Talk:Al-Ahbash/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Al-Ahbash. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

REVERT it BACK

the current article is incorrect..AICP is not a sect it is an organization and it DOES not have shia elements in its ideology...the academic sources proves this and what is wrong with installing logos and info boxes? this is ridiculous! the group is not called Ahbash, thats a nick name...the article that was deleted had accurate representation of the belief system of AICP now kindly revert it back to 70.54

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/316709/_al-A_bash_Ahbash_

Baboon43 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, feel welcome to read this whole discussion page (s) thoroughly to confirm fact that each and every word of this Wikipedia NOPOV-compliant version has been discussed over and over again throughout the years. Besides IF the AICP is merely an organization then it supposed NOT to have any sort of "belief system." Thank you. AmandaParker (talk)

there is no reason the info box or logo was deleted so it must be reverted...shia belief is not the AICP ideology so i dont know where the mixture of that came from the CORRECT belief which was posted was deleted it must be restored so that there is no confusion among readers of this article on the exact beliefs of AICP which is sunni shafi with sufism...here are the exact beliefs with academic sources

Neo-traditionalist, in that it aims to perserve the Islamic heritage of the Ottoman era, that is, the Ashari doctrine (aqida) of ilm al-kalam (dialectic theology), taqlid (immitation) of one of the four schools of jurisprudence (in this case the Shafi school) and Sufism (the core of the movement being a Rifa'i brotherhood headed by al-Habashi). Thomas Pierret Ahbash http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/316709/_al-A_bash_Ahbash_

from above i can see there is a dispute over if AICP is a sect or organization to avoid conflict and maintain a NPOV use safer terms such as religious movement instead of SECT. here are sources:

The Ahbash is a Sufi (or spiritualist) movement that devoutly follows the teachings of Sheikh 'Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari ash-Shibi al-Abdari, also known as al-Habashi, a religious thinker of Ethiopian origins. A. Nizar Hamzeh Middle East Quarterly http://www.meforum.org/362/islamism-in-lebanon-a-guide-to-the-groups

Al-Ahbash (“the Ethiopians”) Movement, also known as the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects, is a movement based in Lebanon, yet ironically founded by an Ethiopian shaykh, now deceased, by the name of ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shi‘bi al-Abdari, also known as al-Habashi (the Arabic word ahbash is the plural of the word habashi). It is a movement that devoutly follows the teachings of the late shaykh. By the late 1980s, al-Ahbash had become one of Lebanon’s largest Islamic movements. Muhammad Ali Alula al-Hashimi,scholar of international political economy specializing in African and Muslim countries. http://crescent-online.net/special-reports/2018-february2012/3252-ethiopian-muslims-and-the-ahbash-controversy-.html Baboon43 (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for your message. Did you notice that on this very page, there are references to several peer-viewed, academic BOOKS written by Ph.D scholars and published by reputable universities like Harvard .etc indicating that Ahbash / AICP IS a SECT. Al-Ahbash and Wahabis can say whatever they want to say about themselves but this page is NOT an infomercial about the Ahabsh / AICP but an encyclopedic page which strives to have NPOV and this version remains to be NPOV. Please, read the sources very CAREFULLY. You are NOT saying something NEW but repeating the same points which has been discussed over and over again. Nizar Hamzeh and Thomas Pierret are the ones who are already quoted in this version. The MAINSTREAM Sunnis DO NOT consider the Ahbash / AICP being part of their own. That is something else that the Ahbash / AICP call them "Wahabis" and "Salafis" etc. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

a proper encyclopedia offers at least basic information about a group not petty agreements with sects such as shia which might have some similarities with aicp in order to classify ahbash as some hybrid shia sufi sunni sect...you dont just go around and pick through academic sources and paste it as the front page of wiki articles...whoever referenced that has no knowledge of ahbash and is just going through the web trying to find an article that they can add to wiki...the consequences to this is that people will go to an actual encyclopedia that would have basic NPOV...stop telling me NPOV when you deleted academic sources...if you want wikipedia to be a trusted website stop derailing people that are trying to assist in helping this article grow...ahbashis dont call traditional muslims, wahabis..the wahabis are a miniroty mainly in saudi arabia that are growing because of oil revenue promotion...ahbash is following the ideology of the ottoman empires traditional islam i have quoted this academic source..the 2nd reference link does not work so it must be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling us that Tariq Ramadan and others are ignorant who consider Ahbash / AICP to be a sect? There are PLENTY of INDEPENDENT / ACADEMIC (Muslim and non-Muslim) sources have been provided on these discussion pages. The problem IS that after every few months, the adherents of AICP / Ahbash and their opponents come along and try to "pick and choose" from the academic sources to justify their point of view which results in edit-warring. Whether you agree or not, the Ahbash / AICP has got a documented tradition of pronouncing Takfeer (ex-communication) on all their opponents by considering them as "Whabis", "Salafis" and EVEN "Kaafir." McKhan (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

im well aware of the takfeer that ahbash uses on wahabis which is in the NPOV article i had posted from an academic source..from my understanding ahbash is used as a guardian of the traditionalists from the radical wahabists by western and islamic countries..the ahbash are trained in confronting wahabism whom they call kafirs for following ibn taymiyah and abdulwahab...they dont label all opponents kafirs but they may politicially reject them for unknown reasons some academics can label it as a sect but an encyclopedia cant have those written lines in the article as front page thats the bottom line...for example brillonline has a NPOV status introduction and most accurate based on my personal information about ahbash and their ideology..it can be found here..

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/al-ahbash-COM_23661?s.num=0&s.q=ahbash&s.f.s2_parent_title=s.f.book.Encyclopaedia+of+Islam%2C+THREE

- - dont revert infobox

Baboon43 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT only the Wahabis or Salafis which the Ahbash / AICP rejects (ex-communicate) but also the mainstream Sunnis. The irony IS that only few thousand Ahbash / AICP considers themselves to be part of and real torch-bearers of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah which consists of SEVERAL MILLIONS mainstream Sunni Muslims around the globe. There are even Fatwas (Religious Decrees) issued by the mainstream Sunni scholars against the Ahbash / AICP and indeed, the Ahbash / AICP don't accept them. In the US, the Ahbash / AICP are NOT even part of ANY mainstream Shura Council (They have invented one of their own). As far as BrillOnLine is concerned that is used for Reference Works but definitely NOT comprehensive to be used as the SOLE source. The books which consider Ahbash / AICP to be a sect are PEER-REVIEWED (much more scrutinized than BrillOnLine or other academic articles) and written by some very reputable scholars, thus, they simply cannot be ignored. Since the article and your infobox contains the very same information (except the log) thus it becomes redundant. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

aicp labels wahabis as kafirs but they dont label mainstream muslims as kafirs but they might have a disagreement on issues for political reasons or sunni's whom they see as wahabi influenced mainly in the united states it would be the qibla issue..the ahbashis claim that it was changed by wahabi organizations in america...ahbash are tradionalists that are fighting back against takfeers made against the maintream majority by wahabis...their main goal is to fight wahabism and prevent sunni groups from overriding them in dominance...there's a blurring line between whats mainstream and whats not but the truth is the ottoman era of islam is still majority and as academic sources point out, the ahbash are trying to preserve that..stop trying to keep the article small and covering the surface line of this group when there is information from academic sources that can be referenced in this article..so allow me to expand on ahbash's political motives Baboon43 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see from your "changes" that you are simply picking and choosing the pertinent parts of all those academic articles (which is called plagiarism) which has got favorable views about the Ahbash / AICP. Initially, you came with an IP address and NOW you have created an account to pursue your agenda in the name of "expanding" the article. I am a mainstream Sunni whose family has been Sunni for CENTURIES. The Ahbash / AICP is NOT following the Ottomanic version of Islam. That is far from the truth NOR the mainstream Sunnis like myself need few thousand (and declining) Ahbash / AICP to use deceptive and takfeeri tactics to "preserve" or "safe-guard" Islam which is followed by more than 1.6 billion Muslims around the globe. This version was written by a Tearlach (a non-Ahbash and non-Muslim) and I did NOT write this version. I know enough about the Ahbash / AICP. This version remains to be the most NPOV-compliant version. Please, don't "expand" the article without proper discussion as it will constitute to edit-warring. McKhan (talk)

that is a fallacy your family can not be sunnis for centuries and your denial of mainstream islam declining shows your simply out of touch with the real world....saudi sponsored wahabism is growing at a fast pace if you havnt noticed and by your comments it seems you are against ahbash or dislike them in someway but that doesnt give you the right to suppress information......your now resorting to rejecting of academics and accusing me of having some kind of agenda its ottomanic weather u like it or not that is the truth so it must be reverted...you are the one that originally reverted my post with ip address and is spamming the article with false mainstream and ahbash representations..enough is enough the article must move forward and all obstacles must be put aside... Baboon43 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the mainstream Islam is declining. What I said was that the Ahbash / AICP are declining EVEN in their HOST country, Lebanon. And everybody knows that the Pashtuns / Pathans have been Sunnis for CENTURIES. Regarding your academic "sources", you are simply using just ONE academic article, "Islamism in Lebanon: A Guide to the Groups" written by A. Nizar Hamzeh (He is the VERY SAME author who co-wrote the article "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon" in which he mentioned the Ahbash / AICP mixing Sunni with Shia beliefs - See THE SHIA DIMENSION in that very article for reference. AND YET you have changed in your version "an interpretation of Islam elements of Sunni and SUFISM") from Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum. You have LITERALLY taken the whole paragraphs from that article and inserted in the page. And THEN you claim at then end, "This background may explain why Western societies with their pluralistic Islamic landscapes and enthusiasm for "moderate" Sufi Islam, have become the growth market for Ahbash." The TRUTH of the matter IS that the Ahbash / AICP is declining. Having bought several Islamic-sounding names web-sites and inserting Ahbash / AICP's own propaganda as well as opening up their Musallas / Centers in various Western countries in the name of Jamat Ahl Wa Sunna doesn't prove "growth" or makes the Ahbash / AICP "moderate." As I mentioned earlier, this version was written by Tearlach (a non-Ahbash and non-Muslim) and I did NOT write this version. I know enough about the Ahbash / AICP. This version remains to be the most NPOV-compliant version. Please, don't "expand" the article without proper discussion. McKhan (talk)

the difference between nizars "islamism in lebanon" article and "a sufi respone" is that the latter is a full biography whereas "islamism in lebanon is a short description and well accurate which should be used in this article not some pick pocket in a large article like "sufi response" it doesnt matter who wrote it you are blocking any progress simply...i have changed the elements because it conflicts with other academic sources which label ahbash as a sunni and sufi movement with no mentioning of shia...there is an academic reference to "This background may explain why Western societies with their pluralistic Islamic landscapes and enthusiasm for "moderate" Sufi Islam, have become the growth market for Ahbash." which is thomas pierret research....this is not a matter of ahbash declining or not..this is ahbash article on wiki by you even removing infobox it shows your determined to not let any changes done to this stub article and again i didnt write any of those which i had put in the article they are all academic sources. Baboon43 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Tearlach pick the WHOLE paragraphs and inserted in the page just like you did? He did NOT. And why would one NOT consider the FULL VERSION of "A Sufi Response to Political Islamism: Al-Ahbash of Lebanon" which QUOTES and PROVIDE REFERENCES to Ahbash / AICP's VERY own SOURCES (e.g. 88; see also Shaykh 'Abdallah al-Habashi, Al-Kafil bi-'Ilm al-Din al-Daruri (The Guarantor of the Necessary Science of Faith)(Beirut: Burj Abi Haydar Mosque, 1984), 46, Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 90, [http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html#notes-39 111. Habashi does not give much importance to the Hanafi and Maliki Schools of Law, [http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html#notes-40 107; see also Manar al-Hudd, April-May 1993, 45, Habashi, Sarih al-Bayan, 86, 88, 105. These ahadith are: "For whosoever I am master, this Ali is his master; 0 God support whosoever isloyal to him and fight whosoever is fighting him," and "Hasan from me and Husayn from 'Ali." [http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html#notes-42 Manar al-Hudd, November 1992, 32; ibid., April 1993, 37 and more) to show the BROADER and FULL picture of what Ahbash / AICP is all about? Isn't Thomas Pierret the same author who wrote "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context" (Yes, this link works) outlining the hideous tactics and methodology (i.e. "Ideological spider webs") used by the AICP / Ahbash to propagate and propel themselves in the cyberspace and in the Western World? Indeed, you conveniently ignore the VERSION which SUMMARIZE all the RELEVANT sources and provide SHORT and CONCISE information about the AICP / Ahbash which it deserves justifiably. Your info box contains the VERY SAME information which IS ALREADY present IN the page. The AICP, as an organization, does NOT even have a permanent headquarter but "VARIOUS" headquarters. Please, believe me that the version we have it here IS the most NPOV-compliant version. McKhan (talk)

if your going to use "a sufi response" include the whole article not just snippets which is why its a stub article...the link you showed by thomas has an accurate description..it states ahbash was founded by sunnis to tackle wahabism and they are doing that online but you dont have this introduction on the article so include that introduction, and their online crusade is not of any importance to anyone..again it seems you have a personal issue with AHBASH which shows bias towards them...it doesnt matter if the infobox contains the same as the article it must be put in place just as other articles on wiki have infobox thats the bottom line...by the way the info box is not the same information as alreay on in the page as the infobox includes the founding date of ahbash and your alleged NPOV does not Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I regret that you don't appreciate the fact that the version we have here was written by someone who is neutral and reviewed the sources and used only those which were comprehensive and THEN he used his own words (he did NOT copy and paste the whole paragraphs) in order to provide the information in a short and concise manner which is suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Tearlach did NOT even point to Ahbash's "online crusade" instead he used Thomas Pierret's article (as well as Nizar's article) but just to get the pertinent information. I am NOT even adding ANYTHING to this version. All I am trying to emphasize that the version we have is Wikipedia's NPOV-compliant. IF we will add or modify this version, then, Wahbais and others will come along (AND they have in the past) and try to add or modify their preferred material resulting in constant tug-of-war. It is a tantamount to opening can of worms. Your infobox has just ONE extra thing and that IS the AICP's logo which anybody can see / view by visiting AICP's own web-site. Rest of the information is already there in the very page making your infobox redundant. McKhan (talk)

again stub articles need to be expanded on and your blocking its growth by making excuses...i know tearlach didnt but you did which gives me the impression that you dislike this group for whatever personal reasons...adding a infobox does not contribute to tug of war by wahabis its simple your using an excuse to stop the growth of this article because you dont have knowledge of the subject...that is incorrect my infobox has the founding location with city of ahbash and the exact year of its founding 1983 but your tearlech version does not so it must be added to the article or it has to be on my infobox Baboon43 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding info-box does NOT constitute to "growth" of the article. Further, one cannot simply use ANY logo on Wikipedia as per its own guideline WITHOUT having permission (That's why the link to the logo is broken. IF you will upload it again, then, it will be removed again WITHOUT proper permission). The founder of Ahbash / AICP was NOT originally from Lebanon. He was from Ethiopia, hence the name "Ahbash." Beirut, Lebanon is NOT the ONLY headquarter of AICP / Ahbash. They have got more than one headquarters (For example, in the US, their headquarter is in Philadelphia). Some academic sources quote the founding year of AICP as 1982 and some 1983 (And some even claim that the it is even older than that). And last but not the least, this article is NOT about AICP but Ahbash which uses the AICP and ICPA (in Australia) and other names (depending upon country) as its front. Your info-box remains to be redundant and proves the fact that you are an old user with a new id. McKhan (talk)

i am sorry to inform you that there are millions of users that come on wikipedia everyday and i have no other nick name...your discussions with many people above in the talk, shows you may have become paranoid but i will ignore your accusations of "old" user...i am not aware of the logo becoming no longer visible but the point is ahbash was founded in 1960's-1980's so i want you to include that in the infobox since we both have come to that conclusion..and yes logo box shows headquarters is various but some sources claim it is beirut...ICPA must also be used in this article but again you dont want any growth to the article but in the talk you contribute many facts about this group but choose to keep it a stub... Baboon43 (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ahbash's political role must be explained in this article as the current article touches the surface line and doesnt go in depth..this must be added to the article:

"The Ahbash became a key player in Lebanese politics by offering a moderate alternative to Islamism, attracting a wide following among the Sunni urban middle class by advocating pluralism and tolerance. Its ideology makes the Ahbash politically significant, including sharp controversies with Islamist movements. While Habashi pays allegiance to the pious ancestors (salaf) and the Shari'a, his emphasis on "the science of hadith" makes him suspect as being a follower of the Kalamiya (literalist) tradition of the Mu'tazila who stressed the superiority of reason over revelation. He rejects such Islamist authorities as Ibn Taymiya, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb." taken from : Islamism in lebanon by Nizar Hamzeh http://www.meforum.org/362/islamism-in-lebanon-a-guide-to-the-groups Baboon43 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

One simply cannot copy and paste whole paragraphs from one article to an encyclopedia page as it violates several Wikpedia guidelines. It is quite obvious from your proposed "changes" that you want to tilt the POV towards Ahbash. And that has been the problem all along with the Ahbash / AICP and their proponents. Since the creation of this page, they have been trying their best to portray the Ahbash / AIPC larger than life. They are hell-bent to present themselves as "moderate", "tolerant" and "conciliatory" towards the West that they could keep on manipulating the Western Governments in order to reap financial benefits available to religious and not-for-profit organizations. This is precisely why they advertise presence of their Musallas / Centers in the Western countries. Not only Ahbash / AICP's beliefs has been rejected in the Muslim countries but have been trounced by the mainstream Sunni scholar through various Religious Decrees. Who should / would know more about the reality behind Ahbash / AICP's and its founder's beliefs than the mainstream Muslim scholars? The truth of the matter IS that the Ahbash / AICP is nothing but a tiny sect with the following of few thousand adherents compare to million upon millions mainstream Sunnis all over the world. As I mentioned earlier that I have enough knowledge about the Ahbash / AICP, thus, had I had written this article, I would have INCLUDED everything (i.e. including Religious Decrees issued by the mainstream Muslim scholars and how the beliefs of Ahbash / AICP are different from the mainstream Muslims) about Ahbash / AICP. But since I am a fair-minded person, I like to support this NPOV-compliant version. McKhan (talk)

thanks for revealing your anti ahbash views ill be keeping this page NPOV unlike you..ahbash didnt write those words it was academics you have a fetish of attacking ahbash and accusing me of being pro ahbashi but the truth is your the main roadblock in this article growing...academics just point out the views of an organiztion they dont get bribed into refering ahbash as "moderate" like you claim...you say your a mainstream muslim explain yourself...which sect do u follow be specific and dont revert my work as there is no need of a revert war..try to express your points without becoming an authoritarian figure...this message goes to you and parker Baboon43 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you even know who is the founder of The Middle East Forum? You should research. Ms. Parker has already added the information you wanted to be added in the content despite the fact that I didn't agree to that which makes your info-box even more redundant. You think I am stupid. Don't you? I have already read your version (i.e. your "work") with the selective excerpts from Nizar Hamzeh's article. AND yet you want me to believe that you are NOT pro-Ahbash and / or adherent of AICP / Ahbash. How can a novice user become so proficient using Wikipedia that he has created the info-box from scratch? From your "contributions", one can see that you are the one who has got "fetish" of focusing and SANITIZING the image of AICP / Ahbash using and abusing the academics. Regarding my personal religious beliefs, it is suffice to say that I am one of those mainstream Sunnis who very well know the DIFFERENCE between the Ahbash / AICP's beliefs and mainstream Sunni beliefs. AND yet I am still supporting a NPOV-compliant version on Wikipedia. McKhan (talk)

why does it matter who founded middle east forum? the article is written by academic nizar hamzeh so lets not go off topic....i didnt select nizars work the whole article can be used but the point is its a stub article because you have a bias against ahbash and is hindering the progress of the page...do not accuse me of siding with ahbash on this matter when i am quoting ACADEMIC sources...your logic seems like since ahbash is a small group it deserves a small article on wikipedia, that is unacceptable...what is your definition of mainstream islam? based on the spam comparisons of ahbash you had posted with your ip address the other day it seems you believe ibn taymiyah is followed by the mainstream which is false..since you claim to be pashtuni and if you are a follower of deobandi that is not mainstream islam...creating an infobox doesnt make me experienced in wikipedia because there are tons of replicas on wiki that can be used as a concept to create it... Baboon43 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It DOES matter who founded the The Middle East Forum and with what purpose. The academics are not angels, they also have POVs. There is whole cottage industry of think tanks full of "academics" out there of all colors and creed. Thanks to some of these vicious and conscienceless academics and their "papers", millions of people got killed in Iraq. And what academic "sources" are you talking about here? You are focusing upon just ONE article written by Nizar Hamzeh compare to the plethora of ACADEMIC / INDEPENDENT (Muslim and non-Muslim) sources I have provided on these pages throughout the years. Of course, you CONVENIENTLY ignore them because their content is NOT "academic" enough to fit the bill of your agenda. Do you see ANY of them being copied or pasted or excerpted in that version? NO. There is no "Pashhtuni" Islam NOR the Pashtuns are deobandis. Go and figure. McKhan (talk)

bring forth an article which you believe should be included as front page...im well aware of ahbash which is why i found this article not conflicting with personal research i had done about ahbash unlike the ones you had posted above for your own bias agenda...i am not focusing on one article as you can see at the start of this thread i had posted many extracts of articles...are you kidding me? there are pashtuni deobandis go look it up...prove your not trying to keep this article a stub and show me an extract you would like to include in this article Baboon43 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pashtuns are PRE-DOMINANTLY Hanafis which according to Wikipedia is "Among the four established Sunni schools of legal thought in Islam, the Hanafi school is the oldest and by far, the largest. It has a reputation for putting greater emphasis on the role of reason and being more liberal than the other three schools. The Hanafi school also has the most followers among the four major Sunni schools. This is largely to its being adopted as the official madhab of The Abbasid Caliphate, the OTTOMAN EMPIRE and the Mughal Empire. As such, the influence of the Hanafi school is still widespread in the former lands of these empires. Today, the Hanafi school is predominant in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, China as well as in Mauritius, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia And Herzegovina. It is also practiced in large numbers in other parts of Muslim world, particularly in parts of the Levant and Iraq." Ain't you the same individual who claimed that the Ahbash / AICP follow the Ottomans'? If you are not focusing upon that ONE article then why do we have three WHOLE PARAGRAPHS from the very same article in your version here? And it is NOT me who decides which article falls under "Stub-Class", "Controversial" and / or "Low-importance" articles on Wikipedia. Is it coincidence that your "personal research" quite categorically jives up with the agenda of the proponents of Ahbash / AICP? Please, feel welcome to clarify. McKhan (talk)

again are you part of the deobandi group? which is a movement in Sunni Islam under HANAFI School according to wikipedia...deobandis are growing in mainly pashtun regions as they will claim to be hanafi but are deobandi...ahbash follows the ottomans as academic sources point out but it seems you have become confused in the claim of this false representation of "mainstream islam"...again i didnt CLAIM anything i quoting to you ACADEMIC sources and you come here and attack me as if i am talking with no sources which is FALSE..give me time and i will add more articles to grow this ahbash section wikipedia so dont be so quick to judge i would not leave it at one article...i am trying to maintain an honest non bias NPOV research by academic sources that dont conflict with ahbash's belief...you are the obstacle in keeping the page stub by deleting progress by the way i will remove the info box since it is not necessary anymore. Baboon43 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT a Wahabi NOR a Deobandi but plain and simple Sunni (Hanafi) Muslim. And let me quote the Wikipedia again that you could COMPREHEND what "mainstream" Sunnis mean: "Among the four established Sunni schools of legal thought in Islam, the Hanafi school is the oldest and by far, the largest. It has a reputation for putting greater emphasis on the role of reason and being more liberal than the other three schools. The Hanafi school also has the most followers among the four major Sunni schools. This is largely to its being adopted as the official madhab of The Abbasid Caliphate, the OTTOMAN EMPIRE and the Mughal Empire. As such, the influence of the Hanafi school is still widespread in the former lands of these empires. Today, the Hanafi school is predominant in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, China as well as in Mauritius, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia And Herzegovina. It is also practiced in large numbers in other parts of Muslim world, particularly in parts of the Levant and Iraq." The sources you have provided so far are:

Mr. Muhammad Ali Alula al-Hashimi, a scholar of international political economy specializing in African and Muslim countries, and the author of "Ethiopian Muslims and the Ahbash controversy" (one of your own source) stated in his article about the Ahbash / AICP that "this organization, on which the Ethiopian government is basing its assault on the Ethiopian Muslims, has a reputation for being an organization that espouses teachings that are clearly outside the fundamental teachings of Islam, the most egregious of which is the policy of referring to those who call themselves “Salafi” or “Wahhabi” — often referred to as “Salafi-Wahhabi” because of the similarity between the two doctrines — as kafirs, or non-believers, in Islam. This is clearly an un-Islamic teaching on the part of al-Ahbash. Indeed, every Muslim knows that it is prohibited to call any Muslim a kafir if he or she bears witness that there is no diety/authority but Allah (swt) and that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah, prays the five daily prayers, pays the zakah, fasts during the month of Ramadan, and makes pilgrimage to Makkah if financially able." You will not find plenty of academic articles about Ahbash / AICP except the few which are already available on the internet. Thus, the version which we have here remains to be Wikipedia NPOV-compliant version. Indeed, I regret that you consider me an "obstacle." McKhan (talk)

again i am aware of hanafi being a respectable traditional islamic school of thought but it does not excuse the point that i am trying to make to you that debondi has taken over many parts of the world...according to wikipedia, "According to The Times, about 900 of Britain's nearly 1,500 mosques are run by Deobandi affiliated scholars, and 19 of the country's 25 Islamic seminaries follow Sunni Deobandi teachings, producing 80% of all domestically trained Ulema.[4] The majority of mosques are Deobandi; in 2012, the affiliation of British mosques is quoted as 50.13% Deobandi and 5.47% Sunni-Deoband"...so you may have fallen trap to debondi teachings since you consider ibn taymiyah as a scholar of "mainstream islam" since debondi's themselves claim HANAFI....also your quote on muhammad ali al hashimi's article conflicts with how the ottomans handled those whom call themselves salafis as ottoman-saudi war article cleary states on wikipedia, "Amir ‘Abd Allah, as head of the Salafies state, was sent for execution to Istanbul, although most of the political leaders were treated well. The empire was far more harsh with the religious leaders that inspired the Salafies movement. The execution of Sulayman ibn ‘Abd Allah and other religious notables reflects the resentment of these extremist views. Religious leaders were thought to be uncompromising in their beliefs and therefore a much bigger threat than political leaders". Baboon43 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite contrary to your speculations, I have not "fallen" in the "trap" of any "deobandi teachings" NOR I ever mentioned ANYTHING remotely about Ibn Tamiyah. It is you and your speculations. Wasn't it YOU who provided the reference of Mr. Muhammad Ali Alula al-Hashimi's article as an ACADEMIC source and now when I quoted an excerpt from THAT VERY article you are undermining it by yourself. What is it? You are CATEGORICALLY and SUBCONSCIOUSLY putting others down in order to propel the beliefs of Ahbash / AICP. You are even ready to find those academic sources which don't "conflict" with the Ahbash / AICP beliefs. McKhan (talk)

was it not you who edited the page under an ip address and posted ahbash and mainstream islam comparisons on the front page before i had to revert it the other day? under your ahbash mainstream comparison it was clearly mentioned that ibn taymiyahs quotes were on the maintream side of the box which gives me the impression that you accept ibn taymiyahs teachings and consider him a scholar....i was trying to prove to you that ahbash is protecting the ottoman islamic era by labeling wahabist or salafists as apostates because the ottomans themselves were not fond of them which proves why the ottomans decided to execute the salafist leaders and i gave you a quote from wikipedia..i am ready to have the ahbash article as accurate as possible with NPOV since the ahbashis claim ottoman teachings of islam they are against the wahabi movement as were the ottomans its pretty simple dont accuse me of having an agenda because i can give proof to back up my claims. Baboon43 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you are running the WILD HORSES of your speculations that it was me using the IP address made those changes. Why can't / shouldn't I make the changes using my own ID which I have had for the past several years? The Ahbash / AICP cannot even reach to the DIRT of the OTTOMANS not even in their DREAMS let alone "protecting" their legacy. The Turks are VERY WELL-EDUCATED than the Ahbash / AICP put all together. So, happy dreaming. You have finally arrived at the very favorite subject / topic, "Ahbash / AICP vs. Wahabis / Salafis" of the Ahbash / AICP, thus, leaving no doubt that you are part of them and just like them you are here to tilt the Wikipedia's NPOV towards Ahabash / AICP's POV this time using the clout that the AICP / Ahbash are "protecting the legacy of the Ottomans." Thomas Pierret's also mentioned about Ahbash / AICP taking mosques by force (i.e. "war of the mosques") or the Ahbash / AICP "believe that their creed makes them the only firqa najiya (“saved group”)" or that "The al-Ahbash also dismiss Muslim scholars who champion the very same tenets of traditional Islam as the ones they themselves defend..." AND he is also the author of "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context". Go and figure. McKhan (talk)

once again its not just me that claims ahbash is perserving the ottoman legacy it is academics such as "THOMAS PIERRET"...stop making excuses to prevent growth to this article with accusations when i am trying to keep this article NPOV...its funny that you quoted thomas pierrets article but decided to leave out the next line which states "this apparently surprising stance results from a typically sectarian logic since their very doctrinal proximity makes these scholars the foremost competitors of the movement on the religious market"..I have read your talk page so it confirms u were the user that pasted the ahbash and mainstream islam comparison and it has IBN TAYMIYAH on the mainstream side of the article...Ahbash did not take mosques by force again with your bias an example of the ahbash mosque war was the situation in jordan...when jordanian goverment assigned ahbash to take control of the mosques from the muslim brotherhood this caused violence as the brotherhood was against giving up the mosques in jordan.

link to a mosque war involving ahbash http://books.google.ca/books?id=PMZlKb_93AgC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=ahbash+jordan&source=bl&ots=RZFrtCsvtl&sig=g_Xm4uai5gmdSxrLDpZsqGTd2z8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sJptT_CCOM-_gAfBpdBr&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ahbash%20jordan&f=false Baboon43 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite hypocritical, dishonest and typical behavior of the Ahbash / AICP on your part that you are once again conveniently ignoring other things which Thomas Pierret and others (AND I am quoting from your own academics sources and yet you are undermining them by yourself.) have written (e.g. "Jordan is apparently the ONLY other Arab country that permits AICP activities." Apparently, "the war of the mosques" did NOT happen, according to Thomas Pierret's article, in Jordan but LEBANON.) and trying to focus upon only the things which help you to pursue your agenda of sanitizing the Ahbash / AICP. Having the table which the IP address used on my Talk Page does NOT mean that I am the one who must have posted it in the article? That table was created by another user and has been on my talk page for years. Why didn't I include that table and other material on the Ahbash page by itself rather keeping it on my own talk page? Here is what Professor Tariq Ramadan has to say about the Ahbash / AICP:

"...we may mention the secretarian group, the Ahbash, which originated in Lebanon and has its European base in Switzerland (Lausanne), while being active in Europe, the United States and Africa. Often calling themselves the "Islamic Benevolent Association," adherents carry on a permanent double discourse: to Western questioners, they claim to support the emancipation of women and laicism to oppose the "fundamentalists" (all the issues they know are sensitive and useful for getting them recognized). However, within Muslim communities, they carry on an extremely intransigent and closed discourse, usually treating most of the principal Muslim ulama as kuffar *by which they mean "unbeliever,' "impious people"). They base their teachings on interpretations recognized as deviant by all other schools of thought and all other scholars of note (for example, their singular understanding of the meaning of the name of God, or their assertion that the Qur'anic Text was interpreted by the angel Gabriel, or the practice of praying to the dead).[43] Their approach on very specific points of doctrine (such as those we have referred to) is hostile and usually violent. [44]" Page 29

Footnotes:

"43. Behind the smokescreen of very open ideas about women, the reality is less rosy: a man may contract a temporary marriage with a woman without telling her that this is his intention (the marriage may last only a few days since this was the intention, even though unexpressed, of the "husband"), and adultery with a woman "unbeliever" is considered only a minor sing because she is not a Muslim. In reality, the entire discourse about ethics and social behavior is based on this distinction between "Muslims" (only the Ahbash) and others (the kuffar, understood by the members of this sect as "unbelievers" in the worst possible sense). The founder, al-Harari (who lived in Lebanon till his death), pronounced judicial opinions (fatwa) for his disciples in which he maintained that lying, stealing, and even killing a kafir, an unbeliever, are minor sins."

"44. Their eruption on the Lebanese scene has caused some damage: they were behind some violent brawls and some killing in mosques. Not recognizing scholars of other parties as Muslims, since they are explicityly kuffar, they have gone as far as to eliminate them even if they were recognized scholars. Some of their leaders, members of the Lebanese parliament, have frequently praised the [late] Syrian president Hafes al-Asad and did not hesitate to describe him as a "saint" at the time of the accidental death of his eldest son. The tested strategy of Hafes al-Asad is well-known--to rely on secretarian groups, in the forefront of which is his own clan, the Alawites, to cause divisions and sow trouble among his opponents. The significant financial resources available to the Ahbash in the West are due to foreign support from Lebanon and, without the shadow of a doubt, from the Syrian regime." Page: 234

Title: Western Muslims and the future of Islam

Author: link Tariq Ramadan

Edition: illustrated

Publisher: '''Oxford University Press US''', 2004

ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112

Length: 272 pages

The reality is that the Ahbash / AICP's beliefs are NOT "superior", in any shape or form, to other Muslims NOR the Ahbash / AICP are very "moderate", "tolerant" or "conciliatory" towards the West. McKhan (talk)

it is quite obvious you are picking and choosing your OWN bias academic reviews because of your anti ahbashi stand but i am here to contribute to this ahbash article in an NPOV so unless you can prove your not being bias the article will remain my version of NPOV Baboon43 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, make no changes without reaching the consensus with your fellow editors. Wikipedia encourages its editors to assume good faith towards one another. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

most articles on wikipedia have infobox's therefore it was added to the article..it does NOT matter if the information is already in the article or not...also term "movement" is preferred over "sect"..parker dont revert my work without DISCUSSION. Thank you. Baboon43 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed your info-box by removing the broken link for the image as Wikipedia doesn't have permission to use that logo. I am afraid the "sect" part has already been discussed before therefore will remain as such. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

safer term is necessary because if "movement" is not used there will be a dispute as mentioned above by certain users...most groups on wikipedia are classified as movements not sects even though they might have the characteristics of a sect...do not revert it back without asking my permission. Thank you. Baboon43 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

expanded on the article to improve its length please DISCUSS before removing my work Baboon43 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide a verifiable source by the assoication to substantiate your claim. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

let me say this im not an ahbash affiliated person also im a new user of wikipedia..with one on one experience with ahbash members and online articles i should know the difference between whats disinformation and whats valid..i have even met asharis and they dont have a problem with ahbash and i belong to the shafi school of thought..this attack against their group by their enemies calling them a "cult" is a cyber attack because they are the few groups that confront wahabism. their belief is no different from the mainstream as even stated on their website "As for matters of creed, we are Ash^aris, that is we follow the school of Imam Abu-Al-Hassan al-Ash^ariyy, who is a Sunni scholar, and who compiled the creed of the companions and followers. As for issues of purification, prayers, fasting and the like, we are Shafi^iyy, while knowing that all Sunni schools of jurisdiction are on the right path and that the minor ". differences among them concerning some details is mercy for the nation".

also i have met fellow traditional school followers that do not like ahbash for reasons such as their takfirs against wahabism but ahbashs insistence of trying to protect traditional islam is true because there is evidence of this and even academic sources point it out..

Mckhan: you mentioned tariq ramadan who is the grandson of the founder of the muslim brotherhood whom ahbash was at war with in the war of the mosques so do you expect tariq to back ahbash?.. you keep bragging of your pashtuni background as if they are all keeping islam in the traditional path..now you say your not deobandi and ill take your word for it but dont deny deobandi teachings are spreading among pashtunis and they control almost ALL mosques in the west..movements such as taliban are not traditionalists but reformers..here's a link that proves pashtunis are involved in deobandi teachings. http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/700-Deobands-battle-for-survival-and-relevance.html

so my point is deobandi is listed as a movement under HANAFI school on wiki even though its a reformer so technically not following the traditional school system so ahbash must also be listed as movement under shafi school. its the only way to be fair..also the whole "ahbash" term is incorrect if the group is refered to as ethiopians the correct terminology would be habash..this twisting of the term led to misspelling even by the academics and leading some to think ahbash and habash are two different things...

AmandaParker: you cant just expect to be an expert on ahbash because you read a few articles online while you were doing research for your comparative religion course..its quite obvious to me you have no clue about this subject...

also on the "combining elements of Sunni and Shi'a theology" & "seen as hertical" issue in the talk page, this perceived bias generalization of a group is because the article is a stub resulting in an uneven NPOV bio of ahbash..again im well aware the current article was written by non anti ahbashi affiliate but its quite obvious..he didnt do extensive research and he had no direct contact with any ahbashi members or affiliates to back his writings but just went online and took a few words to add to this article after briefly researching on the web.

i have met those who knew the founder of ahbash and even visited the city he was born in which is harar located in ethiopia...the city remains traditionalist and the scholars that i met have no problem with ahbash and even refered to the founder as a scholar. Baboon43 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The current version remains to be NPOV-compliant version.

It doesn't matter whether you know the Ahbash / AICP members personally or not as I also know them personally. It also doesn't matter that you "have met those who knew the founder of ahbash and even visited the city he was born in which is harar located in ethiopia have met" nor that "the city remains traditionalist." And claiming that Tariq Ramadan is the follower of Muslim Brotherhood is pretty obscene. Tariq Ramadan is a well-known mainstream Muslim scholar and the book I quoted from is a peer-viewed book published by the Oxford University Press. Does Thomas Pierret or Bernard Rougier (the author of the chapter "The Struggle against al-Ahbash" in his book, "Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon", published by Harvard University Press) and many others also follow the Muslim Brotherhood? The terms "Ahbash" or "Al-Ahbash" has been used by almost all the academics as well as independent sources. It refers to the AICP which was eventually headed by Abdallah al-Hirari who was from Ethiopia (Habasha) and had been expelled by Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie in 1947. Apart from Tariq Ramadan, Thomas Pierret, Bernard Rougier, following are some more authors or publications that have used the terms "Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / AICP", "Sect", "heretical" or even "Islamist":

"The UN report, compiled by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis, presents this background in telling detail. Having established a motive, it goes on to describe a range of incriminating evidence. Most compelling are mobile-phone records that reveal the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy to eliminate Mr Hariri. These include not just records from a set of callers, linked to the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence agencies, in the immediate vicinity of the crime. One caller, an official in a Syrian-backed Lebanese Islamist sect known as the Ahbash, put in a mysterious direct call to Lebanon's president only minutes before the blast."

Title: Syria and the Hariri assassination

Publication: The Economist print edition

Date of Publication: Oct 27th 2005 | BEIRUT

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VDJDJNN

...

"The Ahbash, a Lebanese sect, supported by Syrian Alawites, an offshoot of Shi'ism, hold the heretical view that the archangel Gabriel was the first interpreter. The Ahbash regard orthodox Muslims as disbeliveers." Page: 363

Title: The Quran and the secular mind: a philosophy of Islam

Author: Shabbir Akhtar

Publisher: Routledge, 2007

ISBN: 0415437830, 9780415437837

Length: 400 pages

...

"A group of TJ leaders join forces with a small fringe Lebanese sect called the al-Ahbash known for their close links to the Syrian government and were staunch enemies of Sheikh Hilaly." Page: 281

Title: Once Were Radicals: My Years as a Teenage Islamo-Fascist

Author: Irfan Yusuf

Publisher: Allen & Unwin, 2009

ISBN: 1741758262, 9781741758269

Length: 309 pages

...

"By the passage to the West and the recruitment of many converts have profoundly altered the anthropological nature of the sect, leading to a schism into a traditional branch and a modern one in which membership is strictly personal and has nothing to do with belonging to a primary social unit. The Ahbash brotherhood in Lebanon, officially known as the Society of Islamic Philanthropic Projects, or Jam'iyyat al-Mashari' al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya, was founded by Sheikh Abdallah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hirari al-Shibi al-Abdari (also known as al-Habashi, signifying his Ethiopian origins.) Its roots are in the Rifa'iyya brotherhood, but once established in Lebanon the brotherhood took an aggressively proselytizing and militant stand, campaigning agaisnt political Islam and targeting especially the Muslim Brotherhood (headed by Fathi Yakan) and Wahhabis. The Ahbash brotherhood is supported by Syria, and one of its leaders, Nizar al-Halabi, was even assassinated in 1995 by a neofundamentalist radical Sunni group called Asbat al-Ansar. The brotherhood has recently moved into Western Europe. In France, for example, a strong branch is active around Montpellier and attracts many converts' one of its leader is Abd Samad Moussaoui, the brother of Moussaoui." Page: 227

Title: Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

Author: Olivier Roy

Publisher: Columbia University Press, 2006

ISBN: 0231134991, 9780231134996

Length: 349 pages

...

"In addition, Khader Nab'a is associated with the appearance of the Salafi-Jihadist movement in Lebanon, when the leader of the al-Ahbash religious sect.." Page: 153

Title: Unmasking terror: a global review of terrorist activities, Volume 3

Author: Jonathan D. Hutzley

Publisher: Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jul 28, 2009

ISBN: 0967500966, 9780967500966

Length: 543 pages

...

"The struggle against the transnational Ahbash sect was a particularly important element in preserving salafist-jihadist mobilization.." Page: 22

Title: Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon

Authors: Bernard Rougier, Pascale Ghazaleh

Translated: by Pascale Ghazaleh

Publisher: Harvard University Press, 2007

ISBN: 0674025296, 9780674025295

Length: 333 pages

McKhan (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

go and look up tariq ramadan his grandfather is the founder of the muslim brotherhood and his father was exiled for his support of the brotherhood which led to tariq being born in Switzerland...as i said its a stub article and you refused to expand on it leading me to think that you want a one sided NPOV...your anti ahbash views are not helping me be convinced that you are keeping the article in its current state..many muslims didnt even trust tariq until he was banned from speaking in one of the western nations which could be a publicity stunt on his part...tariq doesnt seem mainstream neither does hamza yusuf both are reformers..hamza accepts everything whereas tariq comes from a an important family and is pushing for reform which leads me to be suspicious of him sort of like a both sides control scheme....i can give you the same quotes about deobandi even though its listed as movement on wiki...

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-30/india/29490320_1_muslim-community-sect-hadees In a first, Barelvi & Deobandi sects form a political umbrella.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_ulama_in_contemporary_Islam.html?id=ibLMDNq-6zsC&redir_esc=y The Deobandi sect of British India and Pakistan is his primary case in point, but he makes frequent comparisons to parallel developments among ulama elsewhere in the Muslim world.

The Khawaarij and the Creed of Takfeer: Declaring a Muslim to be an Apostate: page 255 "The Talibaan can best be described as a movement comprised primarily of adherents to the Deobandi sect who have conservative Islaamic values"

A to Z of Jehadi organizations in Pakistan: Page 592 "The disparity between jehadi organizations of Deobandi sect There are seven large jehadi organizations of the Deobandi sect and most of the time they are at odds with one another for a variety of reasons"

Now books that call ahbash a MOVEMENT-

European Islam: challenges for public policy and society :Page 7 "similarly the Ahbash movement of Lebanese origin also attracts followers from different backgrounds"

Extremist groups: information for students: Volume 1; Volume 1 "He was convicted in abstentia on three separate occasions for the assassination of Sheikh Nizar al Halabi, the former leader of the Islamic Charity Projects Association, or the Ahbash Movement".

Warrant for terror: fatwās of radical Islam and the duty of jihād - Page 104 "When the Ahbash movement spread to Southeast Asia, specifically the Indian subcontinent, it promulgated fatwas favoring coexistence between Muslims and practitioners of other religions".

now here's BERNARD ROUGIER calling ahbash a movement.. Everyday jihad: the rise of militant Islam among Palestinians in ... - Page 93 "known as al-Ahbash ("Ethiopians" in Arabic), in reference to the Ethiopian shaykh who started the movement".

oh and i showed u the link where "Thomas Pierret" calls ahbash an organization already

the term ahbash is a misspelling because habash is the original term meaning ethiopian but what is ahbash? are you telling me aicp created their own term? i told you its a nick name for the group because they were led by an ethiopian but anyways its not important the group doesnt call themselves ahbash..the leader of ahbash was not expelled from ethiopia he left after the king of ethiopia set out a nation wide warrant for him, the king probably would of had him killed or jailed..wow one ahbashi caller minutes before the killing of the president of lebanon..so what are you saying the ahbash killed the president? so why are they not prosecuted for it? again these are accusations and if you want to add that to the article fine! i dont have a problem with it but NOT on a stub article like this one.. Baboon43 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. All the academic and independent sources which I or others present are pathological liars or twisted or the followers of "Deobandi" or "Muslim Brotherhood" or "anti-Habashi" and yet whatever you say is obviously written on the stone and pure truth. Wikipedia is NOT the infomercial for the Wahabis or Ahbash. Go and figure. McKhan (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

i see your ignoring all my points give me some time and ill fix up this stub article but in the mean time i advise you to also contribute to this article instead of being a road block figure...by the way its not NPOV its uneven thats why we have a disagreement..how can one accept so called NPOV from someone that is against the organisation and has deep hatred for them..im the neutral editor so i should know what is NPOV or not but you obviously is emotionally attached to the article in a negative way leading inconsistency in your statements.. Baboon43 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

how was al harari kicked out of syria? when the ahbashis are pro syrian themselves? it shows what you wrote is a lie..care to tell me where you got your info from? are you trying to tell me the sunnis in syria had the power to kick harari out when the government supports him? Baboon43 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah's take on the Ahbash / AICP

Markaz al-Nasr li Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaah from Jakarta, Indonesia has published a paper, "Exposing the Ahbash - Exposing Abd Allah al-Harari and his sect the Ahbash of Lebanon ("Association of Islamic Charitable Projects")," which can be read on their web-site. The paper elaborates on the following points

Harari’s disrespect of the Companions (Allah be well-pleased with them)
Harari’s violation of the Sunni agreement on the obligation of respecting all the Sahaba
What Imam Ahmad said the one who disparages a Companion deserves
What Ash'aris and early Imams said of the obligation to love the Companions
The Divine and Prophetic recommendations of the Companions as guides
Al-Harari’s tampering of the Qur’an, Hadith and Consensus in his disparagement of the Companions
Al-Harari’s tampering of the Tahawiyya and the Nasafiyya
Harari’s attacks on Khalid ibn al-Walid, Mu'awiya, 'Amr ibn al-'As and 'A’isha the Wife of the Prophet
Harari’s dishonesty in falsely claiming authorship and in misquoting texts
How the Ahbash lie about the scholars and the Awliya’
Al-Harari’s deviancy regarding Prophets, upon them blessings and peace
Al-Harari’s deviant fatwas
Al-Harari’s hatred of Muslims scholars

in detail by quoting from Abd Allah al-Harari's books Sarih al-Bayan, Izhar al-'Aqida, al-Matalib al-Wafiyya, al-Dalil al-Qawim, Bughyat al-Talib, and al-Maqalat al-Sunniyya, AICP's literature along-with the excerpts from Fatwas of prominent scholars against al-Harari and the Ahbash. (Source: http://baytulhikma.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/exposing-the-ahbash/) McKhan (talk)

you act like you know ahbash from the inside or something...what is it that you know about ahbash that i dont? i quoted to you academic sources that they are traditional and follow shafi even in their website its mentioned and you say they dont follow quran fully? thats insane! that link you sent is full of lies..al harari wasnt working with ethiopian king, he was chased out of harar by the king! you yourself even quoted that he was chased out but now you give a link that he worked with the king...how did harari get expelled from damascus when he is supported by the government of damascus? the person that wrote this anti ahbashi biography is a follower of the wahabism its quite obvious when he named ibn taymiyah, abdulwahab and sayid qutub as "scholars"..the article also mentions ali goma who himself was a stooge for mubarak since mubarak appointed him as grand mufti of cairo..the writer of the article makes the grand mufti of saudi arabia seem like a good example of a muslim on the right path by quoting him, its very obvious this writer is a wahabi...its funny how he says the ahbash practice taqiya that is just stupid...it seems when they cant discredit a group they have to accuse them of being some undercover non muslims which is ridiculous! what dont you understand about the aicp website when it says "As for issues of purification, prayers, fasting and the like, we are Shafi^iyy, while knowing that all Sunni schools of jurisdiction are on the right path and that the minor differences among them concerning some details is mercy for the nation", that means they dont have a problem with those that follow any of the madhabs but you keep saying they are lieing like you have inside information if you do please share it!! Baboon43 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of ACADEMIC SOURCES (Muslim and Non-Muslim) on these talk pages which states otherwise. Since the Ahbash / AICP practice taqiyya or dissimulation by outwardly claiming to be something which inwardly they are not (Yes, it is my PERSONAL AND VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE as well as confirmed by the other Muslim sources), I am not going to follow what they post or say or present about themselves on their web-sites or literature. Here is an excerpt (It quotes from Hariri's own book 'Izhar al-'Aqida'.):

The Ahbash and the Qur'an

AlHabashy had divided the word of Allah into two categories: First, word which is not sound or letter. Second, which is the pronounced and written word, which says the word of Allah, but it is in reality composed by Gabrael. (Izhar al-'Aqida pp58-59).

The Ahbash believe that Allah - the Exalted speaks in everlasting words which have no beginning or end, and are not composed of continuing letters or annunciations which are separated or combined. They believe it to be a self discussion in which God talked within Himself, because in their opinion the words of God are not a language, a letter, or a sound.

Whilst this argument is incoherent, and the Holy Qur'an from the moment of its revelation, had been composed of letters and parts, as also espoused in the words of our holy prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him): "Allah has divided the Qur'an into three parts" (Narrated in Sahih Muslim). AlHabashy has thus regarded the Qur'an as created, and it is called the word of God, whilst this was not really the case. As such, to them it "represents the word of God", meaning that it speaks of the word of God, whilst not being actually the word of God. (Narrated in Sahih Muslim)

He also said: "The self speech of God which is not a letter or a language is the true speech of God. However the Qur'an which is composed of letters and words, is created, but may be described as the word of God." ("AnNahjool Salim", p 26.)

These words differ from the beliefs of the people of Sunnah and Jama'a, and are not supported by them. This however, agrees with the words of the Jahmia and mu'tazila (cultists) who said that the Qur'an which is the word of God is created.

We Ask? and we have a right to question: Who amongst our righteous predecessors spoke in these terms, what has Shafii, Ahmad, Abu Hanifa, or Malek said??

In fact, the truth, evident as the sun at high noon is that the righteous predecessors differ with the Ahbash, Abdullah Ben Ahmad Ben Hanbal tells us that his father the Imam of the people of Sunnah - may Allah bless him - said: "Whoever narrates the traditions, or speaks of kalam, and refuses to deny that the Qur'an is created, is a Jahmy (cultist)." ("Assunnah", Imam Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal, p29)

Imam Ahmad AlGhumran said that the righteous predecessors all say that the Qur'an is the word of God and is not created. The torture of Imam Ahmad - may Allah bless him - at the hand of AlMu'tamed for over ten years was purely for his insistence that the Qur'an is the word of God and is not created.

Abdullah Ben Ahmad Ben Hanbal has relayed many of the words of the righteous predecessors on this issue in his book on Sunnah , of whom are: AlNahfy, Sa'id Ben AlMusayyab, Muhammad Ben Ishaq AlSan'any, AlA'mash, Abdullah Ben AlMubarak, Waki' Ben AlJarrah, AlZahry, etc. ("Assunnah", Imam Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal, p29)

This dangerous talk was innovated by a group of non Arabic origin scoundrels as narrated by Ibn AlJawzi: "A group of non Arabic origin seeking to spread mischief came to Bagdad, so they elevated themselves to the positions of preachers and teachers, and would say in their lessons that God did not have any words on this earth, and is the Qur'an but paper? They then said: "Which set of rules claim that the Qur'an is composed of letters and truth? It is only the word of Gabriel." ( "Saydul Khatir" p181, Imam AlJawzi)

The position of AlJilany to the Word of Allah

Imam AbdulQader AlJilany - may Allah have mercy on him - said: "We believe that the Qur'an is composed of intelligible letters, and audible sounds, as through it the mute can see and speak, and whoever denies this only increases in ignominy, and blinds his vision." (AlGhounyah li Talibi Al Haq, p59.)

Even the Ash'arys and the Mannarids, believed that the Qur'an is the word of Allah - the Exalted - , and the Imam Abul Makhas through the Imam AlTahhawy speaking with respect to the word of Allah said: "From him it started without a 'how'", and rebutting those who say that the speech of Allah has a single meaning which can not be heard, said: "I has been supported by the Ma'thury, that Allah - the Exalted - will speak if He wishes until He wishes, and how He wishes, and that the type of speech is old." (Nathand Fawa'id, pp11-13.)

Thus we see that the Ahbash have gone against the people of Sunna and Jama'a, and the righteous predecessors in saying that the Qur'an is not the word of Allah - the Exalted.

(Source: http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/habashi_beliefe.htm)

NOW I know that you will categorized or label the above words written by some "Wahabi," "Naqshbandi," "ignorant" or simply "anti-Habashi" individual.

Thus, here comes the academic source. According to "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam", by Mustafa Kabha and Erlich Haggai (International Journal of Middle East Studies 38: p519–538): AbAllah al-Harari holds that "it does not befit God to speak like that, and his word is not a voice or letters" and therefore the Qu'ran contains the word of God but could be written only after "Gabriel listened to His word, understood it, and passed it on to the prophets and the angels" Whether one agrees or not, this point-of-view is extremely controversial (and even heretical) within Islam.

Under the light of my past experience (personal and virtual) with the Al-Ahbash / AICP's supporters and adherents, I know for a fact that anybody who is non-Ahbash (i.e. someone who don't agree with the teachings of AbAllah al-Harari) is immediately classified, understood and labelled as "Wahabi," "ignorant" and in the worst case scenario a "Kafir," thus, rendering each and everything presented by him as "falsehood" and "utter non-sense." McKhan (talk)

islamicweb dot com is a wahabi website it has bilal phillips articles all over it but i told you their website(aicp.org) says they dont have a problem with those who follow the traditional schools shafi maliki hanafi etc so you are saying they are lieing on their website to deceive the masses which is paranoia on your part..a deviant group would not say the people that follow the traditional schools are on the right path!! the academic source you posted is irrelevant even if its true because the group ahbash AGREES with traditionalists!!! so unless you can give me a recording of them saying they are against mainstream i cant believe your fairy tales...BASED on their website whoever doesnt agree with mainstream traditionalists are ignorant and wahabi NOT whom that disagrees with them so you got it all wrong...so the members you met might of meant that if you dont agree with the traditional path of islam than you are a wahabi..your not the only one that met them so did i so i should know!! although i dont agree with ahabash's political passiveness their belief system is no different from mainstream..you could of also met their ignorant members did you actually meet one of their teachers? Baboon43 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew it already that you would leisurely undermine or try to "discredit" that web-site (or any web-site or material for that matter) and will CATEGORICALLY ignore the excerpts although the articles CLEARLY refer to Abd Allah al-Harari's own books Sarih al-Bayan, Izhar al-'Aqida, al-Matalib al-Wafiyya, al-Dalil al-Qawim, Bughyat al-Talib, and al-Maqalat al-Sunniyya while highlighting the differences of his beliefs with the contemporary Muslim scholars. You just ignored them because they are from "anti-Habashi" web-sites. You have even rendered the academic source "irrelevant" because it demonstrates the fact that the Ahbash / AICP are NOT mainstream as the Ahbash / AICP's own "Shaykh" holds the notion in lieu of the TOTALITY of the Quran. Following are the direct excerpts (See Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003) from that article, "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam":

"Shaykh Abdalla does not deny the muctazila approach and his explanation is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna: "The word of God is a trait inseparable from God himself," he wrote. "It is ancient and eternal, a word with no specific beginning. Anything which is part of God cannot take the shape of a letter or a sound." (Abdalla, Bughyat al-talib, 31)

Elsewhere, he further explained: "God, the exalted, does not resemble any of his creatures. He has abilities that they do not have, has will they do not have, has knowledge they do not have, has speech they do not have. God speaks words of no voice or letters, he does not speak like human beings. They speak in letters and voices because this is a human trait. But it does not befit God to speak like that, and his word is not a voice or letters. Gabriel listened to His word, understood it, and passed it on to the prophets and the angels." (Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003)

(Source: "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam," by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 519-538, Published by: Cambridge University Press)

This interpretation is DEFINITELY not part of the mainstream Islam (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah). The Ahbash / AICP don't highlight these facts as they don't jive up with what they want to portrays themselves to the world through their web-sites and literature (Indeed, this is an example of taqiyya or dissimulation by outwardly claiming to be something which inwardly they are not.).

So, why don't the Ahbash / AICP disclose their true beliefs on the internet?

The answer is very simple: Hiding behind the mainstream Sunnis (i.e. "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah") helps the Ahbash / AICP to pursue their agenda of hegemonic "superiority" of their beliefs as well as to seek recognition, legitimacy and recruitment.

As per Tariq Ramadan (in his book, "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," published by the Oxford University Press US): "Often calling themselves the "Islamic Benevolent Association," adherents carry on a permanent double discourse: to Western questioners, they claim to support the emancipation of women and laicism to oppose the "fundamentalists" (all the issues they know are sensitive and useful for getting them recognized). However, within Muslim communities, they carry on an extremely intransigent and closed discourse, usually treating most of the principal Muslim ulama as kuffar *by which they mean "unbeliever,' "impious people"). They base their teachings on interpretations recognized as deviant by all other schools of thought and all other scholars of note (for example, their singular understanding of the meaning of the name of God, or their assertion that the Qur'anic Text was interpreted by the angel Gabriel, or the practice of praying to the dead).[43] Their approach on very specific points of doctrine (such as those we have referred to) is hostile and usually violent."

Thomas Pierret, the author of "Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context" goes even further and states under '"Ideological spider webs"': "At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi."

Their "spider webs" includes but not limited to web-sites built under the "Islamic" or "Muslim" sounding domain names like http://www.sunna.info, http://www.sounah.info, http://www.2mfm.com, http://www.qiblah.us/, http://talkaboutislam.com/, http://forumislam.com/, http://mouhammad.org/, http://www.aicp.de/, http://www.aicp.ca/, http://www.icpa.org.au/, http://www.spearssports.org.au/, http://www.amislam.com/, http://www.alsunna.org, http://www.aicp.org, http://www.aicpmultimedia.org, http://habashies.blogspot.com, http://www.alamanah.nsw.edu.au, http://al-ahbash.org, http://truesalafi.com, http://asha3ira.com, http://maturidi.com, http://jawaaher.com, http://safeena.org and more.

In my humble point-of-view, it would be nice if Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP leave mainstream Sunnis alone and be proud of themselves by clearly and categorically identifying / declaring themselves as "Jamat Al-Ahbash" rather than "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah." Alas! Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will not do that as it will be an asthama to their strategy of seeking recruitment and legitimacy under the guise of "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah." McKhan (talk)

ahbashis are a small group there's no way they can achieve dominance by hiding what they really believe, this is not the 16th century even alawis have come out...you actually get more protection from western countries if your hated in the muslim world so it would be logically a good move on their part...now if a group tells you they follow islam traditionally you have to take their word for it..i dont think its even permissible to question otherwise..what about we write that about angel gabriel in the article to see if we get any responses by ahbashis?? but why is their alleged interpretation of quran by gabriel such a big deal though? even if it is true, dont they still believe the quran is the word from God regardless??..when tariq mentions praying to the dead..wat does he mean is he attacking sufis? it seems like he might be one of those grave demolishing wahabists with that kind of comment...thomas pierret wrote in his other article that they are neo traditionalist trying to perserve ottoman islamic era but in his 2nd article he complains that they dont mention their group in their sites...it seems ahbash is not recruiting people their main objective is to educate by not revealing their group online..if a group wanted to attract followers they would NOT write on their site that MAINSTREAM is ok..it makes no sense because they would lose followers as they wouldnt be needed...than thomas mentions their takfir on wahabis which differentiates them from mainstream and how ahbashis filter wahabi messages in their forums..well ofcourse they would do that but they dont seem to care about mentioning their ahbashi affiliation except educating the people...now im here to write an article on ahbash NOT to talk about rumors and suspicious behavior of the group..if they have a shell and they come out of it than that day we can discuss about it but otherwise its not necessary to accuse people of not following mainstream when they claim to do so..ahbash cant last long term because they are politically absent but the majority of the clash i have seen them in is with wahabis and traditionalists like yourself who keep quoting wahabi sites to back your claim..wahabis keep trying to use traditionalists to assist them in attacking ahbash and ahbash does the same in reverse resulting in a tug of war but me personally i dont care if ahbash attacks wahabism as i am not a wahabi..for years now the wahabi movement has been attacking traditionalists and demolishing graves accusing people of worshiping it.. Baboon43 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you want others to take whatever the Ahbash / Habashies / AICP say, publish or present on their web-sites and other material on "as it is" basis despite the fact that there are plenty of Muslim (If ANYONE oppose and expose the beliefs of the Ahbash / AICP or their "Shaykh" then he / she must be "Wahabi" or "anti-Habashi" in the eyes of the Ahbash / AICP and YOU by default.) and non-Muslim scholars who have highlighted the differences between the Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's beliefs and the mainstream Sunni beliefs by quoting Ahbash / Habashies / AICP's own material and books. There is NO "alleged" interpretation of the Quran by Gabriel as that's what Abd Allah Hariri preached which can be found in Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003 and wrote about in his book, Bughyat al-talib which is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna. AND that is just ONE aspect, they have other issues (i.e. "Attributes to Allah", "Whether Allah lives on the throne or off the throne," their own "interpretation of Tawhid - monotheism" and more.) too, that differentiates them from the mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah) despite their claim to be part of them.

Thus, one wonders that IF they are TRULY part of the mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah) then

Why do they have plethora of issues discussed over and over again by the Muslim and non-Muslim academics which CLEARLY expose them to be DIFFERENT than the mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah)?
IF they are "already" part of mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamag Ahl Wa Sunnah) THEN why do they have a need to have their own Musallas / Centers? Why can't they simply pray and participate along-with the other mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah) in their Mosques around the world without causing any sedition (e.g. Qibla direction in Japan and the United States)? AND
Why can't they be proud of themselves by clearly and categorically identifying / declaring themselves as "Jamat Al-Ahbash" rather than "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah" which DEFINITELY they are not part of due to their differences as per their beliefs?

But like I said earlier Alas! Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP will not do ANY of that as it will be an asthama to their strategy of seeking ideological hegemony, recognition, recruitment and legitimacy under the guise of "Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah. McKhan (talk)

its not just what ahbashis says its also what academics say so stop your accusations and dont revert my work anywhere on talk page or article...japan and the united states r the only countries with the qibla issue they pray with muslims in other countries so stop picking and choosing.. Baboon43 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, they do NOT pray with the other mainstream Muslims, instead they have their own INDIVIDUAL / INDEPENDENT Musallas / Centers which are also listed on their own web-sites. Please, seek consensus with the other editors before making any edits. McKhan (talk)

yea thats what i said in the usa and japan they dont pray with mainstream but everywhere else they do because they claim ISNA changed the qibla in usa...you dont need to revert the work i am here for discussion..i am trying to expand on the article since its a stub so i added the basic beliefs and organization info and i will cite it soon dont worry so plz DISCUSS without revertiing..Thank You. Baboon43 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag

The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects is Al-Ahbash, the lede is entirely wrong. I will fix this article over the next few days starting sometime tonight. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

yeah aicp is the organization and ahbash is the nickname the whole article is not right it needs to be fixed up Baboon43 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags until such a time as they are at least discussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

One must seek consensus BEFORE editing not vice verca. Thank you.

Your behavior of editing without getting the consensus from the other editors is edit-warring. Plain and simple. You simply cannot dangle the carrot of futile discussions (in which you constantly ignore the peer-viewed acadmeic sources as heresay) before the other editors while keep on injecting your POV in the name of "editions." Please, stop. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AmandaParker: you dont know anything about this group therefore you shouldnt be editing this article atleast Mckhan actually has points...i have not seen a discussion from you other than making edits...i dont think you even know what Ashari or Shafi even means Baboon43 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I agree with Ms. Parker that one should not be making changes to an article without having discussion on its talk page as that's why these talk pages exist on Wikipedia regardless how one feels about the other editors. McKhan (talk)

Baboon43, You must assume good faith towrds your fellow editors. I have been on this page for years and so far I have not seen anything new by you which has not been previously discussed on this page over and over again. I see no reason to engage with you, specially, when you constantly discard the peer-viewed academic sources in favor of your own POV. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

you cant just revert without discussion and you have broke the 3rr rules and i have told you stop reverting my work but you ignore me Baboon43 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How can one break the 3RR rule with only 2 edits? I would like to take the liberty to reiterate that I see no reason to engage with you, specially, when you constantly discard the peer-viewed academic sources in favor of your own POV. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

i meant Mckhan broke it but your still breaking the rules by reverting without proper discussion you dont need to cross the 3 revert rule and i have given you academic sources but you are ignoring it. Baboon43 (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note before administrator sanction

Please don't edit war, all of you. Please don't force me to apply for a 1RR or 2RR sanction on this article. Discuss at length from now on rather than engaging in reverts/undos/rollbacks, all of which for me mean the same thing right now. Kindly note that I'm watching this page with scrutiny and even a slight hint of a personal attack or tendentious discussions (e.g. asking other editors to not edit the article) will be reason enough for a long block. Please contact me directly on my talk page if there is urgent action required on any issue. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

no citations

based on the archives it seems other people have pointed out the errors of this article several times...where is the first lines of this article coming from? ahbash and aicp are the same thing so how can they be ahbash and represented through association of Islamic charitable projects politically? ahbash is a NICKNAME..ahbash is not a sect nor are they shia, neither do they see sufism as heretical..these lines are taken off one source when the majority conflicts with it..the whole gabriel thing is irrelevant when on wiki it clearly states on the quran article "Muslims believe the Quran to be verbally revealed through angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) from God to Muhammad gradually over a period of approximately 23 years beginning in 610 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death" so how is that any different from ahbash's view? the wiki french article of ahbash is NPOV and accurate...one does NOT have to seek consensus before editing, anyone is free to edit wikipedia Baboon43 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All the citations are there and the points you are raising have been discussed over and over again.

We have discussed that already that I am not the author of this version but Tearlach. According to Tearlach:

It was an attempt to summarise and merge the descriptions at the three cited sources: their own promotional website; a critical description; and what appears to be a fairly balanced and properly-sourced paper in an academic journal. It incorporated other academic sources such as Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context. Tearlach 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) + Read NPOV. I chose those links because they represent a spread of views: one well-referenced and (as far as I can tell neutral) academic article; one from the official AICP site, which is completely uncritical of Al-Ahbash; and one fairly representative of what its critics say about it. Tearlach 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"If put more neutrally - "that the web presence downplays the Sufi elements"? - I'd have to agree. This journal article Internet in a Sectarian Islamic Context from ISIM (which looks a respectable University of Amsterdam source) supports the view that Al-Ahbash presents itself on the web as simply "Islamic", with a covert agenda at times. For example, TalkAboutIslam.com claims on the front page to be an unaffiliated group of Sunni scholars - until you click the link the true teachings of Islam and the true islamic doctrine and find it's an AICP site." Tearlach 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note that this link was removed upon the insistence of the proponents of Ahbash / AICP.

As per mainstream Muslims' belief, there is NO "alleged" interpretation of the Quran by Gabriel as that's what Abd Allah Hariri preached which can be found in Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003 and wrote about in his book, Bughyat al-talib which is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna as highlighted by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich in their article, "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam,", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 519-538, Published by: Cambridge University Press as well as by Tariq Ramadan on the Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," (ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.

Please, read this talk page as well as ALL the academic articles (Muslim and non-Muslim) sources provided herewith very carefully and thoroughly as each and every point you are raising has been discussed over and over again. All the citations are there. Please, also read WP:5P, WP:DR, WP:EW, WP:RS, WP:SOCK and WP:CONSENSUS. McKhan (talk)

it doesnt matter if it was discussed, it doesnt change the fact that the whole article is INCORRECT...Tearlech did not do any extensive research which is why he left it as a stub article...if you actually think these 5 lines is a good representative of ahbash on wikipedia you are WRONG...the link you mentioned is from the opponents of ahbash and mainstream islam so why would it be on there? why didnt the other academic sources list the alleged Gabriel interpretation belief of ahbash?? Thomas piet has the most accurate description of ahbash so dont try to put one academic source behind you...i dont take advice from those who break the rules themselves on wikipedia and get BLOCKED. Baboon43 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "i dont take advice from those who break the rules themselves on wikipedia and get BLOCKED," please, see here and read WP:CIVILITY. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The contention on the word "sect" is quite IRONIC as the Sunnis (of which the Ahbash / AICP to be claimed of) as well as Shi'as are also classified as "sect" under Islamic Sects within Islam. Nevertheless, I have added "movement" next to the "sect" while providing citations from the academic sources as per WP:Verifiable and included literal meaning of Ahbash. Please get CONSENSUS (See WP:CONSENSUS) from the other editors BEFORE making any edits. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

on the contrary, one who knows the guidelines of wikipedia does not edit war with a new user and than give out the guidelines..anyone who gets a warning or block needs to go through the guidelines themselves before approaching to help new users like me..why didnt i receive these links when i declared im a newbie way back? am i receiving these links because there is an admin here now? you must assume good faith not accuse me of being some trouble maker user in the past...movements under shia or sunni are not classified as sect..go look at deobandi on wikipedia or any other movement they may be classified as sect in some academic sources but they are under a branch typically the shia or sunni..the ahbashis dont go around and tell people they belong to the ahbash sect..you cant use both sect and movement that looks awkward. WRONG its edit than consensus thats why there's an edit button..you shouldnt revert on the basis of no consensus...see here WP:DRNC Baboon43 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is quite clear, either leave the term sect out or use inline attribution, IE you need to write "according to". I have had enough of this and am going to make a report. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As a host at the Foundation's Teahouse project, I've asked baboon to talk through the interactional issues with me if/when s/he returns. We're keen to turn this kind of scenario into one where a new editor can adapt to our editorial requirements. I understand nothing of the content issues (I'd rather not, actually). $Tony (talk)$ 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the past few days, there have been lots of changes made to the article WITHOUT due discussion. Since the religious beliefs of Ahbash are already considered controversial, thus, inserting religion in the info-box is not only counter-productive but also redundant. AmandaParker (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

baseless reverts

if ahbash is a sufi movement it makes the group followers of a sufi order thus infobox must state they follow sufi under sunni sect also the terrorist organization who is responsible for killing ahbash leader should be in the article as that is part of the history of ahbash..academics mention this in almost all of their writings including the wiki page on the group which i linked..you removed all my posts and tell me i didnt discuss before editing? what exactly do you want me to say on the talk page? why was the hezbollah and ahbash conflict also removed there's even citations for it. Baboon43 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For some academics the Ahbash are also a militant / terrorist organization as well as part of Islamism. Al-Ahbash's Sufi credentials are also disputed and controversial. It IS a fact that there have been lots of changes made to this article by just one editor WITHOUT due discussion. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is not required for an editor to edit an article, this is a normal part of the editing process, even when the content of the article is often disputed. No editor is required to gain a consensus before making a bold edit to an article, and lack of consensus for an edit is not a reason to revert an edit. I'm not saying that if there is a valid reason to revert the material that it should not be reverted and then discussed, but the fact that there was no consensus or "due discussion" first is irrelevant. - Sudo Ghost 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the topic is very much controversial and countless attempts over the years have been made by AICP / Ahbash's proponents to insert their POV into this article as the Wikipedia attracts millions of readers, in my humble point of view, it becomes necessary to seek consensus. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This runs contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; there is no requirement that consensus be achieved before editing, and under no circumstances is lack of a prior discussion reason to revert any content. Editors are in fact encouraged to be bold and then to discuss if there is a dispute about the edit.

With that said...concerning the content reverted: are there reliable sources disputing this religious affiliation? As for the two bits of text removed: Baboon43, do you have any additional reliable third-party sources that support this information? If so, perhaps it could be reintroduced into the article with an agreed upon wording that is supported by these reliable sources. However, I would strongly advise avoiding the use of descriptors such as radical or terrorist, they aren't neutral and generally shouldn't be used to describe a subject. - Sudo Ghost 04:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to be quite an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, please, feel welcome to elaborate on the necessity of having WP:CONSENSUS among Wikipedia guidelines IF that cannot be used for such a controversial subject. You are more than welcome to research the subject by yourself. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:CONSENSUS does it state that consensus is required before editing. Consensus is used to handle specific disputes to prevent edit warring and achieve resolution; consensus is not something that is required before one edits an article, even on subjects deemed controversial (with certain exceptions, this not being one of them). Also, it's not up to me to prove your claims, if you don't back up the assertion that this religious label is controversial, there's no reason why it doesn't belong in the article, as it does appear to be backed by a reliable source. - Sudo Ghost 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

i dont think there's anything wrong with radical because the group Osbat_al-Ansar has connections with al Qaeda and they are even referred to as radical on their wikipage but anyways it can still be written down as group members killed ahbash leaders while leaving out radical part as their own wiki article mentions the killing of the leader of ahbash and it is citated. almost all articles mention the killings this is one source http://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0104_ld1.htm

the other revert which was refering to clashes with ahbash and hezbollah members were cited as well..another source refering to the incident hence the source also lists ahbash a sunni group. http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=196667

ahbash is a sufi response to islamism as this article clearly states so i dont know how its sufi ideology is "disputed" one of the reasons islamists hate ahbash is for their sufi ideology..here is a source although the ahbash call themselves sunnis their mixing of shia and sunni makes them sufi followers here's a source. http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html Baboon43 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, your interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines is a recipe for editing-warring on controversial subjects like these. This article has had a fair share of its edit-warring over the years. The best way to handle this whole dispute was / IS to create a new thread at this very talk page with a substantive, neutral title; setting out the case briefly and cogently, acknowledging and even setting out why the editors think other editors on the page disagree, and ask for comment by other editors. There are quite a few reliable academic sources which have been provided under the reference section. All one needs to do is to look into them, specially, an editor like yourself who is very much involved in this subject now. I will try my best to do my part. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation, it is what is written. Editors are more than welcome to discuss first if they believe their edit is likely to be reverted but it is not a requirement, and lack of previous discussion is under no circumstances a reason to revert content. Editors do not require permission to edit this article. - Sudo Ghost 05:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AmandaParker: understand that nobody has to ask permission before editing, it is against wikipedia policies to claim otherwise i suggest you learn the rules before making such comments. actually the recipe for edit warring is reverting with no points. Baboon43 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from WP:BEBOLD: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."^[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a deletion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Indeed, each and every Wikipedia user like Sudo is entitle to have his/her own interpretation to be truthful of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies and thus use them as per their discretion. I have already suggested the best way to address this dispute. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What you copy-pasted doesn't support anything you've said. Your quote simply says to be civil if your edit is reverted, it says nothing about discussion before editing being a requirement, nor does it say anything about reverting for the sake of lack of discussion. If an edit is reverted, there should be a reason, and that reason is to be discussed. Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I'm still requesting some sort of direct reliable source to back up your assertion that the religion field is contested. Barring that, I see no reason not to restore that field in the infobox. - Sudo Ghost 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AmandaParker: dont change the subject this is not about being bold its about you reverting work and claiming there was no discussion therefore i shouldnt be editing..also you say it was edited by just ONE editor so basically if one editor makes a contribution its not valid to you..i have even shown you sources and your just ignoring it. Baboon43 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, you have been ignoring various academic sources all along. I am curious that why do we need to bring forth the "war of the mosques" in that article anyway. Furthermore, the word "Sufi" is already there in the very first paragraph then why do we need to have it again in the info-box. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Because that's what an infobox's very purpose is, to provide a summary of the content. - Sudo Ghost 06:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word "Sufi" from the content as it is also controversial and you re-inserted it back using some Wikipedia guideline. And now you would like to have the same word in that info-box (which was introduced by Baboon43) too. It is redundant. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I started looking at the reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies, and it doesn't even matter if it's contested or not, as that's not relevant to how that field is determined. They self-identify as Sufi, and it's relevant to who they are as an organization. The text and reliable sources already in the article also support their being identified as Sufi. This satisfies all the criteria of WP:BLPCAT, so there's no reason that field shouldn't at least state Sufi. - Sudo Ghost 06:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, I, seriously, couldn't care less what clout of Wikipedia guideline you are going to use to accomplish what Baboon43 is dying to accomplish. All I know that the Ahbash is just NOT an organization, hence the terms Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habashies etc. used for them. There is a whole heading for "Controversy" in that very page, thus, the usage of Sufi as well as Sunni Muslim is very much disputed under various academic sources. Before you do ANY change, you MUST discuss here, otherwise, I will use the very same tool which you have recommended. :) McKhan (talk)

There no such requirement that "Before you do ANY change, you MUST discuss here". Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes, especially when the changes are supported by policy and reliable sources. Also, it has been discussed, and no reason has been given negates WP:BLPCAT. If you can cite some reason why the edit should not be made, then state this, otherwise, there's no reason not the make the edit. WP:BLPCAT applies to any group of people, be it a single person, an organized group, or any identifiable group of people. The controversy is also irrelevant, there's nothing unusual there. I don't think there's a single religious group or person that isn't considered "heretical" by some other group or person. That doesn't negate WP:BLPCAT in any way. - Sudo Ghost 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, quit hiding behind the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Use plain English. If the "edit" has been discussed then why do you insist to make that "edit" because Baboon43 wants to do which he came here for in the first place. Let's see what "edit" you are proposing here. McKhan (talk)

In plain english: They self-identify as Sufi, and reliable sources support this. They are defined by this self-identification. The fact that others think their views are heretical is irrelevant, there isn't a single religious person that isn't viewed as heretical by someone else. The article itself, and reliable sources within the article support Sufi being in the religion field. By this criteria, Wikipedia editors have come up with a consensus formed into a policy that guides how this labeling is handled. By that consensus (which any consensus here cannot override) the article's infobox needs to identify this group as per its self-identification. - Sudo Ghost 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it? A fettish or fixation to insert the word "Sufi" in the infobox by hook or by crook (using / abusing / misinterpreting ANY available Wikipedia guideline or policy) as you seem to have been challenged by other editors who don't agree with you? It is so ironnic that in one sentence, you acknowledge the reliable sources and then in the next, using some Wikipedia guidelines YET AGAIN, you call them "irrelevant." I do not support the word "Sufi" to be included in the infobox AND in the article. It should be only once place. McKhan (talk)

My "fixation" is on adherence to reliable sources, and your deflection into continued personal attacks don't detract from the fact that you've not made a single statement as to why the field should not be filled in. Because of this, unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you support it or not, articles are not determined by votes. I have called no "guidelines" irrelevant, what I said was irrelevant was the fact that other people believe this group's religious views are "heretical". That is not, and has never been a criteria for establishing how a person's religion is determined. - Sudo Ghost 07:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I will tell you what your "fixation" is all about. You just want to "win" this "game" and have the word "Sufi" added to the infobox as well as to the content. I really regret that the Wikipedia allows editors who have NO KNOWLDGE of the subject WHATSOEVER to edit articles pertinent to that very subject. I have already provided enough academic sources throughout the years which are very much present on these very talk pages. If you really are serious to contribute to this article then you will go through them (You can even start from here when this Baboon43 user showed up who is part of the Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / AICP and yet blatantly deny that claiming that he is just a "traditionalist") and read them carefully and see what is exactly happening. But I know it is not going to happen. In your response, you will accuse me of personal attacks - using some Wikipedia guideline or policy to "prove" that I am an idiot and have some issues and therefore I shouldn't be here editing the Wikipedia. You have NO IDEA whatsoever that why after every few months the people of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies are back to this Wikipedia page to use it as a marketing tool. As pointed out by Tariq Ramdan (Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.), they know exactly what they need to present to the world. Here is one message left by someone from the Ahbash, "Would you like to help me rewrite the Habashi article? I am part of AICP...i have been looking for some brothers willing to help me on this...what is read on wiki is seen by..millions atleast." It ia all about the Search Engine results which are topped by Wikipedia pages. McKhan (talk)

Nothing you've said even begins to address any reasoning for including the edit or not. I don't care one bit who said what, nor does it matter. What matters is what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources, as well as the subject itself, refer to the subject as Sufi. Therefore, there is no reason to omit this from the infobox, and you not liking it without actually giving any reason not to include it won't change this. - Sudo Ghost 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43, I discussed with you for several days, startring with your own refercnes and even providing more academic sources (i.e. "As mainstream Muslims' belief, there is NO "alleged" interpretation of the Quran by Gabriel as that's what Abd Allah Hariri preached which can be found in Shaykh Abdalla's lecture, 26 January 2003 and wrote about in his book, Bughyat al-talib which is not fully compatible with the consensus of ahl al-sunna as highlighted by Mustafa Kabha and Haggai Erlich in their article, "Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam,", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Nov., 2006), pp. 519-538, Published by: Cambridge University Press as well as by Tariq Ramadan on the Page 234 of his book "Western Muslims and the future of Islam," (ISBN: 019517111X, 9780195171112, Publisher: Oxford University Press US, 2004.) and then Darkness Shines came along who wrote the whole article all over again and YET you are not happy. You STILL want the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies to be labelled as Sunni despite the fact that they have fundamental differences in lieu of their beliefs with the mainstream Sunnis. I regret that some of the Wikipedia editors always fall prey to the baits of Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. McKhan (talk)

i am trying to expand the article its a stub..why wouldnt "war of the mosques" be in the article it is part of the history of ahbash..its already bad enough the article is a stub because you two have been reverting peoples work for several years now based on the edit history..there's nothing wrong with putting sufi in the infobox..the infobox infact makes it clear to the reader that they follow the sunni sect and are a sufi order which the article currently does not make clear..again Mckhan, ahbash means ethiopians, its a nick name because they follow an ethiopian scholar that is all, its not an insult towards the group..their actual group is AICP association of islamic charitable projects..how is the term sufi disputed when there's several sources that indicate they are a sufi movement i dont understand where your coming from..nobody needs to have your permission before making any changes you and amandaparker dont seem to undestand that this article is open for anyone to edit..what i added has nothing to do with being mainstream or not..what does hezbollah and ahbash clash have to do with maintsream? or the fact that their leader was killed by a jihadi group? the article already STATES that the group is a sufi movement all i added was infobox. i even emailed the academic "Thomas Pierret" and he said "Their religious ideology is very much in line with the traditional Sunni doctrines". some of the articles he wrote about ahbash. http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/316709/_al-A_bash_Ahbash_ http://edinburgh.academia.edu/ThomasPierret/Papers/156869/Internet_in_a_Sectarian_Islamic_Context Baboon43 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is no longer a stub. So, quit claiming that already. They don't follow mainstream Sunnis (i.e. Jamat Ahl Wa Sunnah) as they have fundamental differences with them nor they follow Sufi order entirely as supported by VARIOUS academic sources. The truth of the matter is their beliefs are the amalgamation of Sunni, Shia and Sufi beleifs. Almost all the academics sources point to that fact that AICP and Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / Habahshies are the same whose leader originated from Ethiopia. Ms. Parker is right that there is no point to include the war of the mosques in that article because it comes across as an attempt by the Ahbash / Al-Ahbash / AICP to tell to the world through Wikipedia that they are better than other Islamist groups. McKhan (talk)

its still a stub compared to other articles and you need to go email the academic yourself as i did if you dont believe me..the ahbashis are traditionalists they claim to follow mainstream as there website clearly states if you go to the about section that they have no problem with the major schools of thought of sunni islam and how they agree with them and academic sources also point to this..but your saying they are lieng on their site because they have a master plan to deceive the world which is simply not true..there are many kinds of sufi orders just because they claim to be sufi doesnt make them right or wrong its just a term used for those who mix shia and sunni beliefs that is all its nothing special..it states clearly on Sufi page that "Orders" (ṭuruq), which are either Sunnī or Shī'ī or mixed"..in this case ahbash is a sunni group which uses sufism..AHbash is not an islamist group they are not militant whatsoever they are against militant groups..putting down basic information about the muslim brotherhood and ahbash clashing in the history or controversy section does not glorify ahbash in anyway... Baboon43 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash / AICP / Habashies are NOT only Islamist and controversial Guide to Islamist Movements: Volume 1 but also militant Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam Among Palestinians in Lebanon The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflict as par as to other Islamist groups. I have already provided ENOUGH peer-viewed academic sources highlighting the difference between the mainstream Sunnis and the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies' beliefs. And I have NO doubt that you are one of them. :) McKhan (talk)

i am sorry you feel i am part of this organization but i am not...simply editing an article to help it grow and be accurate does not make me someone that is part of group. Baboon43 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is your edit. Apparently, you are also "traditionalist" as well as the Ahbash / AICP / Habashies. Keep on practicing "Taqqiya." McKhan (talk)

the link you posted does NOT prove im part of the group by the way you have some good points but you go off topic and dont use sock puppets next time. It was a headache talking to you and AmandaParker LOL Baboon43 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

^ Bacon, Francis (1625). Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall.

[1] Bacon, Francis (1625). Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall.

[1]