Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Very Important info

salafism has alot to do with islam, people have mixed up views, the text bellow is describing not salafism but sufism, which is another sect of sunni in islam. people who write this comment have a wrong method of thinking, as you can see he claims to talk to 1 salaf muslim and stereotypes to them all. this method of thinking, if everyone had this they would claim all muslims are terrorists.

salafism go on one strong belief and thats to only take information with evidence. This means taking information from hadith which are authentic and quran. The prophet (saws) said to his wife verily for you i am a salif, salafi means piest. the sahaba are sometimes refered to as the salif, so this individual who wrote these comments should not talk without information.

Salafiism includes several non-classical views, that are implicitly prohibited in Qur'an and Sahih Hadith (ALL SALAFIS I HAVE MET SUBSCRIBE TO THESE BELIEFS):

- Employing a "Piir", (GRAVE WORSHIPPERs, HARAM ACCORDING TO QURAN) to pray for you, in exchange for money. - The justification of acts such as the London 7/7 bombings, WHICH IS ALSO HARAM, (QURAN; FIGHT ONLY COMBATANTS) - The theft of items from non-Muslims, WHICH IS ALSO HARAM. - They also buy and sell Drugs, Narcotics and Alcohol, they say it is OK to sell these to non-Muslims, AGAIN HARAM. (QUazzarn) - AND MUCH MORE.

They are not Muslims in my opinion, and the opinion of Sheikhs that follow no Bid'a (Innovated) group or sect.

I hope I have not offended anyone, because I said the Salafis I HAVE MET!

--- can I just say how ridiculous this persons comment is. You are saying that in salafi Islam that we think it is halal to sell drugs and worship graves? you clearly have no idea who the slaafi are and you are spreading hate propoganda and speaking when you have no knowledge which is completely haram btw and is how rumours get started.

The salafi are the least likely to worship graves out of ALL the islamic groups and you'd know that if you read Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahab's "Book of Islamic Monotheism" or "Kitab at Tauheed" but you clearly know very little of this situation know offence. Speaking without knowledge is very dangerous and i advise you to fear allah. To say all these things about salafism from the stereotype of one person. shows your method of thinking is very bad. Individuals like this with this method of thinking would assume all muslims are terrorists, from that minority which do extremism (blowing them selfs up)which is haram and will repeatedly do this in the hell fire.

I can tell you truth regarding salaafi if you are interested.

Salaafi and Wahabi are the same but Wahabbi is a derogatory term. The term Wahabbi comes from the scholar Sheik ul Islam Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahhab and is taught by the salafi as a great way of understanding SHIRK (such as worshipping graves which is why this comment is so ridiculous because salaafi always talk about everything being bid'ah (innovated) or shirk (worshipping other than Allah). We do not even wear any sort of qur'an around our necks because we consider this shirk as we should only put out faith in Allah and not created objects and we dislike the new things introduced into Islam after the first three generations of Muslims because the Prophet (pease be upon him) said many things on this sibject that leads us to believe innovations are always a misguidance. Ia m happy to put the salafi POV accross but not if it gets deleted by sufi types the second I create it because people get political about it and dont wnat other people viewing anything that might change their oppinion. I am giving these facts to you straight up but no doubt a sufi or other sects opposed to salafism would like to put a spin on this article to put people off it and to give us a bad reputation. I first came to Islam and met some sufi before going to salafism and they call nayone who is not sufi a "Wahabi" who apparently promotes terrorism and is apparently "evil" because we dont like your bid'ah and shirk.

Regarding Madhabs, we do not folow madhabs because we consider this to be taqleed (blind following) although we completely respect the four great imams who began the madhabs and are more opposed to the staunch supporting of a particulraly madhab, even when the daleel (evidence from teh qur'an and sunnah) is much stronger than the oppinion of a particular madhab. We also dont aggree with the actual labels used for each individual madhab. there is no issue with people praying differently, we completely accept VALID difference of oppinions as long as proof can be found in teh two authentic sources and if someone sprayer or any other fiqh issue appears to adhere to any particular madhab, this is no issue as long as the individual does not label themselves with that madhab and does not hold onto it so much that they refuse to do anything the madhab doesn't sanction. We follow the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him) and commands from teh qur'an. the four greta imams were great scholars and we can look at their analysis of teh qur'an and sunnah but not follow on eof them blindly but try to find teh truth by finding the true belief and practice of the prophet Muhammed SAW. This is the salafi belief. We believe that we must follow the madhab of the prophet SAW and not anyone else. Hope this clarify's things. If you need any fiurther info from a salafi ask away, if you are interested only in pushing your POV then go ahead, Allah decides who is guided and you will not misguide someone by misleading or biased info on a wiki sight. With regards to terrorism, what is terrorism? Killing innocent civilians? then is america and Israel terrorists? We dont believe in harming non combatants but we do believe in teh right to defend yourself from foreign invaders as is the case in occupied palestine and afghanistan and iraq etc. this is honest salafi belief, no messin, no sugar coating, no bias, straight up from a salafi. Hope it helps. Assalamu Alaykum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.253.19 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional 'very important info'

Although I have previously responded to these sophmoric, unreferenced claims regarding the issue of taking a Math'hab. Ibn Taymiyyah, who hopefully Shaikh User:86.139.253.19 has at least heard of, said that the one who is incapable of understanding the ruling that Allah or his Messenger (Sallallahu 'Alaihi wa Salam) have given in a particular matter, than this person is "to be praised and rewarded and not dispraised or punished" for sollowing a person of knowledge so long as the opinion of other than that person does not seem stronger (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 20-225). This clearly illustrated the moderation with which a Muslim, a Salafi, deals with matters such as these: not calling for absolute taqleed as the one who falsely attributed the statement "Whoever blindly follows a scholar meets Allah safely" nor calling for unqualified people to give their own rulings.Supertouch (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Assalamu alaykum brother, would a polite salaam not be appropraite for your brother in islam?

Yes of course I have herad of Ibn Taimya (RA) Brother im a little confused as to what the issue is? A bunch of sufi's were talking on behalf of the salaafi's and you consdier them more qualified than me? Considering somoene was accusing teh salaafi of worshipping graves? Aoudhu Billah. Of course I am not an authority to talk on behalf of all salaafi, I am simply passing on teh correct manhaj of the salaafya because of teh gross ignorance of the people on this website. Of course if you can get a member of the ulema of saudia to register with wikipedia and speak on our behalf I will certainly step down. if you wish to correct anything I said regarding teh salaafi manhaj then I will certainly check up on your corrcetions. But the Salaafi manhaj is one so when I say "we" there is no issue with this unless I state something incorrectly in which case, point out my mistake and inshallah I will make taubah.

And where on earth did yo get arm chair Jihaadi from brother, I am no Jihaadi, the salaafi ulema have pronounced that there is no jihad to be faught on the planet right now and that the best thing for any muslim to do is to return to the sunnah and then call others to the sunnah after him (first by his family, then the community etc etc and working outwards).

Im sorry you took offence to something I said but I think considering there were no other salaafi's speaking out I felt the need to step up and defend all this garbage that people were saying about teh salaafi. WOudl you rather I stay quiet and everyone can see how apparently we sell drugs and support 9/11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.211.126 (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

by the way my username is Ahmed khan, sorry sometimes I post without logging in as Im using public computers. I go to masjid as salifyah in birmingham and am involved in the salaafi dawah in the wouth west alhamdulillah. Its not difficult to wirte a non biased article without swaying either way and sticking to the facts so I see no reason why people make such difficult work of this, they should stop seeing it as a place for dawah. Also please visit the wahhabi page and contribute their. the article is hideously biased and so we need to work on making it neutral inshallah because a lie against Allah is the worst lie and we must correct it inshallah.

ahmedKhan (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Ahmed, please don't take it out on Sufis (as you have done here and elsewhere, both in talk and article edits) simply because you are ideologically opposed to the Sufi ways. Having studied the Sufis since 1986, I could take offense ... but I won't. That is not what I am here for. You need to leave the donkey at the door before you enter. Esowteric+Talk 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does "You need to leave the donkey at the door before you enter" mean? I have never heard this expression before, is it similar to "Don't put the carriage before the horse?"

Supertouch (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to leave one's donkey at the door means to leave certain unproductive attitudes and assumptions, or one's ego, or one's lack of humility behind before entering. It also saves one from banging one's head on the top of the door :) Esowteric+Talk 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Secularism

One sentence in the article should be reworded or changed: "Salafism may have more appeal than secularism by appropriating secularisms' traditional role of defending the socially and politically weak against the powerful.[43]" This sentence is important, because it depicts the reasoning behind the political choices of Salafis, and partially explains why Eastern Muslims, specifically Salafis, don't except what the West hopes they will accept: secularism. Still, this sentence describes secularism as having the "traditional role of defending the socially and politically weak against the powerful." Both Secularism and Salafism defend the weak against the powerful, but secularism isn't the originator of such policies, and is thus, not the bearer of the "traditional role." Only in the eyes of a Westerner does Secularism bear the traditional role of defending the weak against the powerful. Before either of these philosophies emerged, Islam and Christianity specifically defended the weak against the powerful. Indeed this was a specific political goal of these two religions. It must be remembered that both of these religions declare themselves as "the religion of the poor." Secularism is a movement that, like many others, traces its roots to the philosophers of greeks, but secular societies never emerged until far later, and the true intellectual founders of Secularism were Age of Enlightenment thinkers. Secularism is a new modern basis for a state, and does not hold the "traditional role of defending the socially and politically weak against the powerful." I do not have access to the citation, but I would like to see its context. Additionally, if the citation is solid, I hope that the article would mention that neither Salafis nor secularist can claim the traditional role of defending the weak. This should be especially clear with regards to the locations that Salafis are prevalent. Most of the societies where Salafis are present in great numbers are not or have never been secular. --98.209.237.136 (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

In favor -- I suggest merging Wahhabism into this article and redirecting. I also suggest that the name be moved to Salafism, since Salafi is an adjective and shouldn't be used as an article title if possible. 170.160.9.3 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Wahhabism is a Arabian-based movement objectively existing since the 18th century that has not always been exactly the same as Salafism (which didn't really establish itself until the 20th century, and which does not have its main roots in the Nejd). "Salafism" might be better as a title than "Salafi", but that's a separate question.

P.S. Please get a Wikipedia account and login (see near the top of this page). AnonMoos 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Wahhabism is not the same as Salafism. --Islamic 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In favor -- Thanks AnonMoos. User:170.160.9.3 was me. I tried to do some research into the difference between them, and as far as I can tell, and as far as the article currently states, they are the same, except that some people prefer the name "Salafi", while everyone else calls them "Wahhabis". If you can point me to a good source (academic, not some Muslim website) about the subject, I'd like to see it, and the difference should be added to the articles.

Islami, if you can't answer with logical arguments then I'll continue to ignore and revert over you again and again. Cuñado - Talk 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cunado19, you have a bad habit of reverting without discussing with other users. Please use the talk page before making a major change. --Islamic 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I'm doing??? Cuñado - Talk 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- merger as per above and support renaming → Salafism. -- Szvest 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

comment, I suggested merging based on the wording of the pages, which insinuates that these are the same group/teachings by different names. Does anyone have references or enthusiasm to fix the pages so that the difference between the two can be noted? Cuñado - Talk 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed -- Actually, Wahhabism has merged with certain segments of Salafism. Indeed, as the article sourced below explains, there is intense competition between scholars over the "true" Salafism, with some scholars attacking violent groups as "Qutbists" or takfiris. According to the same source, "...Wahhabism and Salafism were quite distinct. Wahhabism was a pared-down Islam that rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism. What they had in common is that both rejected traditional teachings on Islam in favor of direct, ‘fundamentalist’ reinterpretation..." Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism

There's also an interesting article about Salafi Islam @ globalsecurity.org -- Szvest 11:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Oppose -- Salafi is another name for Sunni Islam. Why on earth should it be put in "Wahhabism" category. Only a Shia or a Sufi would suggest something dumb like merging these two categories together. They should not be merged. Msaqib2 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)msaqib2Msaqib2 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I don't think anybody here understands the term Salafi or wahaabi. Anybody who knows arabic linguistically knows the term salafi means those people are from the salaf meaning those who adhere to their understanding. Wahaabi is a name given to those salafis led by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahaab; who were dedicated to removing lewd practices within the islamic world such as grave worshipping, which none of the companions were reported to have done. It has now become a derogatory name thrown at those salafi's by non-muslims and opposing muslims alike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.176.60 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I don't think that both should be merged,as salafis are pure muslims following nothing but Quran and Sahi Hadith, the name salafi given is because salafi derives from the word salaf (salf sualeheen), its better we call ourselves Muslims. 10 Oct 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif79 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- My opposition is based upon historical fact. In the beginning of this article, an early reference was given for the 'Salafi' ascription by Samaa'nee, a sixth Islamic century scholar. Ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab was a thirteenth century scholar. This should serve as a sufficient distinction between the two. However, were one to say that based upon the chronology I have given that Wahhabism is a branch or offshoot of Salafism, then this would still warrant separate entries. Supertouch (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE Ibn Abdul Wahhab was an 18th-century scholar not a 13th-cent. scholar. He was specifically concerned with practices which had developed in the central Arabian Peninsula which he thought were innovations or reversions to pre-Muhammad Beduin customs. His life and work were closely connected to the al-Saudi tribe and is part of the history of Saudi Arabia. The Wiki Wahabbi article, as of 5 August 2009, is a mess. Merging it here would ruin this article, which seems pretty good. All it needs is a few references. The section on the different schools of jurisprudence is not relevant but is very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.79.137 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE -- Wahhabi is an offensive and derogatory term for a salafi. Therefore there should be a seperate article for "wahhabi" which clearly explains that it is a derogatory term. Its like trying to merge the terms African american and nigger. You could't merge the tow of course as one is a derogatory word and must be explained as such

• • I did some reformatting and added some 'labels' to any unlabled 'votes' for this proposed merger. First of all, if anyone feels I was wrong in adding In favor or opposed please say so. There were ten votes opposed to this merger with only two in favor. In addition, at least a few of the 'opposed' votes were supported by sound reasoning. This presents a clear majority opposed to this proposed merger. Can we get rid of the proposed merger banner now? Supertouch (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE I have been watching both articles for roughly two years. I will state with no shyness that the attempt to merge them both was initially started by certain specific editors for political/sectarian reasons, not legitimate encyclopedic ones. Both articles are lightning rods for POV and there is a bias from the Sufi point of view I have seen too many times on both to not say anything at this point. The proposal for a merge has no merit; Salafism is a term with both a history of usage dating back to the medieval era and the name for a modern-day revival movement while Wahhabism is a term with both a history as a political movement that threatened British interests in the Middle East in the 1700s and 1800s and a modern day bogeyman term used by certain Muslim sects and some media outlets. It's silly to even suggest they are the same thing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

Beliefs are same.Founders are Same.Ideological Scholars are Same.Place of Origin is same.Present Institutions are Same.present activities are same.The difference is of Just name.Neutral Scholars and People Uses Wahabism while salafism is Used by the Followers of this Movement.

OPPOSE Beliefs are not the same nor should they be even closely implied as the same. Other non-muslim religious sects make this argument when ignorantly attributing "Islam" and saying that it is called "Muhammadanism". Bogus and unjustified. The outrageous arguments of these beliefs should be left alone and removed. This is a derelict conversation and any point to justify the joining of the names should be moot and since removed. This only gives viable fire for other "religions" to continue to attribute the blasphemies they do to our deen. As-Salaf us-Salih (the Salaf) refers to the first and best three generations of Muslims. This is fundamentally where the term of Salafiyyah and following the Dawatus Salafiyyah come from. Calling a "Salafi" a "Wahabi" is a meager and feeble attempt to insight anger amongst a people who choose not to be progressive, liberal, non-muslim loving, pagan holiday following people. They are not the same just as a Hizb is not the same as a Salafi or a Sufi is distinctly different in beliefs than a Shia and so on. So while we absentmindedly focus on this minute issue lets focus on how not to let Christians, Jews, Atheists etc. call our deen Muhammadanism and preventing suffrage to our people across the globe, in US, in UK and other Westernized Countries.

salafi is sunni belief

so it must not be removed from this cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Salafism is very much a movement within Sunni Islam, and has been for quite some time. Please don't push fringe points of view and sectarian disputes on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

lol true say most of thestuff on this page is made up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.106.152 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rashid Rida and MB are not Salafi

This above is not correct. There is only one group of Salafis ever!

People like Rashid Rida are not even Salafi. I dont even know why they are included in the Salafi page on Wikipedia. The Salafis claim to be Salafi, and also, groups like the Mulims Brotherhood (MB) and al-Qaeda often claim to be Salafi (which is wrong of them to do so). I've never known Usama bin Laden to given dawah to non-Muslims, him and his followers only try to kill them. And this is wrong and wrong has got nothing to do with Salafiyyah. These groups who falsely claim to be Salafi are trying to confuse the people of the world. To find the reality, why not ask a real Salafi, instead of someone who is a Sufi or Shia or extremist or a non-Muslims (all of these groups of people dont even knwo about what is happening. Why should be comment? Why should they write and reference their bogus books and beliefs about the Salafis on the Salafis? This is clearly wrong. ~~~~msaqib2~~~~. 00:22, 16 August 2008‎ (UTC)

lol that true rather then critising us they should listen to a lecture on lieing — 10:58, 12 May 2009‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.106.152 (talk)

Notable Salafies in Lebanon

I strongly recomend the removal of Da'i al-Islam Shahal as there is nothing apparent to determine he being Salafy and also being a Scholar. Also, a proper name would appropriate. I have corresponded with the one who added this name, but he was unable to produce anything to warrant the addition of this individual to the list of Salafies, just a newspaper article with a picture of this individual. The only Salafy I am aware of in Lebanon is Ahmad Fuad Zumarlee - although I do not intend that as an exclusive list. Supertouch (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

al-Shahal

Salafism in Lebanon was founded by Da'ie al-Islam al-Shahal, here is an interview with him on al-Jazeera. [1] Ahmad2099 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Muhsin Khan is Pakistani, not Afghan.

Muhsin Khan is not an Afghan. He is a Punjabi of Pashtun descent. To call him Afghan would be like calling Imran Khan an Afghan since he is also a Punjabi Pashtun. Muhsin Khan was born in Kasur, Punjab province of Pakistan. The Pashtuns migrated here in the time of the Mughal Emperor Akbar in the early 17th century. That was too long ago for those descended from Pashtuns of this time period to be considered technical "Afghans".

"Muhammad Muhsin Khan" should be moved to "Pakistan". There are notable Salafi Afghans who should be placed under "Afghanistan" such as Abdul Rasul Sayyaf of the "Northern Alliance", Jamil al-Rahman of Kunar, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused paragraph

Putting a "clarification needed" on the last para in section Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din, Rashid Rida, I would like to know who says what. Being only intermittently visiting religious articles, I'm not qualified to straighten things out in an article where my knowledge is so shallow, but the last sentence of the para is a subjective statement that belongs to someone, and that someone need to be mentioned in the running text in order to fulfill WP:NPOV. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"I am the best Salaf for you."

Needs new citation since the old link is dead. Faro0485 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lemme check web.archive.org. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Replaced with archive link from web.archive.org. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Were Muhammad Abduh, et.al., Salafi or not?

Check out the new paragraphs in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism#History_of_Salafism. I hope they explain and settle this disagreement. --Leroy65X 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good cleanup, it looks very nice. My only issue is line 36, the statement that most historians point to 'Abduh. "Most" is usually a term equal to majority, i.e., more than 50%. Are you sure that's appropriate if there is a dispute? MezzoMezzo 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on that.

This is what I found chcking all the dictionaries or encyclopedias on Islam in the reference section of my local library:

"Abduh's ideas appealed to those who wished to imitate the West without abandoning their heritage. The movement which embodied this reform was called the Salafiyyah, and Muhammad `Abduh was its most influential figure." (from The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, p.19) --Leroy65X 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Salafi - Name ... given to a reform movment led by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh at the turn of the 20th century. Emphasized restoration of Islamic doctrines to pure form, adherance to the Quran and Sunna, rejection of the authority of later interpretations ....." (from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam by John L. Esposito, OUP, 2003, p.275

"Salafiyyah. A reform movement in Islam that tried to respond to stagnation and weakness in the Islamic world and advocated a return to the basics of Islam .... Most importantly, they influenced an Egyptian reform and revival movement at the turn of the century inspired by Jamal al Dina Afghani and Muhammad Abduh ..." (from Historical Dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Wadamed, Scarecrow Press, 2001, p.233) --Leroy65X 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, Leroy, i'm looking forward to editing with you in the future. You're the first person i've seen on here that has actually gotten up and researched something in a library to help edit it. You definatly get my respect for that.

Thanks. I've watched this article for a while and wanted to put something in about 'Abduh Muhammad, but I knew there was major controversy over him. Most of my edits aren't nearly as deft. --Leroy65X 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, for the historical reformer issue, this is what I compiled from reading over what i've researched on my own so far (no summer classes this year, so I got a lot of free time):

• Shaikh Muhammad 'Hamid al-Fiqqi wrote a book entitled Athar ad-Da'wah al-Wahhabiyyah fi-l-Isla'h ad-Deeni wa-l-'Umrani fi Jazeerat al-Arab wa-Ghairiha (Effects the Wahhabi Da'wah had on Reformist Religious and Civil Development in the Arabian Peninsula and Elsewhere) in which he speaks about Shaikh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's preachings, such as not bringing forth "stances that the as-Salaf as-Sali'h disagreed with," and his copying of the way of "the rightly guided Imams from among the Salaf".
• You can try to track that one down or even better Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab: His Biography and Mission From Orientalist Perspectives by Dr. Nasir at-Tuwaim (it contains a vast amount of material from Western or "Orientalist" historians as he calls them).
• The scholar Khayr ad-Din az-Zirikli (born 1893, can't remember when he died) wrote in his book Al-A'lam (Notables) not only of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's embrace of "the way of as-Salaf as-Sali'h" but also of his direct influence on muhammad 'Abduh and Jamal ad-Deen al-Qasimi.
• Also, for what it's worth, in his book Fifty Years in the Arabian Peninsula 'Hafidh Wahbeh writes of Muhammad 'Abduh's own praise of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab as "The Great Reformer" and lamenting of what he felt was the Turks' hindering of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's methodology. I don't really know how relevant that is but it is interesting.

I'm impressed. My arabic is ... ahh not that good.

OK, so do you want to put these cites in as footnotes? Write something more in addition? --Leroy65X 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• As far as Jamal ad-Deen al-Afghani, he is cited frequently so should b included but I would like to point something out. He is usually thought of as a Sunni from Afghanistan, but as you can read in Dr. Abdul Na'eem 'Hasanains biography of al-Afghani, 'Haqeeqat Jamal Ad-Deen al-Afghani (published by Dar al-Wafaa lit-Tiba'ah wan-Nashr wat-Tauzee' in Mansurah, Egypt in 1986), his Islamic education was in Qumm on the Ja'farite Shia theology.

Yes, I'd also heard that he hid his Shia background and that was why he called himself al-Afghani. --Leroy65X 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought i'd throw that out there as some mind candy. Anyway, this leads in to my suggestion. Because there are claims for the historical first of Salafism for both 'Abduh et al and ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, I think the middle-of-the-road solution is to avoid adjectives like "most" or "majority".

Well with 4 out of 4 encyclopedias/dictionaries of Islam I checked associating `Abduh with Salafiyya, I don't think "widely shared" is too strong. What's your suggestion? --Leroy65X 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Originally I was going to edit out the section on 'Abduh entirely as I couldn't find much material on him, but as you showed me he is quite relevant to the subject so that was an extreme position on my part. I'm just trying to avoid another extreme now. You seem to be a straight shooter so honestly i'm more willing than usual to defer on this if you disagree with me, but think about the stuff I posted above. MezzoMezzo 06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.

Sounds like you want to change this sentence:

Many self-described Salafi today point instead to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as one of the early proponents of this movement.

How about,

Many self-described Salafi today point instead to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as the major early proponent of this movement. ? --Leroy65X 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about your Arabic, mine is terrible. I've actually been helped by two friends of mine here in town that are native speakers, so this is something we've worked on together. We're kind of like the A-Team, except Muslim and with less fighting crime and more eating Cadbury chocolate until we pass out on the floor in front of our laptops at three in the morning. First, for putting those as footnotes. I don't have the time to do so today but tomorrow (Wednesday) I can try to work on it. As for the wording, I am not opposed to "widely shared" as four separate encyclopedias does count as widely shared. My suggestion (just a suggestion for now, we can give it some thought) is to include similar wording for the section on ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. While two biographies and two history books aren't quite as impressive, I do think it would be good backing for highlighting the historical disagreement, which i'm sure you've read up on on spubs.com. Let me know what you think and i'll see what I can do to help tuning things up tomorrow. MezzoMezzo 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, muhammed abduh is not salafi and is very different to what salafis ascribe to today (this article is about the salafi movement of today) also whie oxford may be an authority on many topics, its shcolarship is not respected in islamic studies. You will not hear of any modern day muslim groups refferring to oxford for a fatwa. The main scholarship is either the deobandi movement i india, the salafi movement in saudi arabia and otehr similar movements. This article is about islam and muslims, not about western perception of islam and muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.187 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathhabs

'Regarding Madhabs, we do not folow madhabs because we also consider this to be shirk'

This is extremely extreme! Apparently you are unaware of the fact that many, if not most of the scholars we know consider Salafi ascribed themselves to one of the four Mathaahib?? Ibn al-Salaah was Shafi'i and al-Thahabee, clearly a Salafi, said of him in Tathkirah al-Huffaath, kaan Salafiyyaan - he was Salafi??? al-Thahabe himself was Shafi'i, as was Ibn Katheer, al-Nawawee, Ibn Hajr, and al-Mizzee. Ibn Taymiiyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Rajab and Muhammad ibn 'Abdil Wahhaab were Hanbali - the latter two actually authored books in Hanbali fiqh. Ibn al-'Arabee, Ibn 'Abd il-Barr and al-Qurtubee were all Maliki. Al-Tahaawee, Ibn Abee al-'Izz and al-Zaila'i were Hanafi - as was al-Albaanee in the first part of his life. Ibn Taymiyyah said that in extreme cases blind following could result in one's disbelief, but not always. And lastly, and most improtantly, who do you think you are, say 'we' as though you speak for other than yourself. And to make such an unprecedented statement without any reference? Apparently you didn't bother to study before speaking. Supertouch (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I posted that in great ignorance, since then I have studied the salafi manhaj a lot more and can confirm that following a madhab is not cosidered shirk. Afwaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.187 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Salafi economics

"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"

This sentence is problematic.. First, capitalism (private control of the means of production) and socialism (democratic control of these) are economic systems, not ideologies, though both have ideologies based on them, or advocating them. If Salafis consider them to be not really economic systems, but, in fact, ideologies disguised as economic systems, or something like that, the article should make it clear, as it is not obvious. And, second, if Salafis reject both, what economic system do they favor, then? As far as I know, Islamic law, though pre-capitalist, recognizes private property, values honest trade, and makes charity mandatory, so the system that would seem to be in line with that today would be capitalism with a more or less regulated market and a welfare state, I suppose?

And what does it mean to say Salafism rejects concepts like economics? Economics is a science (however shaky it may be), not a concept; and what do they propose to replace economics with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable external resources

Is this this an acceptable resource regarding Salafi? Faro0485 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not. Its highly POV, is not an autheority on the subject and the people known as salafi today do not identify with this type of teaching. This article s supposed to reflect on those who follow the salafi movement today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.187 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article needs clean up.

One can easily understand that it's from wahabi PoV.For example,see the title:salafi,only wahabis use to describe themselves.Otherwise,Mainstream Muslims use the use the term najdi/wahabi.The rest article is much worse.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 04:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The article is not as informative as it should have been. The salafis regard themselves as orthodox, the non-salafis regard them as "wahhabis" and aberrant. The article as it is now, only preaches how orthodox and non-wahhabi the salafism is, which is not really usable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Appalling article with appalling references

This whole article, from start to finish, is a joke. It merely serves to highlight the ultra amateur nature of Wiki when it comes to Islam.

"Salafi is a Sunni Islamic movement....."

Wrong. For two reasons: a basic ignorance of the Arabic language, and the use of the label "movement" with all its modernist connotations. The correct term should be SALAFIYYAH, bluntly translated as salafism.

In the definition of "Salafi" there is totally unsubstantiated statement, thus: "The vast majority of muslim scholars disagree with the contemporary salafist as doing the opposite." This statement has been removed because it is unproven, to say nothing of the appalling grammar.

Next: Typically, adherents of Salafi movements describe themselves as Muwahidoon, Ahle Hadith|Ahl al-Hadith,[6] or Ahl at-Tawheed.[7] Er, wrong again! Salafis describe themselves as Salafis! Bravo to you referring to non-Muslim sources, the usual so-called "experts" in the line of Jason Burke et al (what a joke).

FACT: I have personally emailed the guy who runs globalsecurity.org and corrected him on his wildly inaccurate statements about salafiyyah. The man is so academically bankrupt that rather than doing proper research, he simply cut and pasted parts of my email onto his site!

"From the perspective of Salafis, the history of salafism starts with Muhammad himself,however this is proven to be false." Proven? Proven how? Where? Wrong again! That falsehood has now been expunged.

Rather than presenting something crystal clear, the article merely plunges the reader into a maelstrom of opinions, allegations and idle speculation.

And another thing: the remarks contained in Creed Controversy, above, are nothing but opinionated, erroneous, unsubstantiated drivel. Its author clings to this concept of the "orthodox Sunni majority", as if the majority are correct simply by virtue of their being the majority! This is something which he (she?) has lifted wholesale from democracy. Just to ponder a point, if "Uthaimeen" (sic), or rather, Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, to given him his proper name, claims this or that, where is the reference pointing us to a scholarly work or works?

Buck up Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.144.0 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your provocative derrogatory comment is factually right in one aspect: Wikipedia suffers from amateurish contributions from people that aren't knowledgeable about what principles that govern the editorial process. I suggest eternally blocking anonymous contribution on Wikipedia. Your statement:

Rather than presenting something crystal clear, the article merely plunges the reader into a maelstrom of opinions, allegations and idle speculation.

indicates a flawed position in relation to an encyclopedia: to present an image that is neutral and that reflects the general opinion of a topic in a balanced way. Wikipedia is not a salafite propaganda central, it shall present the salafite position and alternate positions, whether the totality becomes confused or not. A confused topic shall be presented as confused if it is confused. I propose the non-anonymous contributors to this Salafite-POV article checks anonymous contributions and take an extra careful look for 86.135.144.0 contributions to revert. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DENIAL IS NOT ONLY A RIVER IN EGYPT

One of the quotes in this article states that none of the original Salafis ever killed anyone. Denial of atrocities is common to all religions, and is not solely a propensity of Islam. However, the history of early Islam in the Salafi period (and later) is littered with the planned murder of people and of entire settlements in the Hedjaz and elsewhere. Perhaps the most (in)famous is the wholesale slaughter of the Quraish. The history of Islam, like that of Christianity and other religions is one of bloodshed of supposed enemies and of factions within the religion. Historygypsy (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

external links

See Wikipedia:External links. To quote: "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a web directory; there are criteria a link should meet before it is added to an article's External links section... Avoid 'Links intended to promote a site'" Almost all of the sites linked are promotional and non-informative. I browsed through most of them and didn't see anything worth keeping. www.salafipublications.com is the closest thing I could find to an official site, but even it is semi-promotional. Cuñado - Talk 19:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also Salafi Manhaj which has some useful info and translations.

We're talking about salafiyya. Of course any "official website" is going to be self-promoting, as the salafis believe in the most obnoxious form of da'wah ever (personal opinion).

This website chronicles the Rise and Fall of Salafism in America http://www.umarlee.com/rise-fall.html and it's certainly not a flattering view, but it's one worth reading if you want a balanced look at what salafism is. Umm huraira (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ghair Muqallid

What is the relation between Ghair Muqallid (gheyr muqallid) and Salafi? My initial impression is that Ghair Muqallid is a subset of Salafi, where the basics of the Quran and hadith are used to evaluate behaviour to determine whether it is ethical or appropriate or not. As such, it promotes thought (reasoned analysis) over authority. It does seem that Ghair Muqallid is sometimes used as a derogatory term? Is this true? I am surprised that this article does not mention Ghair Muqallid when that term redirects here. --Bejnar (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Please only list people who qualify as notable under Wikipedia criteria. In general, either the person is already the subject of an article, or they are prominently named in an article (for example, as a member of a movement), or you are getting started on writing that article. If the person's connection to Salafi is not mentioned in their Wikipedia article please include a source citation for the Salafi connection. If they are notable, have no article, but are prominently named in a Wikipedia article, please use a piped link to that article (and section) from their name. If you are inserting a name prefatory to writing the article about a notable person, please cite a source here for notability and for their Salafi connection. Thanks. See in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Uthman happened well before three generations had passed away

The article implies that false Muslims arose after three generations at the time of the murder of Uthman, but that murder happened well before three generations had passed away - Uthman died a mere 24 years after Muhammad's death. Something doesn't rhyme here. -- 77.187.35.129 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I found this page devoid of any reasonable mentions of current events related to Salafism, or more specifically Salafist jihadism/terrorism. Imho that's an NPOV violation that I tried to correct to give people a more balanced view when they come here looking for information on why someone would murder Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni. Feel free to argue that I have myself violated NPOV, but if you're going to revert the changes I made, please put an NPOV tag on the page so we can get it resolved. Again, I'm not exactly neutral here, but all my edits were well supported by mainstream media sources. If reverts are done without an NPOV tag then I will respond with such a tag. Thank you. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of putting undue weight on one particular current event, the problem you have noticed is better solved by making the lead conform to WP:LEAD by making it summarise the section on contemporary Salafism which includes the relation between Salafism and terrorism/jihadism.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with expanding the Salafist Jihadi section - but the Arrigoni case is really not the most salient or important case of Salafi Jihadism others come to mind such as ... for example 9/11 and several other much more widely publicized terror acts. This is WP:Recentism and undue weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Page is a clear candidate for an NPOV tag imho. I'll work on figuring out the procedures and rules for such and make sure it's done right.Pär Larsson (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

what is salafism

IMHO this article does a very poor job, especially in its long introduction... it needs to be written in layman terms. Rather than saying it is based on the three pure generations - i suggest explaining what the principles of those three generations were, and doing so in the intro. 84.111.132.40 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a matter of differing intepretations... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IP:84.111.132.40. The article should be adapted to the laymans level. In that context, double-reading this article with the article on "Wahhabism" (the outsiders' name on Salafism) provides a good overview. The first paragraph of the intro of Wahhabism explains what Salafism (really) is. The article of Salafism provides more like an insiders view. I believe that the articles should be merged, but I'm not qualified in this topic – I may be wrong. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din Afghani, Rashid Rida must be removed from this article

Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Din Afghani, Rashid Rida ane in no way associated with dawa as salafiyah. they have been refuted by salafi scholars time and time again. this is misleading english readers with useless information that is not asssociated with this topic. this mention was on this page for too long and must end. Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida were both soofi and Jamal al-Din Afghani was shia (you can even tell by the black turban he has on his head only worn by shia sayads).

http://al-athariyyah.com/media/pdf/manhaj/the_reality.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.235.255 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please WP:SOFIXIT! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Salafism in China

I moved all the information on China to a new section. It was mislabeled in other sections. Also, the information on China is disproportionate to the information on Salafism in other countries. It probably should be moved to its own article or shortened a little. Also, the Persecution section needs to be added back in with information that actually relates to Persecution because it was only about China previously.

Yes, I did not sign in. But I hope this edit is uncontroversial as I did not change any wording, only placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.122.185.138 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section was certainly overwhelming! Too much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.194.148 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons with Islamism

Two things

1. The title sounds like a misnomer Salafis are considered to be Islamists albeit a particular grouping. If anything the title should be changed to something like "Salafism Compared to Other Forms of Islamism."

2. "Western concepts like economics, constitutions" doesn't sound correct. Particular concepts that are western in nature within these fields but one might be hard pressed to make the case that they were invented in the Western World. So at the very least there should be citations for the claim.

--Doctorkc (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and made the first change. I added tags for the second issue.

Zuky79 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Older authorities accepted by modern Salafis as Salafi

This is a controversial topic. This section contains names such as Abu Hanifah, Sha'fi, Sufyan Thuwri, Hasan Basri and etc. These people are claimed as "elders" by virtually all Sunni Muslim groups and hence do not exclusively belong to Salafi.

Even out of these names such as Sufyan Thawri, Hasan Basri and etc are closely related to Sufism. The point is the list as it stands gives a clearly misleading impression. There is a clear hierarchy as to how different personalities allegedly belong to a particular group. Some names such as Ibn Taymiyah & Abdul Wahab are idetified far more with Salafism than say likes of Abu Hanfia or Sha'fi

1. Either the list should be removed - for all 2. Other groups should be allowed to create similar 3. The list should be hierarchica. {my recommendation}

[I have just signed up - forgive my poor etiquettes]

Mohamin007 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Infact, these figures such as Hanaf and Shafi'i shouldnt even be included in the list, since their lives predate the Salafi movement. All Salafis respect these Imams as their own, but they do not adhere to their Madhab. And in fact that is the defining factor between Sunni who adheres to a Madhab (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki) and one who doesnt (Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahle-Hadith). The only Imam of a Madhab who should be in the list is Hanbal, since Abdul Wahhab was originally a Hanbali, and Ibn Taymiyya was himself a Hanbali adherent. 108.14.176.32 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Salafi jihadism

I removed this section; it's replete with problems. The point being made is a good one, but the tone is all wrong and fails to conform with NPOV. The reference to the website appears to be a plug. I reviewed the website for about half an hour, but wasn't able to find anything which specifically supported this point. Someone who's more knowledgeable on the subject than I should try to fix this.

This misnomer, due to popular usage in Western media and opponents to Salafiyya, has been used to describe those who are not truly "Jihadists", or those who gravitate toward use of violence in manners that were not Legislated by Allaah in the Quraan or the Prophetic Sunnah whilst calling that Jihad.

Each Muslim believes in the Jihad Legislated by Allaah in the Quraan and the Prophet Sunnah, its specific dynamics are very clearly stated and described in detail, circumstance by circumstance. Although many seek to obscure the clear explanations from the Prophet and his Companions as it has been preserved, their unadulterated terms are public knowledge.

See descriptions and references to jihadism in context in this explanation on modern extremism falsely attributed to Islaam.

Zuky79 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi; uninvolved editor, and though had heard of the oppositional schools of kalam and Salaf, but could not figure out the Salafi jihadism section. Problem is that while it is obvious that not all Salafi are jihadists (just as the Kingdom of Saud is Wahabi, but jihadists are a fringe group in that country), the article leaves me confused as to whether jihadists THEMSELVES adopt the term. It is pretty clear that mainstream Salafis reject the extremists, but, for instance, many Al-Quaeda self-identify as Wahabi, not sure whether the tag is one APPLIED by others TO a group of jihadists or if jihadists adopt the designation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What is Salafism?

Looking from the article, it is pretty clear from even the certain usage of words that the idea behind Salafism is "disputed". At least that is case with the understandings of those who have been editing the article. To put it frankly, Salafism is best compared to Protestanism. The reason Salafiyya calls to follow the "salaf" (first three generations), is because of the rejection of Taqlid. In other words, just as Protestants reject the Catholic and Orthodox Church hierarchies, so too do Salafis reject Madhab. The idea of following a madhab is what is known as Taqlid, and one who does so is a "Muqallid", and one who rejects such is a "Ghair-Muqallid".

So a Protestant would say that, to be a true Christian you need to read the Bible for yourself and not what the Church says. A Salafi would say the same with regards to the Quran and Salaf, as opposed to what a certain Madhab says. Salafi Jihadism can also be compared to Protestanism if one merely looks at the European Wars of Religion, where the early Protestants took up arms against their rulers who were of traditional (Catholic) church faith. 108.14.176.32 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, this page is not for a general discussion of the topic. What changes are you proposing should be made to the article and what reliable sources are you using to justify those proposed changes? You had previously added as a "See also" Protestantism. That would have been the only "See also". That's just bizarre and I've taken it out. DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hold a "general discussion", but merely pointing out the facts. This article itself cannot decipher what Salafism is, which shows how confused and misinformed it is on the subject. Salafism is a movement equivalent to that of Protestantism, they refer to themselves as the "pure" form of Islam the same way the Protestants called themselves Puritan. This does not mean that the Catholics or Orthodox consider themselves to be "impure" or deviants, and that is also the case with Muqallids when compared to Salafi.

There are numerous sources available online, if you merely google the terms "muqallid ghair-muqallid salafi". Although admittedly, majority of the sources would lead to forums and other interactive discussions. This is because there are not as many websites that get into detail on the issue, given that traditional Madhab represents the poorer parts of the Muslim world when compared to the much richer Arab-Gulf or the West (where Salafism is prominent).

I would like to refer you to this link, in order to give you an idea of the schism: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?50167 and here is a link from an Ahle-Hadith site: http://ahlalhadeeth.wordpress.com/tag/muqallid/ and please read the "aims and objectives" section here as well: http://www.ahlehadees.org/about-ahle-hadith-hadees/markazi-jamiat-ahle-hadees-hadith-history.html

There are salafi forums and non-salafi forums, and you may be able to find plenty of discussions on these issues of Taqlid (following Madhab) and those against it (those who are salafi, ahle-hadith). This is also why most Salafis reject the term "Wahhabi, because it implies they follow the madhab of Wahhab, when their entire movement is based on standing against Taqlid. 108.14.176.32 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding latest edits and why they were reverted

First of all;

Two references that were both relevant to the text were removed;

شرف أصحاب الحديث (The Noble Status of the People of Hadeeth, al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi

cite web url= http://islameye.com/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%89%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%89-t4699s150.html%7Ctitle= حكم قول انا سلفي (The Ruling On Saying "I am Salafi", Shaikh al-Albani|publisher= islameye.com|date= |accessdate= 10/12/2010

The line explaining the theological school of the Salafi movement was removed and replaced with inadequate diatribe;

• Their views in theology are based on the Athari creed as opposed to engaging in kalam, dialectics or any form of speculative philosophy. - WAS REMOVED

This was followed by insertion of a large bulk of text being mainly empty rhetoric and soap boxing against the Salafi movement the article aims to address (and not "attack", as one might understand from the following text);

FROM THE EDIT: Salafism is both a fiqh and aqeedah movement. By emphasising the opinions of pre-madh'hab Salaf they in turn reject the established consensus of the obligation of following a madh'hab.

This is a straw-man argument since its chief claim is a fabrication, the rejection of madh'habs is complete fiction and contradicts other parts of the article that define Salafism as a movement or Daw`ah to return to the original spirit of Islam and evidently not a fiqh identity. Most Salafis do in fact follow a madh'hab, such as the late Sheikh Ibn Baz rahimahullah the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia who was a Hanbali jurist. The highest figure associated with the Salafi movement Sheikk ul Islam of the Hanbali Madh'hab was Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah, Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab rahimahullah was Hanbali and never claimed to represent in fiqh anything other than traditional Hanbali fiqh, the issue he addressed and that which Salafism addresses isn't regarding fiqh par se it is the removal of innovation in Islam and reviving the creed and practice of the early Salaf, including that of the four Imams of the madha'hib may Allah be pleased with them and have mercy on them.

FROM THE EDIT: In terms of Aqeedah, while often used interchangeably, there is a nuanced difference between Atharism and the Salafi Aqeedah. The Salafi movement often lays claim to Atharism, however traditional Atharis, although now small in number, generally resent this claim. The distinguishing characteristic between the two is that [[Athari|Atharism]] accepts The Tahawi Creed exactly as it is in its ambiguity, without going as far as to clarify that the attributes of God are 'literal', as according to Salafi belief. The exact correlation between the Athari school and what we now call the ‘School of the Salafis’ in the current age is intensely disputed. The firmest opponents of the Salafis refute the notion that they are upon Imam Ahmad’s way (the codifier of the Athari aqeedah), and in turn they accuse the Salafis of anthropomorphism, whilst exonerating Imam Hanbal of such a charge. While Atharis avoid discussing the attributes of God altogether, taking them "as they are" and not delving into any discussion of them, Salafis on the other hand affirm God's attributes as being literal. For example, one who adheres to the Salafi Aqeedah will say God has a hand, but its nature is known only to God. In other words, the statement that God has a hand is accepted as being literal, however the hand's true nature is unknown. Such beliefs are what have led to the repeated accusations of "anthropomorphism".

The references given are;

• http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/suhaib-where-do-you-stand-what-kind-of-muslim-are-you/
• http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/the-monumental-sunni-pledge-andrew-booso/
• http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/an-ideal-approach-towards-issues-of-creed/

- Don't want to spend too much time on these but simply (a.) they don't address the claims in the edit (b.) they are all from one source (c.) they don't address the claims in the edit (d.) Oh yeah did I mention that they don't address the claims in the edit - they are interesting reads and point to an idealistic concept of Aqeedah, my suggestion is they can be added to further general reading unless one actually uses as a source and doesn't chuck in a link or two simply to farce referencing :)

From the text itself; these are very, very weak arguments and the accusations can be broken down very easily, first off;

1. The only Hanbali scholar quoted as being the kind of "Athari" (who in fact differed in his theological understanding of the siffat of Allah) who refuted the other Athari Hanbalis as being close to having an anthropomorphic understanding was Ibn al Jawzi rahimahullah who is consistently quoted repeatedly by those who have a grudge against the salafi movement; however they fail to understand that Ibn Al-Jawzi rahimahullah was also widely famous across the Islamic world for his unmatched refutations of the Asha'rites and he is still referred to till today. He was refuted by the majority of Hanbali scholars with regards to his understanding in this matter of creed though he was upheld in his refutation of the deviant groups wa Allahu alim through the ages and this was a mistake on his part may Allah forgive him for his mistakes and raise him in his reward and place in the hereafter; he never did represent the Hanbali school in creed and wasn't highly regarded for his own theological viewpoints by other Hanbali scholars & there are many, many sources that can prove this - however the typical teenage internet surfer won't know this when he starts reading anti-Salafi orientated websites that have a hatred for those who disagree with them and use misinformation to mislead people - in one sense you can call this academic fraud.

2. Secondly, Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah you will be pleased to know that I was the one who created the page ;) is in fact affirmed as being one of the key scriptures in Athari theology whom the "Salafis" ascribe themselves to. In fact every single Sunni movement ascribes themselves to the text since it discusses the essential core points in creed and doesn't delve into issues of the Sifaat of Allah, the authour clearly negates that Allah is confined in space, that He is contained in the six directions or that He has limbs or body parts (far is He exalted from the confines of His own creation) - The Athari school affirms this and in reality affimrs that Allah is "fi sama" or Above (uloww) the Heavens, that He is transcendent by His self yet imminent by His Knowledge, that He is not divided into body parts and Limbs but He has the Sifaat of His noble Hands and Face which are not anything like from the creation, not limbs or anything of the like that He has created far exalted is He from such but that He has mentioned this in the Qur`an and we affirm this without speculation or delving into the reality of His siffat if you understand this wa Allahu alim, only Allah knows best.

3. The misunderstanding here, one which Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah addressed hundreds of years ago, is that Atharism is anthropomorphism where in fact it is furthest from being such. The Sifaat or attributes of Allah ARE AFFIRMED on their APPARENT (Dhaahir) in MEANING however their MODALITY is NEGATED and tafweedh is done relating it to Allah alone. Whereas the Atharism you CLAIM to be true is TAFWEEDH (relating to Allah alone) in MEANING AND MODALITY which leaves one to ask why did Rasul Allah peace and blessings be upon him relate the words to us and why would Allah even mention and reveal the Qur`an to humanity with words which have no meaning? Subhan Allah.

Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah in his scholarly work Al-Aqidah Al-Waasitiyyah refutes the stance of the Mushabbihah (those who liken the creation with God: anthropomorphism) and those who deny, negate, and resort to allegorical/metaphorical interpretations of the Divine Names and Attributes. He contends that the methodology of the Salaf is to take the middle path between the extremes of anthropomorphism and negation/distortion. He further states that salaf affirmed all the Names and Attributes of God without tashbih (establishing likeness), takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine), ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning) and without ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning)

The rules in affirming are such that we Affirm the sifaat of Allah that He is All Hearing, All Knowing without likening any of His Sifaat to the creation, His Hearing is unlike the creation, we do not say how His Hearing is nor negate that the apparent meaning of All Hearing or saying that it's meaning is something else; the same with any of the other Sifaat Allah mentioned in the Qur`an or authentic Hadeeth.

The Sifaat of Allah are affirmed;

• without tashbih (establishing likeness)
• without takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine)
• without ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning)
• without ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning)

This is exactly what Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah wrote of in creed, this is what he addressed, this is what the Hanabila have followed as their Aqeedah wa Allahu alim.

What makes it even worse is that you quote Suhiab Webb who he himself says he is Athari and HE HIMSELF STATES;

"The most important Athari text is the Tahawiyah, then the introduction to Aqidah found in the Epistle of Abi Zaid al-Qayrawani, the Lum’a of Imam al-Maqdasi, the works of Ibn Taymiyah and so on. I would also strongly encourage one to read Imam Hassan al-Banna’s Epistle on Aqida and the recent work of Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi "The differences between the creed of the salaf and the creed of the khalaf.""

All of this is "Salafi" literature and it all contains the same exact methodology in creed wa Allahu alim.

What it boils down to is what is meant by the Salafi movement, in reality I personally do not advocate the term Salafi, I believe it is a non-nonsensical term that suggests partisanship where in fact the reality is that Orthodox Sunni Muslims who call to follow the methodology of the pious predecessors in terms of Creed and Fiqh are labelled with this term and associated with horrible innovates that either call to hatred or sectarianism or killing innocents which is in total contrast to the way of the salaf and is in contrast to the Shariah.

In fact a true person who follows the Salaf is an Orthodox Sunni that follows any one of the four Madha`hib generally, be it the classical opinions or those of the respected Mujtahids, and follows the creed of the Salaf and the manners of the Salaf and so on wa Allahu alim. There is no need to hurl insults and spread misinformation simply because you are insecure in what you follow, all I am saying is that the Qur`an and Sunnah and understanding of the Salafus saalih is far supreme that any lies or deceit used to call people to innovation.

Jazakum Allahu khair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakimonk (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Earlier scholars

The section on earlier scholars considerd reference points by the modern-day Salafist movement seems a bit odd. Many of the people listed there are also used as reference points by other Sunni Islamic movements, and by Sunnis unaffiliated with any movement. I think for the sake of clarity, the list shold only include individuals who specifically used the term "salafi" or "we follow as-salaf as-salih." In the same sense, we could go to other Sunni movements such as Sufis or the Muslim Brotherhood and they would include almost the same exact list. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, this goes for the contemporary scholars list as well. For the sake of objectivity, only people who adhered to the Salafist movement should be mentioned. Take Malik bin Anas, for example; Salafis, Sufis, Muslim Brotherhood, Murabitun World Movement and general, unaffiliated Sunnis all consider him a reference point, yet he isn't included in any sort of a list on the articles for these other movements. Obviously, earlier scholars such as Dhahabi should be on the list as they certainly did use the word, but most of the list of earlier scholars and even some of the contemporary ones are simply people who the Salafist movement respects, not necessarily people who referred to themselves as Salafis. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps an explanatory note of something else I noticed: the modern day movement of salafism seems to be confused here with the ancient Athari school of Islamic theology and the other modern day movement of Ahl al-Hadith. The latter in particular has much in common with Salafism, but there are differences in their beliefs and one striking practical difference is that the term "Salafist" is generally only used in Africa, the Arab world, Indonesia and Muslim minority communities abroad; Salafism is rare in South Asia, where conservative Muslims desiring a return to old beliefs tend to follow the Ahl al-Hadith movement, itself really only found in South Asia and some Muslim minority communities abroad. All Salafis are Atharis but not all Atharis were or are Salafis, as the Athari creed is the creed of the first generation of Muslims, while the Salafist movement came centuries later. Likewise, the differences between Salafists and Ahl al-Hadith is significant enough to warrant a separation here on this list. I think these delineations should be made clear for readers who might get mixed up by reading this article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Salafi Template

Salafi Template is added to the Page to maintain its neutrality to readers.Salafism as a movement should have this template much earlier.Editors can suggest any improvements.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your initiative is good, but the template needs a lot of work as it is. It seems almost like an attempt to paint the entire movement as violent, which isn't the case. I think it warrants proper discussion on its own talk page before being moved onto articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is an attempt to categorize entire Salafi movement into a Template.The Articles in the template subscribe to the Salafi ideology and there is no point to Potray this movement as violent.Some of the groups may be doing this not all Salafis are involved in violence.Salafis traces their history to first generation of Islam.The nomenclature Sunni was developed and came to be known in later stages and was accepted by Muslims who started following four school of thought.

Where as Salafi movement opposes this tradition of Taqlid and focused on relying directly on the basic sources of Islam.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is one case where I'm happy that I was wrong! Let's work on the template's talk page, then. You're absolutely right that this movement, like others, needs its own template. This has the potential to be quite good. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New Edits

I am proposing that Salafi Jehadism should have been included in the Article.Salafist jihadism-Salafist jihadism is a jihadist movement among Salafi Muslims. The term was coined by scholar Gilles Kepel to describe Salafi who became interested in violent jihad during the mid-1990s. Practitioners are often referred to as Salafi jihadis or Salafi jihadists. Another definition of Salafi jihadism, offered by Mohammed M. Hafez, is an "extreme form of Sunni Islamism that rejects democracy and Shia rule." Hafez distinguished them from apolitical and conservative Salafi scholars (such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen, Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz and Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh), but also from the sahwa movement associated with Salman al-Ouda or Safar Al-Hawali.. Shabiha (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're distinguished from the mainstream of the movement, then why should they (SJs) be included here? If you look at that article, it's substantial enough to stand on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I not proposing merging of two but its heading should be in the main Article. Shabiha (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. It's a good move. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

terms

i think there should be two separate articles..one for the "salafi movement" & the other for first three generations. Baboon43 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There's already an article for that. --Article editor (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes,the Salafi means Muslims of first three generation,present Salafi, should be renamed to Salafi Movement. Shabiha (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bin for references

This heading was created, because a later section goes through set of edits, and having references from previous edit discussions mixed in with it is confusion.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS/User:Shabiha

Can User:Shabiha explain why this, this and this aren't breaches of WP:CANVASS? The posts to Baboon43 and BoogaLouie are especially problematic. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary for the point the user wanted to get across, either. This article does contain inaccuracies which need to be addressed, yet Shabiha's comments to other editors (I'm not familiar enough with canvassing policy myself to comment) seem to have come within two hours of posting the above comments here on the talk page. The RfC seems like a bit much as well; opening an RfC is to mediate disputes regarding content, thus it would have been more prudent to wait and see if any dispute arose. As it is, Shabiha's comments here and his opening of the RfC are again within two hours of each other. I actually agree with his points but I think the comments on other users' talk pages and opening an RfC immediately was premature. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Two more instances of the same behavior here and here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As Qwyrian points out above, this is a meaningless RfC. I suppose WP:CANVASS can't really apply to an RfC that's meaningless! At least 2 posts on users' pages, however, are also clearly garnering support for his recent edits generally. The main point is that Shabiha just needs to calm down. DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I requested for RFC in totally good faith.That was my bonafide understanding of RFC.I am aware of canvassing but I understand that it is relevant in garnering/attracting support against user in case of complaints like ANI.I still don't know asking for comment in RFC will meant canvassing.I will try to grasp it by studying more.Thank you DeCausa (talk). Shabiha (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't apply just to ANI. It applies to any discussion pretty much. You need to read WP:CANVASS to see how you can notify others about a debate. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm an editor that Shabiha canvased for his RfC. In defense of my making a comment here I will say that I have a history of editing this article -- for example here. Having said that, I have to agree with TOddy1 that {{fact}} tags, dePOV rewriting and more information would be preferable to massive deletions. (sorry Shabiha)--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: I request comments on biased,non neutral,unverifiable and partisan sources in the Salafi Article?

Should not third party ,neutral and verifiable sources support the Article ? Shabiha (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, an RfC is part of the dispute resolution process. Nobody has disputed your comments above or even commented, and by the looks of it I don't think any of us will disagree with you. I think you should withdraw this RfC for now and wait for someone to actually respond to you on the talk page first. If an unsolvable dispute arises then an RfC would make sense, but again I don't think anybody will dispute the issues you've raised. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This RfC makes no sense. The question asks, "Should we follow WP:V"? To which, of course, the answer is yes. It doesn't tell editors anything at all about how to edit the article, because the question, of course, is always "What sources are reliable" and "What information/opinions are of due weight" and "How do we maintain NPOV given the sources we have" and things of that nature. As an uninvolved admin, I'm removing the RfC tag, given that it asks nothing other than "should we follow policy". If Shabiha wants to actually start an RfC on an actual question, that is possible, but that should not be done until discussions among involved editors have been conducted for a while and stalled. Please note that I have no actual opinion on the matter of what sources to use, nor am I even reading the actual discussion; I'm acting purely as an admin here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that there appears to be a great deal of self published sources, which should be replaced with reliable sources and the article needs to be written to a NPOV. This can easily be done by editing and discussion and I do not see why an RfC is needed for this purpose. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with that this is a much better way to approach the problem. Now, I don't know anything about the specific sources here, but I always support scrubbing articles of bad sources and unsourced info. It's always better to say less than to say something that we can't verify. If there is a specific dispute about specific sources, it can be discussed here, or people can ask at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted self published Salafi sources again.They are in fact neither verifiable nor present neutral picture about the movement.If any one can bring verifiable and third party sources then only article will present neutral picture.We can't emphasize adding non neutral,self published sources and their POV content here. Shabiha (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're edit warring, Shabiha - both here and on several other articles. Considering that you're on a final warning status due to previous instances of such behavior, I would highly advise that you DISCUSS things here on talk and allay the concerns of your peers before reverting anyone else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are also on final warning Mr.MezzoMezzo.You should also not engage in edit warring.Editors please also See double standard [2] adding Critism[3], how many facts tag MezzoMezzo added here and[4], and how much validly sourced content he removed with out adding source or fact tag to themhere by just adding criticism and here in this Salafi article, supporting self published non reliable non verifiable sources. Shabiha (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, I'm not on any warning. Can you put your energies into dealing with the outstanding points on the 10 sub-threads above instead of engaging in reverting and complaining about other editors. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Salafi moved to Salafi movement and Wahhabi moved to Wahhabi movement. No consensus on whether Ibadi should be moved and I'd recommend a new RM that focuses solely on that article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Salafi → Salafism
• Wahhabi → Wahhabism
• Ibadi → Ibadism

– Article titles should be nouns, not adjectives. Even if the current titles are taken as nouns, they refer to individuals, not each sect. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Article editor (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue correction, gramatically correct and conforms the article title to WP:COMMONNAME, as used in English. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as "Salafiyya" is the more common term used in scholarly publications. Compared to "Salafism", it also gets more hits on Google Books. The title of the Encyclopedia of Islam's article (2nd ed., vol.8) also happens to be "Salafiyya". If a rename is necessary, then I'd suggest it should be Salafiyya, Ibadiyya, etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably ok for Salafiyya and Ibadiyya (and I would support), but "Wahhabiya" is significantly less used that "Wahhabism" per Google books. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Salafi" and "Wahhabi" are real words; whilst "Salafism" and "Wahhabism" are not correct English - any more than "Christianism". "Salafiyya" is a real word, but is much less commonly understood in English than "Salafi".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the evidence for it being "incorrect English" or not a "real word". "Christianity" is an unusual construct in the world of "isms" and not analogous. Per WP:Commonname it's all about usage isn't it? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The terms appear in the articles themselves, and they are used. --Article editor (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also dispute the notion that "Salafism", etc., aren't "real" words. In the case of Christianity, Wikipedia has both "Christianity" (system) and "Christian" (individual). There are also "Islam" (system) and "Muslim" (individual). --Article editor (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as I have seen all three terms used with the -ism suffix in scholarly publications. The current titles could still be redirects, of course. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose salafi/wahabi/ibadi are already well known so adding ism's wont help..when these groups are mentioned its usually referred as salafi/wahabi movement. Baboon43 (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2013
  • Would it be better for the articles to be moved to Salafi movement/Wahhabi movement? --Article editor (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• yes that would be better Baboon43 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

yes, I agree. It needs a noun to follow it. DeCausa (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Salafi and Wahhabi are adjectives, it's weird to have an article about a group of people but the title is just an adjective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose-No need.They are known by these names already.Msoamu (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support for a move to a noun form. I agree with the idea of Salafi movement, et.c. This noun phrase would have the advantage of keeping the original Arabic word intact. Imc (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• It seems that the vote count is:
  • 3 support, 4 oppose for Salafi → Salafism, Wahhabi → Wahhabism, Ibadi → Ibadism (not sure about Imc.)
  • 5 support, 3 oppose for Salafi → Salafi movement, Wahhabi → Wahhabi movement (leaving out Ibadi).
    • Could some admin close this? --Article editor (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I support both the original proposed moves and the proposed moves to "__ movement". Srnec (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

The Salafi "infobox" doesn't appear to be editable. Can someone make a proper infobox with the info there? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Asalah and Shabab organzations in the "infobox" presumably are supposed to link to the pages for those political parties, but they link to the wrong pages. Once the format is cleaned up, that should be fixed. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured out how to get to the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Salafi

It might be easier just to make it an infobox though. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should propose that the template be deleted and replaced by infoboxes at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary; I've figured out how to edit the template, so I will leave the template as it is. Thanks for the suggestion. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

deletition of contents

i deleted some contents which were not refrenced.or refrenced to global security.org or poor sources which are reverted.can you tell me please what is the reason behind placing such type of contents in this article.as many contents are wrong among them.Dil e Muslim talk 19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC) i also added citation template which is also reverted can you discribe please.Dil e Muslim talk 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the multiple issues template at your request.

What makes you think that the following sources are not fit for the purpose that they were used for in the article?

• SalafiPublications.com
• www.globalsecurity.org

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New a.k.a Dil e Muslim will not be replying to this question as he/she got blocked as a sock.[5] By a remarkable co-incidence, User:Shabiha, whose views just happened to be exactly the same also got blocked as s sock.[6] --Toddy1 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

nationalism

i believe this article has not highlighted the extreme nationalism behind the wahabi movement..libyan mufti wants to ban women from marrying foreigners. [7] Baboon43 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He is concerned that men from Iran and Syria are “taking advantage" of Libyan women in the present situation.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

sure he is. Baboon43 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Blatant POV

The Article is full of blatant POv.Most of the statements are directed to biased Salafi websites,Publications even some are sourced to dead links and some to forums.I have found some sources directly promoting Salafi view point and that too not in English language but in Arabic. For example-

• www.muttaqun.com/salafiyyah.html - Is Salafi site which was sourced to etymology section.
• http://www.alsaha.com/- A Non English Salafi source.
• http://www.salihaydin.net/Salafismus.pdf -Non English source seems to be Salafi.
• http://www.turntoislam.com/- A Salafi forum
• http://www.salafipublication- A Salafi site
• http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/- Non Functional
• www.ibaanah.com/ -A Salafi Arabic Research site
• http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/- A highly partisan and Non neutral site
• http://islameye.com/- A non functional blog
• http://www.isim.nl/files/review_21/review_21-6.pdf- Dead Link
• http://alagidah.com/vb/showthread.php?p=27549- A Salafi Forum

The article must be directed to third party neutral sources to present a neutral and objective picture of the movement.I have also removed un sourced blatant POV,unnecessary praising and promotion of the movement. Shabiha (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're being bold and 99% of what you've removed deserved to be removed. Still, it's better to wait for comments from other editors when removing such large amounts of content. There are two things I would like to point out as well:

• Your deletion here also removed half of a sourced paragraph, and now the section starts in the middle of a sentence. I'm sure this was an oversight, but all the more reason to engage in such large-scale edits collaboratively.
• Your deletion of the material sourced by Lacroix's article here was due to the link being dead, but there is a new link which is cited as a source on Wikipedia already, I believe on the article for the Salafi scholar Albani. A quick Wikipedia search might have turned that up, and again, being bold is good but large-scale edits like these ones do warrant a measure of caution.

Aside from that, your boldness has yielded almost wholly positive results. The next step is building the article back up with valid secondary sources. And again, Shabiha, I strongly suggest that you withdraw your requests for comment below; those are only for dispute resolution, yet nobody has disputed your edits on the whole and most likely nobody will. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because statements are supported by dead links does not in itself justify removal. Please read Wikipedia:Link rot.

WP:NOENG says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones". It does not say that sources can be deleted just because they are not in English.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you (Toddy) suggest reinserting the material supported by some of the sources in question? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear,Toddy1,I would appreciate if you could clear,What if the content/material supported by dead link contains POV and the Non English sources are not neutral sources,as written above? Shabiha (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, any source which contains POV and lack of neutrality, regardless of the medium, is still subject to WP:RS. There's no need to ask a question like that; it's not like Toddy or any other half-decent editor will say, "well, a non-reliable source can still be used!" MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is a requirement for Wikipedia editors' editing, not for WP:RS. The policy says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Let us go through the deletions, and break them into sections.[8] If the editor who made the deletions still feels that individual deletions were merited, please could he/she explain why in each case. It is likely that some of the deletions, once explained, will be accepted by all. But maybe others were mistakes. We need to judge them on their individual merits. I hope that you do not feel that it is too burdensome to explain them individually.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You certainly put your money where your mouth is! I hope the discussion resolves the issues. I, and I am sure other editors, will keep watch, though I think the onus is on the editor who performed the deletions at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for coming forward to discuss the things here.As far as I got the understanding from WP:RS is that Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Most of the sources I removed were not third party sources ,they were just party to the Article.Salafi sites promoting the subject.I will explain below.Much obliged for you taking pain to discuss them. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Toddy1

Dear ,I am much thankful that you have been really helpful in spending your time on these Articles to guide me and making an atmosphere of discussion.My most of the concerns are related to difference between Salaf and Salafi.The bias I complained in most of the sources is that Salafi bias through which they praise salaf in order to deceive or to give an impression to readers that they are from them.This is most biased and non neutral, POV found on Salafi sites.Where as, there is clear history available of this movement on various neutral sites I am objecting Salafi Publications and few other Salafi sites due to this blatant POV.The salafi movement must have information and headings on this 19th century Salafi movement only.The article must start from its own history not by taking the name of old Salaf.I hope u understands.Thanks Read here and here Shabiha (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is your point of view. You are entitled to put this point of view into the article, provided that you provide citations to reliable sources (which can be biased). However, Salafi authors have a different point of view. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. So both your point of view and Salafi points of view can be put into the article. As this article is about the Salafi faith, it is more important that the Salafi point of view is explained in the article, than your point of view.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Just who or what groups and movements qualify as Salafi remains in dispute

The following was deleted:

...while Ahl as-Sunnah is overwhelmingly used by Muslim scholars, including Salafis as well as others, such as the Ash'ari sect, leading to a narrower use of the term "Salafi".

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The content was not not supported by the source and the source was a blog site that too non working.The wiki Policy says,Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.Shaikh Albani is a Salafi scholar and his ruling is not valid opinion when there is a dispute as to Who Salafi is?Here the third party opinion will be valid. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to access [9]? I think it is a dead link.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC) that

I meant that it is not working. Shabiha (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So is this another dead link issue? P.S. Shabiha where are you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Etymology

This was changed from:

The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors" (as-Salaf as-Saleh), and include the "Companions" (Sahabah), the "Followers" (Tabi‘un) and the "Followers of the Followers" (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in). These are revered in Sunni Islamic orthodoxy and their example has been used to understand the texts and tenets of Islam by Sunni theologians since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier, sometimes to differentiate the creed of the first Muslims from subsequent variations in creed and methodology (see Madhab), to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) and, conversely, to defend particular views and practices.

Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern Studies, states that among Sunnis is "a strongly held view that temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam." This veneration is based on a number of records of the sayings of Muhammad who said, "I am the best Salaf for you" and, as narrated in the Sahih al-Bukhari of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar, a companion of Muhammad; "The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them and then those who will come after them..."|Sahih al-Bukhari collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari. Other narrations indicate that there will follow people who will bear false witness of Islam.

Into:

Bernard Haykel, professor of Near Eastern Studies, states that among Sunnis is "a strongly held view that temporal proximity to the Prophet Muhammad is associated with the truest form of Islam."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all this heading talks about History of the movement supported by Salafi scholar through Salafi sites like muttaqun.com/salafiyyah.html and www.alsaha.com and contains POV sentences like, The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors.....,linking this new Salafi Movement to earlier one.This Article is not about first three generation commonly known as Salaf.

Etymology/History section should have third party Neutral,Reliable and Verifiable sources.

The source alsaha.com is in Arabic and should satisfy these conditions first neutrality,verifiability and confirmation of this wiki policy, When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote..

[Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source See Also]Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy .

Will also fall under exception No.5 of this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves that the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The sentences like,Compilation of Verdicts, Sheikh ul-Islam Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah to oppose religious innovation (bid‘ah) is POV.

The Para saying ,The way of the Sufis is the way of the Salaf is a sentence about first three generation.As have been said earlier, this is blatant POV to cite about Salaf here to promote a later movement Salafi.The sentence does not at all talk or discuss new Salafi Movement originated in Saudi Arabia.

Relying on primary source citing a Hadith and that too in support of earlier Salaf is again POV. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The statement that "The first generations of Muslims are collectively referred to as the 'Pious Predecessors'", is backed by Citation 1. If the words "by Salafis" were added, it would be acceptable. Jews, Christians and Communists do not refer to them as the "Pious Predecessors", but Salifis do. To back a statement that Salafis refer to them as the "Pious Predecessors", Citation 1 seems fine to me. You say that this is a POV statement - adding the words "by Salafis" would neutralise that.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Citation 2, please note that the words "quoting" and "citing" have different meanings in English. If someone uses a foreign-language source for a quotation, they need to provide the quotation in English. If someone is citing a foreign-language source, they can do that just like they do with sources written in English. The URL is best regarded as a dead link - the page I get when I use that link is clearly not the page accessed by the editor on 19 October 2010.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 3 is by Sheikh ul-Islam Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah, and is a religious primary source being used to back a conclusion. This is inappropriate.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you have an objection to Citations 4 and 5, it is not clear what it is.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• You clearly accept Citation 6, as you used it in what you left in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 7 appears to be to a useful source, which is being used badly in the article. It should have been cited as Why the word Salafee?, by Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee, Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 9, 15 July 2004.. I think the sentence that Citation 7 is next to is awful. It is hard to see its relevance to anything - which is a pity because the source attempts to explain the Salifi name.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that Citations 8 and 9 to Sahih al-Bukhari, are to a religious primary source. Citation 8 is for a quotation - I think that should be allowed. I agree with the deletion of the sentence backed by Citation 9.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the first Para irrelvantly talks about another Article Salaf which is a generation consider Pious by all Muslims.This is their POV that they try to show that they belong to Salaf but in actual this is POV.They are using this Salaf.The article should tell only about 20th century Saudi Arabian movement known as Salafi founded by Muhammad bin Abdul wahab.

• C-2 is POV and non neutral and unverifiable language.
• The sentence does not at all talk or discuss new Salafi Movement originated in Saudi Arabia.
• Citation 4 is about Sufism and Salaf,please understand difference between both the statement is irrelevant here and biased to insert.
• C-5 is about Non English source. Shabiha (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Argh, bullet points! Ok, there is something I want to ask. Why was citation six removed? That was absolutely a reliable, valid source. I also have a comment. Citation five is not in English, but as I learned when deleting non-English sources, they can actually be used in some cases per WP:NOENG. I don't know how it could be used here; I'm just mentioning that they can be used in some cases. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation six with its supportive content is very much in the Article.You can use them if you provide translation to them in English.You have good understanding of wiki policies and I appreciate it. Shabiha (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't speak German so I can't help with citation five. And citation six is already there, you're right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Tenets

The following was deleted:

This is not interpreted as an imitation of cultural norms or trends that are not part of the legislated worship of Islam but rather as an adherence to Islamic theology. Salafis reject speculative philosophy (kalam) that involves discourse and debate in the development of the Islamic creed. They consider this process a foreign import from Greek philosophy alien to the original practice of Islam. The Imam, Al-Dhahabi (d. 748H / 1348) said:

It is authentically related from ad-Daaraqutnee that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than kalam. I say: He never entered into kalam nor argumentation. Rather, he was a Salafi.

Salafism holds that the Qur'an, the Hadith and the consensus (ijma) of approved scholarship (ulama) along with the understanding of the Salaf us-salih as being sufficient guidance for the Muslim. As the Salafi da'wa is a methodology and not a madh'hab in fiqh as commonly misunderstood, Salafis can come from the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali or the Hanafi schools of Sunni jurisprudence and accept teaching of all four if supported by clear and authenticated evidence from the Sunnah. They support qualified scholars to engage in ijtihad in the face of a clear evidence be it from Qur'an of Hadeeth as opposed to total blind imitation (taqlid) if he is qualified. Their views in theology are based on the Athari creed as opposed to engaging in kalam, dialectics or any form of speculative philosophy.

This was replaced by:

Salafism holds that the Qur'an, the Hadith and the consensus (ijma) of approved scholarship (ulama) along with the understanding of the Salaf us-salih as being sufficient guidance for the Muslim. As the Salafi da'wa is a methodology and not a madh'hab in fiqh as commonly misunderstood, Salafis can come from the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali or the Hanafi schools of Sunni jurisprudence

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source Alagidah is a forum site that too in Arabic and does not comes under the category of reliable source.The wiki policy says that Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

Next the Salafi publication.com is sectarian Salafi POV site is not valid,neutral and verifiable site to cite a statement about Al-Dhahabi and ad-Daaraqutnee.More over the quote is not at all about Salafi Movement. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation 2 is for a quotation. I think the citation is good enough for that purpose. Your objections seem based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It is the work of editors that must be neutral, not sources. However, the quotation conveys no meaning to a normal reader. So I think you were right to delete the quotation - but not for the reasons you gave.

Regarding the rest - let's delete Citation 1, for the reason you give, and add some Fact tags.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant in citation 2 they have linked this movement to Salaf to present biased picture. Shabiha (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddy understood what you meant Shabiha, but I don't think you understood what he meant. I'll restate it with different words. WP:NPOV is in regard to editor behavior, not sources. WP:RS is about the veracity of a source, not whether it is biased. I can quote Chairman Mao's Red Book in an article about capitalism as long as my edit clarifies that the quote is only Chairman Mao's view and not objective fact. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Salafi Publication and other Salafi sources website-I would like to quote it Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as The material is neither unduly self-serving.There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources.I have all the three objections. Shabiha (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that www.salafipublications.com is a self-published website?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know about Salafi Publications; I've angered them multiple times with some of my edits, haha. It's a Salafist organization in Birmingham, UK though they have some centers on the East Coast of the United States. They're biased as hell and absolutely bigoted to all non-Salafist Muslims, but I don't think it counts as self-published - it's an international organization which includes mosques, bookshops and a publication company in addition to a buttload of websites. I'm not arguing for or against their inclusion as a source, I'm just sharing what I know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

4. Tenets

The following uncited text was deleted:

Salafism condemns many common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that practices which are understood to be bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam's decline after the early generations results from religious innovations and from an abandoning of pure Islamic teachings; that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language was not neutral and was full of Unsourced POV.The wording is an attempt to portray other movements in bad light.The para criticize other major Islamic Movements that too with out valid reference.Wikipedia should reflect neutral point of view.What Salafis think Shirk or Biddah may be very valid Islamic practices for others and it must be supported by neutral sources.The sentence like,heretical innovations are not permissible is blatant POV.Pure Islamic teachings and religious innovations are POV wordings. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So let us add Fact tags.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial language and allegations on other movements ,unsourced POV since a long should be deleted. Shabiha (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted too Shabiha, but we have another editor asking that fact tags be inserted. That would mean that the text is waiting for sources, and if it sits unsourced too long then we have a stronger case for deletion because we gave the community a chance to add sources. A better compromise in this case might be to add the fact tags and let the text sit for some time, and if no sources are brought then delete. Again, I agree that it should have been deleted but if another editor has a different view, then simply restating your own view isn't going to get us or this article anywhere; Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blatant POV and not sourced bias content should be removed.WP is all about keeping NPOV. Shabiha (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013(UTC)

Why is it blatant POV precisely? I'm not seeing any major issue there, although i can see a couple of tweaks would be warranted. As Toddy1 says above, it doesn't look particularly controversial. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the tweaks I would suggest would result in the following:

Salafism condemns certain common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that such practices are bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam declined after the early generations because of religious innovations and an abandoning of what they consider to be pure Islamic teachings; and that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences. DeCausa (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So will we implement said tweaks? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The current version reads:

"Salafis condemn certain common practices as polytheism (shirk) and tawassul of religious figures, such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints or using amulets to seek protection. They maintain that such practices are bid‘ah or heretical innovations are not permissible and should not be taught or practiced. Salafis believe that Islam declined after the early generations because of religious innovations and an abandoning of what they consider to be pure Islamic teachings; and that an Islamic revival will only result through emulation of early generations of Muslims and purging of foreign influences."

I thought this incorporated the tweaks.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It does, but when was this put in? I missed it entirely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

5. Tenets

The following uncited text was deleted:

and make sure their jellabiya or other garment worn by them does not extend below the ankle so as to follow the example of Muhammad and his companions.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious POV claim with out reference,can be used by neutralizing and giving it valid source to it. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All it needs is a Fact tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it POV? It's explaining the views of a movement, and as far as I know the statement is accurate. Shabiha, do you mean to insinuate that explaining the POV of Salafis in the Salafi article is POV? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of Shabiha's objections seem ok, but often he seems to object to statements on Salafi belief just because there is no source or because the source is a Salafi one. It's quite within policy to use Salafi sources as sources for what Salafists believe and deleting an unsourced statement should only happen if the statement is "challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case, does Shabiha think the statement is untrue? (I haven't checked to see if it is true or not, although I have some vague recollection that that it is correct.) He's just said it's "POV", which frankly doesn't make any sense. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is 100% true actually. While Salafists aren't the only ones who object to men wearing long garments which extend below their ankles, it is a known view of theirs. I know certain Sufi groups agree with the Salafis on this, but the majority of Sunnis don't as far as I know, making this belief of Salafists both true and distinguishing. Hope that sheds some light. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

6. History

The following text was deleted:

From the perspective of Salafis the history of the Salafi dawah starts with Muhammad himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings as outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), and wish to emulate the piety of the first three generations of Islam (the Salaf). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders') of the original practices. Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) Muslims of the instructions of the original followers of Islam, who based their beliefs and actions on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Landmarks claimed in the history of Salafi da'wah are Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.240 AH / 855 AD) who is known among Salafis as Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, and one of the three scholars commonly titled with the honorific Sheikh ul-Islam, namely, Taqi ad-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 AH / 1328 AD) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751 AH / 1350).

Please could you explain this change? The first paragraph is uncited, but does not seem to be a controversial statement. Surely adding "fact tags" would have been better? What is wrong with the second paragraph?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a good source for the history of the movement? Salafi source for Salafi Article or third party neutral source?Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani Shaikh Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee,are a salafi scholar and their views can't be authentic in case of history section.First Para is also POV Para which starts the history of this new Salafi movement to Prophet Muhammad neither the Article of Muhammad supports this claim and nor this big claim is validly sourced. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So by your logic, I can delete any source written by an American concerning American history? This is not how we work on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I requested third party and neutral sources.The wording is also POV. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Shabiha, neutral point-of-view is about editor behavior, not the sources. I'm not arguing about the deletion here, but in general you really seem to have some serious misunderstandings about site policies and guidelines. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddy,the Article can't be based on questionable self sources which are Salafi sources in this case.Best sources are third Party reliable and neutral sources. Shabiha (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the specific sources and looking at the general principles, why can't we use Salafi sources for the Salafi article? Of course they aren't neutral, but they can still serve a purpose. We wouldn't delete Shi'ite sources from the Shi'a article, right? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

7. Early examples of usage

The following text was deleted:

• Some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, have noted: "There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the madh'hab of the Salaf, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement because the way of the Salaf is nothing but the truth."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This heading is biased and not neutral.The attempt to make a linkage to Salaf by modern Salafi is blatant POV and personal opinion.Statement is about Salaf and not about Salafi Movement and by this sentence there is an attempt to guide readers towards modern Salafi movement by using the name of Salaf,the pious predecessors,who are authority for all Muslims.

Ibn Taymiyyah was the primary scholar of this movement and his opinion cant be a valid one in terms of history.

The Salafi Publication can't be a valid source in history section as it is sectarian biased Salafi source. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Again you have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language is biased as I claimed.A new movement is trying to use the similar name of another Pious generation. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted that text Shabiha, but you really shouldn't talk about what the editor wanted to guide readers toward; focus on the article, not the editors.

Now if the language was neutral, then neutralize it. That's a general statement. In this case, I am still inclined toward Shabiha's deletion because Ibn Taymiyyah lived and died a few hundred years before the Salafi movement existed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

8. *In the book Al-Ansaab by Abu Sa'd Abd al-Kareem as-Sama'ni

The following text was deleted:

In commenting upon as-Sama'ni, Ibn al-Athir noted; "And a group were known by this epithet."

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This also comes under heading usage of the term, a point of history.Salafi Publication is not valid source to be cited in history section.Further sentence ,And a group were known by this epithet is about Salaf not this new Salafi movement. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The language is biased as I claimed.A new movement is trying to use the similar name of another Pious generation. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you need to stop right there. You're copy pasting your old comments. If they didn't convince Toddy or any other editor before, then simply repeating them could be seen as a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please understand, Shabiha, that even if you're right you still have to give full explanation to other editors. None of us are above the other, and the opinion of no editor is decisive; this is a collaborative effort, and I would highly encourage you to elaborate on your position so that it can be understood in full.

And again, I'm not disagreeing with your point Shabiha. I'm just saying that you need to give more details to your positions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear MezzoMezzo,It is about an old group Salaf and Ibn al-Athir lived much before this new Salafi movement took birth or developed.This is bias.I also disagree with the source. Shabiha (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is Shabiha's opinion that Salafi are dishonest about their own movement. That does not seem a valid reason for the article to not mention what the Salafi claim to be the history of their movement. However, it might a be good reason to have a section explaining which aspects of Salafi history are disputed, and by whom. Such a section would need to be cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Toddy, you're opening a door which I was eager to open after all this was done. I think Shabiha is right about Salafis being uninformed (not really dishonest) about their own movement's history...but maybe we ought to resolve these issues before tackling that one. I don't like to talk, but I've experienced this with other movements before...if we start posting information contrary to how they view themselves - no matter how fair our edits are - we will be dealing with a number of IP addresses and brand new accounts with no understanding of policy trying to blank sections out. I've seen it so many times with Muslim movements on here. Your suggestion is great, and what Shabiha is getting at is mostly accurate...but can we focus on the source for this Al-Ansaab comment before we poke the bear with a stick? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we have an editor who is saying that we cannot use Salafi sources for what Salafis believe in, because in his opinion the Salafi sources are wrong.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DeCause pointed that out too, and I get what you guys are saying. Shabiha's edits were in good faith but I think he just didn't get that NPOV is for editors, not sources. It's been mentioned enough that he probably gets what we mean by now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

9. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab

The following text was deleted:

Many today consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih. His evangelizing in 18th century Arabian Peninsula was a call to return to the practices of the early Muslims. His works, especially Kitab at-Tawhid, are still widely read by Salafis around the world today, and the majority of Salafi scholars still reference his works frequently. After his death, his views flourished under his descendants, the Al ash-Sheikh, and the generous financing of the House of Saud and initiated the current worldwide Salafi movement.

The vast majority of Salafis reject the Wahhabi label because they consider it unfounded, an object of controversy, holding that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not establish a new school of thought but restored the Islam practiced by the earliest generations of Muslims. Followers of Salafiyyah consider it wrong to be called "Wahhabis" as the 17th Name of God is al-Wahhab ("the Bestower") and to be called a "Wahhabi" denotes the following of a person other than what in actuality is the believed following of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Wahhabism has been called a "belittling" and derogatory term for Salafi, while another source defines it as "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider strongly apolitical, and yet another describes it as a formerly separate current of Islamic thought that appropriated "language and symbolism of Salafism" until the two became "practically indistinguishable" in the 1970s.

Trevor Stanley states that, while the origins of the terms Wahhabism and Salafism "were quite distinct" – "Wahhabism was a pared-down Islam that rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism" – they both shared a rejection of "traditional" teachings on Islam in favor of a direct, more puritan interpretation. Stéphane Lacroix, a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris, also affirmed a distinction between the two: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism."

and replaced with:

while another source defines it as "a particular orientation within Salafism," an orientation some consider strongly apolitical, and yet another describes it as a formerly separate current of Islamic thought that appropriated "language and symbolism of Salafism" until the two became "practically indistinguishable" in the 1970s.

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Salafi Publication is non neutral sectarian source and not valid, some blatant POV unsourced statements, Ad-Dar as-Salafiyyah Publication is not neutral source due to obvious POV and statements sourced to wahabimyth are not supported by its broken link,I added Laurent Bonnefoy, Salafism in Yemen. Transnationalism and Religious Identity, Columbia University Press/Hurst, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84904-131-7 - page 245, sourced content in to the Article.It was removed in mistake.Further the content sourced to www.isim.nl is removed due to broken link. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood policy. Editors should be neutral. Sources need not be.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What about other sources like wahabimyth which is broken link and un sourced POV ?

I am assuming the insigned comment above was from Shabiha.

Shabiha, you still don't get it? Editors must be neutral; not the sources. Now, some of those deleted sources were bunk but the ones you deleted by accident (citations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10) need to be put back in. I overlooked that part when I initially commended you (Shabiha) but upon review, those really need to be reinstated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with the dead link to Lacroix's article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

10. Connections to extremism

The following text was deleted:

In recent years the Salafi methodology has mistakenly come to be associated with the jihad of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and related groups that advocate the killing of innocent civilians. These acts have consistently been strongly opposed by Salafi scholars such as Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen and Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz who had all issued fatawa (religious verdicts) forbidding suicide bombing declaring the act as being totally haram (forbidden).

• Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani who said;

"We say that suicide operations now, in the present times, all of them are without legislation and all of them are forbidden. It could be that the person who commits it could fall into the category of those who remain in the Hellfire forever, or it could be that he does not remain in the Hellfire forever..."

• Sheikh Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen who said;

" ...as for what some people do regarding activities of suicide, tying explosives to themselves and then approaching Unbelievers and detonating them amongst them, then this is a case of suicide, and Allaah¹s refuge is sought. So whoever commits suicide then he will be consigned eternally to Hell-Fire, remaining there forever, as occurs in the hadeeth of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. (i.e., his, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, saying, " and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, then the iron weapon will remain in his hand, and he will continuously stab himself in his belly with it in the Fire of Hell eternally, forever and ever." Reported by al-Bukhaaree, no. 5778 and Muslim, no. 109, in the Book of Eemaan). Because this person has killed himself and has not benefited Islam. So if he kills himself along with ten, or a hundred, or two hundred other people, then Islam will not benefit by that, since the people will not accept Islam... ... Rather it will probably just make the enemy more determined, and this action will provoke malice and bitterness in his heart to such an extent that he may seek to wreak havoc upon the Muslims. This is what is found from the practice of the Jews with the people of Palestine, so when one of the Palestinian blows himself up and kills six or seven people, then in retaliation they take sixty or more. So this does not produce any benefit for the Muslims, and does not benefit those amongst whose ranks explosives are detonated. So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide (bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this necessitates entry into Hell-Fire, and Allah¹s refuge is sought and that this person is not a martyr (shaheed). However if a person has done this based upon misinterpretation, thinking that it is permissible, then we hope that he will be saved from sin, but as for martyrdom being written for him, then no, since he has not taken the path of martyrdom. But whoever performs ijtihaad and errs will receive a single reward (if he is a person qualified to make ijtihaad)."

• Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz who said with regards to suicide bombings;

" ...such an act is never correct because it is a form of killing oneself and Allāh subhanahu wa ta'ala says: < And do not kill yourselves. [Sūrah al-Nisā 4:29] > And the prophet salAllahu 'aleihi wa selim said: < Whoever kills himself by any means, he will be punished by it on the Day of Resurrection.” [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 670] > The person should rather strive and seek to guide them and if fighting is legalized and legislated, then he fights alongside the Muslims. If he’s then killed in this way, then Allāh is praised. But as for killing himself by booby-trapping his body with explosives, thereby killing others and himself, this is wrong and completely impermissible. Rather, he should fight with the Muslims only when fighting is legitimately legislated. As for the [suicidal] actions of (some of) the Palestinians, they are wrong and produce no benefit. Instead, it is compulsory upon them to call to Allāh by teaching, guiding, and advising and not by such actions as these."

The groups and individuals that carry out terrorist attacks are regarded as being out of the fold of the methodology of the Salaf, misguided and deviant; chiefly erroneous "Qutubi jihadism" groups.

Please could you explain this change?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lnaguage of full heading and content is blatant POV which does not find any thing related to Salafi extremism and all the three Salafi source (one of them is forum) presents a very Bright POV Picture of the Movement.This heading should have neutral and verifiable sourced content which may objectively discuss its connection with extremism.All the three Salafi sources are not valid being unverifiable and non neutral here. Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citation 1 is a video posted on a forum.
• Citation 2 is a forum.
• Citation 3 is a dead link.

It would have been better to have removed Citations 1 and 2, together with quotations from them. I think that the first paragraph should have been kept, but marked with a Fact tag. The content of the third quotation should have been left for the time being, with a dead link marker next to Citation 3.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am of the view that heading and content is different and obvious defense of movement in POV with out presenting a neutral picture of extremism. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's the solution, Shabiha? Another editor states their view and so you just state your own opposing view? What will the outcome be, then?

I'm trying to help you out, Shabiha. I have full confidence that your edits were in good faith and I still hold that in general, it was a good initiative (though discussing things here is definitely a positive). However, I don't have confidence in your efforts to communicate your reasoning; you need to put a little more time into explaining your positions here, and think ahead regarding what will happen if you just say to another editor: "well I disagree, so there." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If islamagainstextremism website is too biased, can we at least quote the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemning violence in this news article by Arabnews.com? http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/grand-mufti-denounces-violence-against-embassies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.9.148 (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

11.Comparison with other movements

The following uncited text was deleted:

Instead, it is thought that Muslims should stick to traditional activities, particularly Dawah. Nevertheless, Salafis do not preach willful ignorance of civil or state law. While preaching that the Sharia takes precedence, Salafi Muslims conform to civil or state law as far as they are required, for example in purchasing mandatory auto insurance.

Please could you explain this change? Would it not have been better to have tried to find sources for it? Or to attach "fact" tags? It does not seem to be a controversial statement.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed it due its bigger unsourced POV claims.Salafis do not preach willful ignorance of civil or state law (Any Neutral source here?). Shabiha (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Fact tags would have been more appropriate.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki prefers sourced content and POV that too unsourced must be removed. Shabiha (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you need to explain why removal instead of placing fact tags first. You just stating that doesn't really help your cause. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Responses needed from Shabiha

Shabiha hasn't edited this page for 3 days now and all of the above subsections (with the exception of the first one) has outstanding points made by others awaiting responses from Shabiha. Unless Shabiha re-engages and responds properly, I think consideration needs to be given to reverting some or all of the deletions (with whatever tweaks and fact tags that have been discussed added) DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha doesn't seem to have edited at all for a few days. The reason why isn't our business, but given that he's been inactive for four days it's safe to estimate that he might not log in for another few days. If any of the edits are pressing, I don't think anyone would object to one of us undertaking necessary actions - I'm sure once Shabiha returns, he'll give the comments here a thorough review. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored text in accordance with the discussions above.[10] I have included suggested rewording, added FACT and DEAD LINK tags, and made minor corrections to English (e.g. "Press" not "Presss" and "wrote" not "noted").--Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He's currently blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring, so we'll have to wait for further responses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

4.7 Persecution of Salafis

Content seems to be mostly unrelated to the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.13.220 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011‎ (UTC)