employed by the Saudi government, your comment that he is a "known employee" of the Saudi government doesn't actually prove anything. In addition, you have still failed to address the issues of your deletion of legitimate websites on Salafism from the external links section and their replacement with a number of jihadist-takfiri/khariji sites that have nothing to do with Salafism itself. On top of this, you have not provided citations for your own edits; all you inserted was a completely unreferenced and irrelevant section on Saudi Arabia, Abdullah Azzam with an unrelated quote from Time Magazine about jihad which is itself uncited, and a non-English interview for Sayyid Qutb despite the fact that his ideology already has it's own separate article as Qutbism and the difference between that and Salafism is apparent. Please actually provide reasoning rather than personal jabs, otherwise you should really cease the needless Edit warring and leave the consensus version as it is. The Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline is very relevant here and I highly recommend that you review it in regard to both this and your insertion of obvious misinformation into the Bin Baaz article as well. MezzoMezzo 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, once again stop your bad language and review the official Wikipedia:Civility policy. You have failed to show any reference to support your claims, while I did already. You are the one who is making the change, while all of I have has already been there on the article before you join Wikipedia. For any person you try to add, you need to show an acadamic reference to show he is Salfi and you need to show why he is worth to be mentioned and what did he contribute to Salafism, but before you do that, please be civil and stop using your bad words. Arawiki 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I never used any bad language, so please do not accuse me of things I have clearly not done. In addition, please do not copy paste my own responses to you as that is trolling; I asked you to review the official Wikipedia:Civility policy for a reason and this is it. As far as references, I already explained to you that the article on Shaikh Rabee contains plenty of references; you, however, have no provided any references for the insertion of Qutb (whose ideology is separate from Salafism and already explained in the Qutbism article) or Azzam (who in his own words follows the ikhwani methodology and not the Salafi methodology). Please think this over carefully, as the rudeness and trolling will ultimately lead to nowhere. MezzoMezzo 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still insisting on using your bad language such as Khariji (which means the dog of the hellfire). Please review the official Wikipedia:Civility policy. The academic reference for Imam Qutb has already been provided, while you have faild to provide any academic reference. You are the one who is making the change, while all of I have has already been there on the article before you join Wikipedia. For any person you try to add, you need to show an acadamic reference to show he is Salfi and you need to show why he is worth to be mentioned and what did he contribute to Salafism, but before you do that, please be civil and stop using your bad words. Arawiki 23:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you really need to stop this. Khariji DOES NOT mean dog of the hellfire and it is NOT bad language; a khariji is a member of the khawarij, a sect that appeared early on in the history of Islam.

As far as Sayyid Qutb, you have provided no such reference. All you have given is a link to an Arabic language page - which is not accesible to readers of English Wikipedia - in which he mentions the word salafi. Furthermore, as has been explained to you, what Qutb invented was an entirely different ideology covered by the Qutbism article - it is fully explained there.

As for actual Salafi scholars added(Rabee, Muqbil, etc.), as I explained to you before, there are plenty of references in their actual articles so please stop this nonsense. As you can see, your disruption was already reverted by another concerned editor and that's an indication that i'm not the only one taking issue with what you're doing. MezzoMezzo 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some vandals persistently deleting the names of scholars on this article, they do not make them selves known rather they anonymously engaged in this illegal activity. They should fear Allah and refrain from these actions, may Allah guide them. NS73Ns73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ns73 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They were both the user in this discussion earlier above and also a number of IP addresses currently being investigated under suspicion of sockpuppetry. MezzoMezzo 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the disruption has not ceased though any attempt to explain it has. As has been said before, the insertion of Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam into this article is factually incorrect; both are widely considered to be ikhwaani (Muslim Brotherhood) and not salafi, and Azzam himself even said he follows the ikhwaani methodology and not the salafi methodology. In addition to this, the reference for his insertion is a quote from Time Magazine calling him a reviver of jihad; that would be relevant to the jihad article but it doesn't explain his insertion here especially considering that in his own words he was not salafi. As far as Qutb, there is already an article about his ideology (Qutbism); it does not make sense to put him in an article for an entirely different ideology especially considering that the only reference is an interview not accesible to readers of English Wikipedia. In addition, the consistent removal of Rabee al-Madkhali and Muqbil al-Wadiee has not been explained despite their articles demonstrating their importance to the modern salafi movement; other scholars suck as Saalih Fawzan and Badi-uddeen as-Sindi among others have continued despite it being known that material on notability is currently being collected to create their articles soon. As far as the insertion of a section on Saudi, it teeters on the edge of the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy; why not include modern salafi attitudes toward Ethiopia, or Malaysia, or every other Muslim country? It's a trivia section and is of no use. As far as the links section, that issue has already been resolved amicably as may be seen below. This behavior should cease for the time being at the very least and ideally should be defended in some way based on official site policy, and not POV. MezzoMezzo 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mezzo, You are still insisting on using your bad language such as Khariji (which means the dog of the hellfire as defined by the prophet (p) himself). Please review the official Wikipedia:Civility policy. It does not make a difference if Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam were members of the political party "Muslim Brotherhood". That party has people from different creeds: Salafis, Ash'aris and many others. Also, Azzam never said he was not salafi... He said that he grew up with Ibn Taimiya' books and he new Salafism before he knew Ibn Baz.

Salafism is not a trade mark of the Saudi government. You need to understand that clearly. Still, because some poeple think that, the section about Saudi Arabia needs to be there. There are types of Salafis: Jihadi Salafism (which Azzam and Qutb belongs too) and Saudi Salafism (which Ibn Baz belongs too). As this has already been mentioned in the article, Azzam and Qutb should be mentioned in the distict figures. The academic reference for Imam Qutb has already been provided (it does not matter if it is in Arabic language), while you have faild to provide any academic reference. You are the one who is making the change, while all of I have has already been there on the article before you join Wikipedia. For any person you try to add, you need to show an acadamic reference to show he is Salfi and you need to show why he is worth to be mentioned and what did he contribute to Salafism, but before you do that, please be civil and stop using your bad words. --Arawiki 07:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arawiki, you're flat out wrong about what khariji means and considering that you actually know Arabic, I have a feeling you're aware of that. As I explained before, a khariji is a member of the Khawarij sect; it DOES NOT mean dog of the hellfire. The Arabic word for dog is kalb and fire is nar, neither of which are linguistically related to that word. As for the civility policy, please don't misuse policies as I didn't even direct the word at you to begin with.
Now, as for the issues at hand. As I have told you a million times before, the references for the contributions to salafiyyah from Muqbil and Rabee are already on their articles; it is well known and already provided there, and you consistently trolling the talk page pretending it isn't won't fool anybody. As for the others, I already told you information on them is being compiled. You are aware of this now and you need to stop, I have told you multiple times.
As for Qutb, you provided absolutely no academic reference whatsoever; you gave an interview, which isn't in English, and yes, that does bring up issues with Wikipedia:Verifiability and related guidelines. As for Azzam, it is well know that he said, very clearly that he follows the ikhwaani manhaj. As has been pointed out by multiple users, people who consider the Muslim Brotherhood salafi outnumber those who do not. Furthermore, nobody here claimed that Saudi Arabia has a monopoly on salafiyyah so your point there is moot; you haven't provided any sort of reference why the section should remain, and your own personal *opinion* that some people think Saudi has a monopoly on it isn't actually proof of anything. Speaking of the separate sections in "jihadist salafis" and "saudi salafis", there aren't any references for those sections at all, seeing as how you seem to take referencing seriously.
You have also failed to explain your disruptions on the external links section, which as can be seen below has already been agreed upon and you provided no comment. Please don't claim consensus when you clearly do not have it, as we know from the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy that consensus can change. This version of the article has been standing for a while, and on top of this your edits have been reverted by multiple users; you clearly have no consensus.MezzoMezzo 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute between MezzoMezzo and Arawiki

What's wrong with the text:

Salafis place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life - three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting , making sure their galabea or whatever garment they wear does not extend below the ankle

Maybe it should be qualified ("for example many salafi believe ...") but it certainly seems relatvent to the issue. --BoogaLouie 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, is sort of seemed random to me, but if you think it's relevant than I shall defer to you on this issue. You have my consent for the paragraph to stay. MezzoMezzo 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is sort of a "Distinctive belief and practice" --BoogaLouie 15:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No it’s not a "Distinctive belief and practice" because many non Salafi Sunnis practice this. A lot of Sufis in East Pakistan refuse to eat except with their hands, and I know many members of the Muslim brotherhood who do wear their pants to not go below their ankles.

The "Distinctive belief and practice" section should discuss matters of creed, and not eating with your hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.178.106 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-search the roots

I think there are amazing similarities between the goals of Salafin and those of Dor Daim, each in their respective religions of course. Each are for a return to an original pure form of their religion, each are against innovations, each emphasize monotheism and strongely reject idolatry and/or praying/beseeching past (dead) leaders, and both are particular in pronunciation and transliterations. Those who follow what they call "Messianic Judaism" appear to be striving for the same within the context of Christianity... and all this within the same century. I just find this very interesting and wonder what it implies.... certainly there hasn't been such desire to return to pure religion and to so shed what are perceived as false teachings and practices like this in the past... irrespective of which religion is correct. There seems to be a renewal in the hearts of mankind to pursue unadulterated truth... should these similarities be commented upon somehow? I hope (and believe) that eventually all those who sincerely desire truth, of each religion, will eventually come to agreement. Omedyashar 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Around the turn of the 20th century people in Europe started to feel more free to make critical investigations of Christian texts. One of the pioneers was Albert Schweitzer. The Lutherans did not much like his quest for the historical Jesus since he dared to point out inconsistencies, places lacking in solid proof, differences between the four gospels, etc. But his idea was to try to get back to what Jesus had really been talking about. He had at least an inkling that the truth was not so easy to come by. Even earlier, people like Thomas Jefferson had come to doubt the reliability of New Testament documentation, but with the 20th century and things like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it became harder and harder to accept the idea that somehow the scholars employed by King James had gotten it all exactly right.

The problem for what Schweitzer calls the "crystallized religion" is that putting the texts in doubt puts the authority of the priests in doubt. If only priests can read the Bible then keeping the people in line is much simpler. Printing and religious fission after the Protestant revolution put an end to that. Too many intelligent people read the texts and would not let the Church explain things its way.

The Catholic Church, in Europe, had run into the same problem before when the Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart tried to go directly to the source, to absorb themselves in mystic unity with God. They faced similar problems later when science began to draw conclusions that were in conflict with the surface meaning of stories in the Bible. They could suppress individual thinkers for a while, just as they had suppressed Meister Eckhart. (And even in the 20th century the Lutheran Church forbade Schweitzer from preaching sermons when he went to Africa as a missionary because of things he had written.)

In the Islamic world, the Sufi mystics got much the same reception. They too tried to find a path to God that did not go through organized religion. And they had important contributions to early science if I remember correctly.

So it is not surprising to find 20th century figures being caught up in the same kinds of searches just from historical forces working their ways out. But, on top of that, developments in science were exposing more clearly than ever before the limitations of human awareness and reasoning and, on another front, people with sincere religious vocations like Thomas Merton were discovering signs that the One that Meister Eckart discovered in mystical trance was the same One that the "atheistic" Buddhists discovered, and that the Sufi insights were neither far from the Christian insights nor from the ancient Chinese mystics like Zhuang Zi.

Those who stand within the structures of crystallized religion have often felt both threatened by the instability they perceive and have also sometimes implied that their philosophical acumen was superior to giants of the Middle Ages such as Thomas Aquinas (who was set off on his vast endeavors by contacts with Islam and through Islam to ancient Greek philosophy). So in the United States threatened (and threatening) religious figures and ideologues have declared that we are in a culture war or culture wars. They see threat where others see a chance to revisit old problems through the eyes of individuals who looked at the same problems from other cultural perspectives.

The image of a movement devoted to discovering and thoroughly grounding an understanding of what the figures of early Islam really thought, and how they conducted their lives on the basis of the same texts available to us today, does not seem to me consistent with the image of narrow minded individuals leading groups devoted to enforcing ideological orthodoxy. P0M (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

The external links in this article seem biased and rather irrelevant as they are not sources and do not add to the article. Please compare with articles about other religious groups - for example the article about sunnies themselves. The links should be evaluated and their relevance justified - or they should be deleted. --Sir48 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be good before MezzoMezzo started vandalizing the article. There used to be a balance between pro salafi and anti salafi. Now he is trying to keep only his POV links. --Arawiki 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I never vandalized the article, and I challenge you to show where I did. You were the one that removed legitimate links and started putting in irrelevant khariji sites. Please don't go and disregard the discussion here to insert your own POV here, in the links or in the article content as you still have yet to justify removing known Salafi scholars here and putting in people who are decidedly non-Salafi. If you have an issue please discuss it like an adult instead of hurling accusations around. MezzoMezzo 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It does look a bit bloated. What would you suggest we use as the criterion in this specific case? MezzoMezzo 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the WP:EL is quite adequate for judging the inclusion of these links. I have visited them, and my recommendation is to include the following four only:

1. Salaf.com Salaf.com Reason: Because of its links to other Salafi sites
2. Salafi Manhaj Reason: Not being a source, not among the most "missionary" of sites
3. al-ibaanah.com. Reason:Informative
4. thewahhabimyth.com Reason: Information about a theme in the article

This means exclusion of the following:

• Reason: Already included as source

1. Salafi Publications

• Reason: Too litle information, too much POV (or primarily Salafi Dawah)

1. Sunnah Publishing
2. al-Athariyyah
3. Islam4kids
4. www.albaseerah.org = Listen to lectures of Salafi scholars
5. Salaficast (to listen to Salafi lectures 24/7)
6. Salafi Duroos (live lessons)
7. Madeenah.com
8. theclearpath.com
9. Understand Islam

• Reason: Dead link

1. Indonesia.

• Reason: Refuting an analysis by Silber & Bhatt from the NYPD, without this analysis having a link and the subject not discussed in the article

1. Is Salafism an Indicator of Terrorism, Political Violence and Extremism?

Looking forward to comments and possible suggestions for other informative sites. --Sir48 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm down with that. I can only speak for myself, but for the time being I think your suggestions are fine. MezzoMezzo 22:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the references (most?) are crap too. Don't know anything about the subject, but they need to be culled and replaced. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are Wahabism and Salafism one?

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim, wa As-Salatu wa As-Salamu ala Sayidina Muhammad, sayed al awaleen wal akhereen. In my opinion, from reading several articles such as on Islamonline.net and even this one, that it is apparent that the Islamic revival movement by Muhammad Ibn Abdel-Wahab (or el-Wahaabiya) and the Islamic revival movement by Muhammad Abdo (or el-Salafiya) are different in some aspects and hence should not be lumped together in one article. It is important however not to take the ways of Jahiliya in fighting as if one tribe against the other and acknowledging that under Islam there is an "Umbrella" of allowed diversity in jurisprudence. Hence, remember that we are Muslims and do not pretend to be scholars if you aren't. Remember that while the Tatar where about to invade Baghdad and bring down the Islamic empire, the people forgot about defending the city and were concerned with arguing whether it is Halal or Haram to eat the meat of a Horse !!! In conclusion, please separate these into two articles, so that every school of jurisprudence could present their ideas. Ittaku Allaha Ikhwanee, wa As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allah. --132.178.206.121 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Akhukum fee Al Islam

It is suggested that they must be merged bcoz both are One and there should not be two article with ifferent Name glorifying a Movement which has history of Violence.Shabiha 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The notion that Wahhabism and Salafism are the same does not stand well under scrutiny. From the article on Salafism:

Salafism (Arabic: سلفي "predecessors" or "early generations"), is a generic term, depicting a Sunni Islamic school of thought that takes the pious ancestors (Salaf) of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.

and

Salafism is often used interchangeably with "Wahhabism". Adherents usually reject this term because it is considered derogatory and because none of the adherents of Salafism in the past ever referred to themselves as such. Typically, they used terms like "Muwahidoon," "Ahle Hadith," or "Ahl at-Tawheed."

And from the article on Wahhabism:

Wahhabism (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية, Wahabism) is a branch of Sunni Islam practised by those who follow the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, after whom the movement is named.

and

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) is considered derogatory and rarely used by the people it is used to describe, who preferred to be called "unitarians".

All of the above are referenced from known and reliable second-hand sources.

As far as glorifying, both articles are relatively neutral and if you feel there is some sort of POV breach, then you need to back that up with proof.

As far as a history of violence, you have once again let your own lack of neutrality show through. This has been a recurring issue with you Shabiha, whether it be on here or on the articles for Deobandi/Barelwi, and you simply stating your opinion as fact does not make it so. Until you can bring some reliable proof based both on official site policy on merging articles, there is no reason to entertain this suggestion. MezzoMezzo 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This Article contains blatant POV with out discussion major edits have been made mostly sources are salafi sites and BIG and Large Claims like Imam Bukhari and hambal were Salafi ,are made.The whole Content is not Supported by neutral Sources.

The hadiths and quotes of Islamic Personalities have been added to influence as they were made regarding Modern day salafi. This Saudi Doctrine has Spread in recent Years and they gave Salaf name in Saudi and Europe where as Ahle Hadiths is their name in Asia. Sunni Islamic Scholars have recognized them on the basis of their Views which are nothing but teachings of Ibn a Wahab and Ibn Taimiah.

• I have removed some of this Content and history of this Article tells that Major changes have not been discussed.Shabiha ^(t 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually most of the current version has been discussed, just before you decided to come along and inject your own personal POV (along with some hefty deletions). If you take issue with something, then discuss it first, but don't just delete anything you personally disagree with; WP:OWN is quite relevant here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To claim that wahabism and salafism are one and the same is clearly mistaken. In this article itself is a quote from the book Al-Ansab citing the term salafi centuries before the birth of Muhammad ibn Abdul al-Wahhab. While establishing independent beginnings for each of the two might not be entirely conclusive, it does go a long way towards distinguishing between the two. Supertouch (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am taking a class on Middle East History at Wayne State University. We discussed Salafism and Wahabism today. From what was stated by my teacher who is a Muslim, and by at least two Musim students in class the Selafi and the Wahabi are different groups. They both were initially inspired by the Hanbali School of Sunni Islam, but they have different ideologies, although they have similar positions on some issues.Johnpacklambert (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I am discussing first this Content Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's companions, and the two succeeding generations after them, the Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in, as examples of how Islam should be practiced. This principle is derived from the following hadith by Muhammad:

“ The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then whose who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[4] ”

This Hadith has no relevancy at all in this article as they are not among the said generations.

The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences. Salafism seeks to revive a practice of Islam that more closely resembles the religion during the time of Muhammad.[5]

Blatant POV regarding Undesirable Innovations

Salafism has also been described as a simplified version of Islam, in which adherents follow a few commands and practices.[6]

All Claims need to be Supported by Neutral sources.Shabiha ^(t 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues with with your "dispute" here.

1. The hadeeth is completely relevant, and your suggestion that is isn't because modern day Salafis aren't among the first three generations is an obvious Red herring fallacy. It doesn't matter what time period we're discussing, as the Salafi movement considers that hadeeth (among others) as part of the justification for their view stated above. The article isn't saying this is correct, it is simply stating and explaining the common view amongst this group of people.
2. Undesirable innovations is not POV as the article is again stating the opinion of people in this group for the benefit of readers who want to know..."principle tenet" makes it obvious that it is the Salafi view being stated. That's not POV, that's just explaining what Salafis believe.
3. Claims do need to be cited by neutral sources. This article is a good example of that.

I honestly think you need to review the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Being one of several people that have observed, complained about, and even reported your editing behavior over the past six months, your view of a NPOV breach is anything which you personally disagree with. I am not saying that to be a jerk, but it's something you need to hear because frankly this has gone on long enough and across enough articles on this site. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sahiba's edits are in gross contravention to Wikipedia's long established rule of Neutrality. Not only are his/her edits devoid of neutral editing, they also lack sheer clarity as exemplified by his/her prior contributions. Scythian1 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the term muslim diaspora in 'It is increasingly important to diasporic Muslims in Europe, Canada, and the United States.' (contemporary salafism) is npov. As i get it a diaspora is a forced dispersion, so the actual current 'muslim diaspora' are the people from ,irak ,somalia, palestine, afghanistan, checnya, and to a greater or lesser extend many others (sudan eg.) that while bearing a muslim identity fled their grounds or were victimised or related to muslim that had to flee. As a result there are millions of muslim people also in arab nations that have a (salafist) grudge. Strangely this npov statement forfills 2 needs, the 'islam' need to unite and group (but hypocritically so) and the wish not to notion the western (imperialist) diasporic and genocidal effects (exactly as hypocritical).77.251.34.32 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The term was originally applied to Jews who spread out from their original region of origin. The same general kind of thing happened to Irish in the 1800s when the potato famine hit. I think the mechanism is a little like what happens when air is originally retained in a balloon. The pressure inside may increase and force some air to leak out. On the other hand, the pressure outside may be reduced, which also makes the balloon loose air. Anyway, "diaspora" just means "dispersion." It does not have a bad connotation as far as I know, and it does not imply an account of how much of the migration is due to adverse condition in the place of origin and how much is due to more ideal conditions in other places within traveling distance. P0M (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Balatant Hypocrisy

You removed the fair Just reasonable valid relevant neutral sourced Content from this Article .This is Total Hypocrisy People day and night are Involved in adding Criticism to Others Page but removed same from where they dont like. You are starting edit warring here. You always asks about earlier discussion Did You discussed that?No. NOW eschew that. Shabiha ^(t) 14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, not everyone here is familiar with the fact that you're Wikistalking me Shabiha so you need to specify that you're talking about me.

Second of all, I removed references based on the site Sunnah.org because that is the site run by Hisham Kabbani, a fringe Muslim religious preacher who uses the site to send out his own personal views. It is not an academic or professional site, it's just an ideological vehicle for this individual and does not meet the standards off WP:RS.

Also, the fact that you're now reverting my edits all over articles you normally never touch was a bad move in addition to your personal attacks here. This is immature and harassing behavior and you need to stop. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

The dates given for Muhammad bin 'Ali al Shawkani (1750 C.E. - present) (in the section Notable modern Salafi scholars > Yemen) cannot possibly be right. Somebody who knows the dates should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFynn (talk • contribs) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed according to the Wikipedia article on this individual.P0M (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Creed Controversy

The article does not make it clear that the essential distinction between the orthodox Sunni majority and the (so-called) Salafi movement is in the matter of `Aqidah (Creed). The traditional Sunni Muslims believe that Allah is is absolutely Incomparable and absolutely Transcendent (as in Free-of-Need--and NOT of altitude). The sayings of the Sunni scholars, including the genuine Salaf (the people of the first 300 Hijriyy years), is that Allah is not a corporeal entity, and that Allah exists without being in one or in all locations. Among the most famous treatises on the Sunni Creed, the `Aqidah of At-Tahawiyy, the author said:

"Allah is supremely glorified from all boundaries, extremities, sides, organs, and small body parts or devices (adawaat). None of the six directions [above, below, right left, in front, or behind] contain Allah as is the case with all the creations."

This statement alone is adequate to refute the tashbih (the blasphemous belief in God-resemblance) of the so-called "Salfis". Among the beliefs of the so-called Salafis is that Allah is "sitting in person" (as Uthaimeen claims) above the creation and has a giant smiling face, large eyes, a pair of outstretched hands, a tibia, two enormous feet, and spends part of the day inside the creations. As any native speaker of English can understand that idiomatic and figurative usage abounds in the English language, and that we don't take every phrase at "face value," one should be able to understand that Qur'anic Arabic also uses figurative language. Various Arabic terms in the Qur'an may have a dozen or more different meanings in the Arabic language, and only a person who is out of touch with the heritage of Islamic scholarship would insist that Allah, Who is the Creator of space and all that exists within space, is a spatial entity with corporeal characteristics. The so-called "Salafis" are only Sunni in name, but not in Creed or methodology. That is a simple fact of history.

The belief that Allah is a spatial being with "real actual" organs and appendages is a doctrine that goes back to some of the pseudo-Hanbalis, who misunderstood and distorted the non-literal verses (muhkam) of the Qur'an (as well as, Hadith of the Prophet). As a result of the quasi-salafis' erroneous methodology, they rendered various verses and Hadiths in opposition to each other, and incongruous with basic common sense. In summary the Eternal Creator was and place/space/direction were not. After Allah created place/space/direction, Allah did not transform and begin to exist in place, space, or direction. This is the belief of the Muslims and can be found in hundreds of classical books on the Islamic `Aqidah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noor House (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Wahhabism

The article should say something about the connection between Wahhabism and Salafism. That idea, or the dispute over it, is all over the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salafi#Are_Wahabism_and_Salafism_one.3F
but nowhere in the article.

We could start with this from the Wahhabism article

The terms "Wahhabism" and "Salafism" are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider ultra-conservative.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it, though it should also include material about disputation over usage of both terms. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added that sentence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS A NEW, BETTER TO UNDERSTAND ARTICLE

This new Salafi article is what we need to base the information around. It is non-bias and very informative. It dose not have irrelevant headings like “distinctive beliefs and practices” since there is nothing distinctive about it. For example is the act of not celebrating the prophet’s birthday. This should not be in the article since the act of not doing something is not a reason to be distinct.

That's not true. Nizari Ismaili not praying five times a day is distinct, should it not be mentioned just because it is not doing something? --Enzuru 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Another heading that should not be in the article is “the history of Salafism”. This is foolish. What history are we talking about here? It is clear that the Salafis have no distinctive beginning. They are the Sunni sect. And if Salafism dose have a beginning after the rise of Islam who founded it. Is it abu Bakr the first caliph or Omar the second caliph. Or was it Imam abu Hanifa, or Imam Malik, or Imam Hanbal. Could it be Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari. Ibn Taymiyyah, bin Baz. We can go on and on.

This is biased, many scholars pinpoint the rise of Salafi trends. The distinctive Salafi beliefs as we see did not arise with Abu Bakr or Umar, no secular source will state this. This isn't about what you or I believe, this is about what secular sources tell us from their understanding of early Islamic movements. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims say they formed within the lifetime of Muhammad for example. --Enzuru 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The old article was very confusing, unorganized, very biased and offensive. The new one is simple and clear to understand. It can be more wikified but besides that it is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.46.149 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think we have some ways to go, but insha'Allah, we will do wonderfully. --Enzuru 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A few changes

The most controversial of my recent changes was to clarify that these are Sunni sources that the Salafi movement is using, not necessarily sources agreed upon by the entire Ummah. I also clarified that when a scholar was quoted, Salafis were stating this to prove their point, not simply have the scholar quoted in the article as if this is the authoritative interpretation of what the scholar meant. --Enzuru 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please give some feedback if this edit may have been too polemical or not. I don't want to make this article a battleground, but I feel the traditionalist voice may need to be stated if the Salafi voice in the article is attempting to prove their beliefs, not just state them. Perhaps both sides should be taken out altogether. --Enzuru 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this article should not be a mouthpiece for broadcasting Salafi point of view. When a Sunni source is used, this should be made clear as well as the opinions of individuals. This article should only be to state what Salafi beliefs are; on an encyclopedia, no editor should be trying to prove anything to the reader.

I do have some issues, though. What you put in with the edit in question was not a "traditionalist" view, but rather a Sufi viewpoint. Both Sufis and Salafis will hold that their viewpoint is the more traditional. Places like Masud.co.uk and IslamicAcademy are sites that exist just for pushing a certain viewpoint; these are not reliable or academic. Sites like Al-Ibaanah and Ahya, similarly, just push a different viewpoint. If we're using links to state what the given group believes - for example, masud.co.uk on the Sufism article for what Sufis believe or al-Ibaanah on this article for what Salafis believe - then I think it can work as long as the language is tweaked to make it obvious that no sides are being taken. As for the actual discussion and disagreements, that's best left on internet forums where young Muslims can have flame wars all day long. As it is, I wouldn't be opposed to trimming the section in question (and some other sections) even more now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm going to go through and take out the apologism on both sides, thanks. --Enzuru 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Eick, it's so embedded into the article, the apologetic defenses that is. I don't know what we're gonna do. --Enzuru 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies about Salafism

According to Wikipedia:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." We should note Salafism's relation with other mainstream Muslim groups, as well as notable criticism by Western establishments. What is the best way to go about this? --Enzuru 05:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)